« COLEMAN CAMPAIGN MANAGER: “THE FREIGHT TRAIN IS COMING…” | Home | STAR TRIBUNE: “REPUBLICANS LEAK PURPORTED SENATE DFL BUDGET PLAN” »
URGENT: GROUP THREATENING TO POST PRIVATE COLEMAN DATABASE INFORMATION ONLINE
By Ryan Flynn | March 11, 2009
FYI – This email was sent out earlier today by U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s campaign.
###
Dear Supporter,
Last evening, we began receiving emails and phone calls from donors – and non-donors – who reported receiving messages from an email address: press-office@wikileaks.org stating that they possessed information about the individual and were threatening to post that information online.
We immediately contacted the appropriate federal law enforcement authorities and they are aggressively investigating this matter.
We take the privacy and confidentiality of our donors and supporters extremely seriously.
In January, an event occurred that made us fearful that our firewalls might have been breached. We contacted federal authorities at that time, and they reviewed logs from the server in question as well as additional firewall logs. They indicated that, after reviewing those logs, they did not find evidence that our database was downloaded by any unauthorized party.
Let me be very clear: At this point, we don’t know if last evening’s email is a political dirty trick or what the objective is of the person who sent the email.
What we do know, however, is that there is a strong likelihood that these individuals have found a way to breach private and confidential information.
But because of this uncertainty, and out of an abundance of caution, we have begun contacting our supporters to provide them with as much information as we currently have available.
Given the nature of this threat, if you have concerns about whether or not your credit card that was used to make a donation to the campaign has been compromised, we encourage you to contact your credit card company to cancel the card. If you have any questions, please contact us at the Coleman for Senate Campaign at (651) 645-0766.
All of our donors and supporters should be assured that our campaign will work with all appropriate federal and state law enforcement agencies to take all appropriate legal action to identify the individual or individuals who may be involved in this matter and to pursue all appropriate legal action against them.
Sincerely,
Cullen Sheehan
Campaign Manager
Topics: Uncategorized | 150 Comments »
150 Responses to “URGENT: GROUP THREATENING TO POST PRIVATE COLEMAN DATABASE INFORMATION ONLINE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Cyber Terror? Did DFLers get tired of molatav cocktails and graffiti?
March 11th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Nice work team Coleman leaking people’s personal information.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:30 am
If Norm Coleman can’t secure his own website, how can we expect him to secure our country?
Yet another example of his utter worthlessness.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Yet another reason to reject the politics of hate from the Democrat party. They will stop at nothing, including criminal activity, to silence conservative voices.
The Democrat party clearly does not support the right of free speech for all Americans.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Leroy, you jackass, these are your people doing the crime – i.e. terrorists. Go ahead and blame the victim Leroy, you lying, pro-pediphile lobbyist.
Better hurry over to St. Paul Leroy, the DFL needs your help creating a carbon tax proposal to add to the budget.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Not surprisingly, so many things wrong with “PeteF’s” statement:
Yet another reason to reject the politics of hate from the Democrat party.
How do you know it was democrats? If you know who it is that did this, I would encourage you to turn them in. Otherwise, feel free to keep your opinions to yourself.
They will stop at nothing, including criminal activity, to silence conservative voices.
What conservative is being silenced by this? Norm Coleman? He is about as conservative as Barney Frank.
The Democrat party clearly does not support the right of free speech for all Americans.
Whose rights are being trampled? Cullen Sheehan conveniently left out any hint of what the request was. Apparently the folks who did this stole the names and threatened to release them, but for some reason, the Coleman camp will not say what the price was to keep the theft quiet. They obviously paid it, which means that Coleman is in favor of negotiating with cyber-terrorists. Do we want a person this easily manipulable in the Senate? He’s the contemporary Mark Dayton. At least Dayton has the decency to leave.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:58 am
What a bunch of spin. Team Coleman knew their donor database information was available to the public back in January. MNpublius, MNindy and others reported on it then. Again, Team Coleman knew it was out in the open with everyone’s credit cards.
What a bunch of BS from Team Coleman. They should have fixed this problem in January instead of waiting for Wikileaks to post it.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Leroy, you jackass,
“Let me be very clear: At this point, we don’t know if last evening’s email is a political dirty trick or what the objective is of the person who sent the email.”
WTF does they “obviously paid it” mean?
“At least Dayton has the decency to leave.” Yes Dayton left town, but there was nothing decent about that. Dayton is a coward who abandoned his constituents and renigged on his oath of office.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am
PD:
Your ridiculous response sounds like blaming a rape victim for dressing too scantily. By all means, don’t blame the people who are breaking the law.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Errand, when they catch your friends who were behind this, maybe you can visit your pals in prison and critique jailhouse pizza.
Errand don’t you claim to be an “IT professional”?
You’d be a top suspect on my list. Better cover your tracks, the FBI is coming.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I guess it makes sense. Republicans have given up on Norm, and the fund raising has dried up, so he re-releases this news in an effort to provide himself with some cover to the uncomfortable questions about why he can no longer raise any money.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
If your credit car information was posted on the internet, would you be mad at the person who posted it? You might be. But you’d be REALLY mad at the people who allowed your information to be stolen. But even more importantly, there’s no proof that anybody hacked into anything to get this information. It could have been Norm’s wife that send it to Wikileaks for all we know. And I’d be very wary of accusing anybody of blackmail at this point.
This is clearly nothing more than Coleman’s team looking for another issue to paint them as the victims. That’s Coleman’s spin these days: “I’ve been victimized, Democrats are mean and they hurt my feelings! I cried because of them!” After 8 years of calling Democrats over-sensitive, is anybody really going to feel bad for these guys because the “big bad liberals” made use of the fact that Coleman didn’t hire people to protect the information of his donors?
Wikileaks posts information, it’s a congregate of user submissions. It’s not a website that “hacks” into databases. Look up Norm Coleman and you can download a list of 51,000 supporters. It’s been avaiable for over a month, some Minnesota insider could have easily gotten it. That’s the news of the day?
Give me a break.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“Your ridiculous response sounds like blaming a rape victim for dressing too scantily. By all means, don’t blame the people who are breaking the law.”
Stupid analogy. As I recall the story, Team Coleman just put the database on the interweb with zero security. No one had to hack or break through Coleman’s firewall which means downloading the information was likely not illegal.
What’s potentially illegal was the extortion that allegedly happening now.
Coleman wasn’t victimized by someone downloading a completely open file off of his website. So, it’s not at all analogous to criticize Coleman for putting private credit card information out for anyone to download with no effort to protect that data.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Leroy-the-jackass, Plydumb, Errand, and Sam-Nobody: A bunch of sleazy democrats who defend the criminal behavior of other sleazy democrats.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Here’s a question for you Democ-rats: How is it that I got an email from this bunch of “helpful” folks when my name and email DO NOT APPEAR in the list at all? Where did they get /my/ personal information? I smell a rat. Can anyone attest to the truth of the names on this list, or has anyone called them to verify that they did in fact contribute to Coleman, and that their credit card information is correct and not just made up to frighten a bunch of folks?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The Coleman web team had an unprotected Excel spreadsheet on their web site for anyone to download. It is not illegal to download that database. Nobody had to hack anything and no laws were broken by downloading and accessing that database.
However, the Coleman web team broke several laws. A few of which would be 1) storing credit card information on a computer that can be accessed via the internet. 2) storing the three digit security code, 3) not having the data encrypted. And I’m sure there are more.
So the only illegal activity so far in this is the Coleman team for storing that information in an unencrypted database that was accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Try to spin it all you want, but blame can not be placed anywhere but on those individuals on the Coleman team.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Leroy, shove it up your – oops, sorry I guess that isn’t an insult to you.
Leroy, I suggest that it is people like you, maybe even you were involved, who would do something like this in an attempt to quiet conservative support for Senator Coleman.
Maybe it was someone like Aaron who claims to be an IT professional (probably not since most of his “facts” about technology are not facts at all) who did this.
No matter what I am certain it was a left wing facist who did this and that pretty much defines the lefties that post on MDE.
Leroy, if you don’t like what I say you can “feel free to keep your opinions to yourself” you jackass.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
AC,
It is not against the law to store the three digit security code. It may be a violation of any agreements they have with credit card processing companies such as Visa, MC, Discover (if they even stored the code) but it is not ilegal to store the information.
Once again your so called “facts” are wrong. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Morm’s stupidity knows no bounds, but he is world class at turning events like this, where he is criminally negligent, into pity parties that make himself seem like the victim.
And all this just to hide the fact that the republicans in Minnesota have lost faith in his cause, and as such, have quit giving him their money.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Leroy, please provide proof that “Morm” did something illegal. Were there credit card number taken? Were they not encrypted? Did you discover a new law that says you cannot store the three digit security code and if so where can we find it? Was the data stored on a server that provided direct access to the internet? Or was it on the same network that some liberal hacked into to steal the information?
Leroy, you asked me for proof earlier now it is your turn butt boy.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
If Coleman did something illegal and that makes him a bad person that shouldn’t be in office, as some of you are implying, that would make him just like tax-cheat Franken.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Things to learn from this:
1) Write checks to make all donations
2) Don’t assume any information you give a politician is or will remain private
online fundraising is nice because it’s cheap and fast, but political campaigns lack the kind of security that an established online vendor has (and even they get hacked sometimes). I’d rather deal with the junk mail than have my email address and credit card info. splashed around.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Lemme get this straight: Some hackers ILLEGALLY hacked into Coleman’s database and ILLEGALLY extracted Protected Information to ILLEGALLY disclose credit card information so that other people can ILLEGALLY use the card numbers to ILLEGALLY purchase things?
And Coleman’s the one who’s doing something ILLEGAL?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Only in the BizzaroWorld of the Liberal Moonbat minds does this whole thing make sense.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
The same people who laugh at rape jokes are the same people blaming the victim here. More evidence that liberals have no conscience.
I got this email and was disgusted that they actually were trolling for donations.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“Lemme get this straight: Some hackers ILLEGALLY hacked into Coleman’s database and ILLEGALLY extracted Protected Information to ILLEGALLY disclose credit card information so that other people can ILLEGALLY use the card numbers to ILLEGALLY purchase things?”
There is no evidence that anyone hacked into anything. Coleman put the database out in the world so anyone could download it.
The only thing illegal going on is: (1) what, if any extortion is going on now; and (2) if someone used the information Coleman recklessly allowed anyone to download to make purchases.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
The Libs would be screaming bloody murder if this had happened to Franken, and even the Conservatives would agree with them. The problem is that the Democrat Party has no morals or code of ethics in which to live by. That’s why when you see a Democrat involved in questionable behavior/ethics ie: infidelity, tax cheating, they get a pass.
Barney Frank’s gay lover’s call boy service, John Edwards cheating on his wife with cancer, all of the tax cheats Obama gave, or wanted to give jobs to, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Bill and Hillary Clinton, William Jefferson, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, and the list goes on and on. The GOP has these types also, but they aren’t supported from within, and are usually run out of office.
I would like an honest answer as to why Democrats have double standards for their politicians and followers?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
My name is on that list and while I fully expect the authorities to do their jobs in apprehending the hackers I am also holding Norm Coleman’s people partly responsible.
After all we have been through, and after everything we’ve seen Democrats do, how could they not take it for granted that they would be prying and poking around for sensitive information.
We are battling people with no morals, no scruples, no honor, nothing that would lead anyone to believe there is anything too low for them to stoop to. For God’s sake, they are supporting Al Franken!
I can only hope that who ever is responsible for stealing this information pays a very high price for it.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
It is amazing to hear Democrat hacks like Plymouth and Leroy squeal about this. You know, credit card information is not public data. And re-publishing private data makes the person just as guilty as who released the information in the first place. If my name and credit card information were leaked, I will sue Wikileaks and anyone else who published my private data.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Anna..
With all due respect, your dangerous suggestions are not acceptable in a public forum. Would you care if I forwarded your entry to the FBI for scrutiny?
Knock it off.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Like Aaron mentioned, this site was reported open to anyone in January. Coleman’s campaign ignored reporters’ inquiries. Obviously they chose to leave the problem unaddressed. Those of you accusing the DFL or Franken, do you have any proof? Anybody at all could have given that to Wikileaks, so you better have some proof to make that accusation. I also find it curious that even though these credit card numbers were available to anyone for all this time, no donors reported having their numbers stolen. It sure sounds like no one did anything with the information. Coleman hasn’t even shown that the DFL or Franken accessed it. All we know for sure is someone gave it to Wikileaks a month after it was reported. All beyond that is irresponsible speculation.
Personally, I’m shocked this was still open. I assumed after hearing nothing more after the first reports that Coleman’s campaign did the obvious and fixed their security. Apparently not.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I wonder if Danbrome told Randi Rhodes to “knock it off” when the skank played sounds of gunshots while talking about Bush on Err Amerika?
“I would like an honest answer as to why Democrats have double standards for their politicians and followers?”
the answer to Dash’s question is that without double standerds the libtards would have no standerds at all.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Erik,
Credit card information is private. Anyone who re-publishes private information (regardless of what happened at the Coleman website) is as guilty as if they took the information in the first place. Just because there was an alleged Xcel file on the Coleman website does not mean it is legal or appropriate to publish the information.
That’s like someone taking nude pictures of you in the shower and then someone else publishing the photos saying, I didn’t take them so I can publish them. It doesn’t work that way.
I also question the motivation of Wikileaks. Their e-mails were an obvious attempt to intimidate Coleman’s donors in the middle of a costly recount trial. This stinks of a political dirty trick.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
danbrome,
You’re just another example of how liberals don’t support free speech. You’re an idiot. Go away.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“Credit card information is private. Anyone who re-publishes private information (regardless of what happened at the Coleman website) is as guilty as if they took the information in the first place. Just because there was an alleged Xcel file on the Coleman website does not mean it is legal or appropriate to publish the information.”
I don’t see that many (if any) people saying the information should be published. What people are saying is that Coleman is not a victim when people downloaded information he put on a public server with no protection.
But, at least many on this board are starting to at least acknowledge that Coleman is at least as bad as someone threatening to publish the information his team recklessly left on a public server.
“That’s like someone taking nude pictures of you in the shower and then someone else publishing the photos saying, I didn’t take them so I can publish them. It doesn’t work that way.”
Actually, legally, this is entirely a different situation.
“I also question the motivation of Wikileaks. Their e-mails were an obvious attempt to intimidate Coleman’s donors in the middle of a costly recount trial. This stinks of a political dirty trick.”
How so? Why would anyone feel intimidated to give Coleman money based on leaked OLD information? (Except that it demonstrates that Coleman can’t protect their private information).
March 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Plymouth Dem,
The point is that the information WAS republished. And the names and credit card numbers are floating around a network of websites that are opposed to Norm Coleman. Moreover, Wikileaks has sent out at least four e-mail messages to Norm’s supporters. If that’s not intimidation, I don’t know what is.
As for the issue of nude photos, it’s no different. It’s an illegal invasion of privacy to re-publish similar information. As I said, I would sue Wikileaks and any other individual who published the private information.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
P.S. Plymouth Dem,
I don’t know why the age of the information is relevant. I have credit and debit cards that don’t expire for five years. If my donation was published with the expiration date and CVV number, it would take five years for the card to be expired.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Well, if this thread doesn’t prove that Minnesota democrats will endlessly condone, excuse and support lawbreaking ….. I don’t know what does….
…… no wonder terrorist Kathleen Soliah wants to be back with her supportive community.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Hey, I feel left out…who ever these people are forgot me. I feel so offended and ashamed.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
MDE Exposer that was a little harsh…don’t do it again. Dirty jokes are one thing, but what you said if continued could cause problems. Make fun of the libs (hey its the least we can do since many of us big eared elephants have been poached by them) but just explain that what you said wasn’t literal and that you will from now one choose other ways to vent against liberals. What you said happens too often in real life. You wouldn’t do it but some nut case may. Although the Democrats have by far the most nutcases we Republicans also have a few as well.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Anna Banana from Manannah, my message was intended for you! I looked over the postings too quickly and am sorry for the mistake. We Republicans have long memorys so it’s best not to ruffle each others big flappy ears.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
If I put an old refrigerator on the curb with a “take me” sign on it, and somebody takes it, then I can not call the cops and say someone stole my refrigerator.
This is what happened here. Coleman web staffers got lazy/sloppy and published an unencrypted, unsecure database on the internet for anyone to access. If anyone accessed or downloaded that database, that is not illegal. However, if they used information in that database (credit card info), then that is another story.
I think this WikiLeaks organization redacted the credit card numbers and left the last for digits and the security code just to prove the info was out there.
My question is, if WikiLeaks had not sent that email and started the ball rolling, when was the Coleman team ever going to address this with their donors?
I think this is going to get big in the coming weeks. The financial and legal headaches for Coleman will probably force him to alter his strategy with the recount. I’m calling it now that if he loses this round, this distraction will force him to drop any appeals or federal court action.
This is huge. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think this is going to be the straw that breaks the Coleman Camel’s back.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
ohforcryingoutloud…..
….. if you have a refrigerator full of valuable items in your kitchen …. but don’t lock your door ….. it is NOT ok for someone take it …..
…. really ….. it’s not….
…. how morally bankrupt are democrats, anyway ???
March 11th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
But my kitchen is not the same as a web site. When you have a web site, and you promote it, and ask people to visit it, then you should expect people to visit it. Whatever you put out on that web site for people to access, then that is fair game. Remember, nobody hacked into a private or secure part of the web site. If they had, then you could make the analogy to a refrigerator in my kitchen.
Look at it this way. If I walk in to any branch of the Ramsey county library, there will be literature and free papers for anyone to take. If it ends up that one of those publications contained personal contact info and credit card info on donors to the library, then how can you get mad at anyone who took one of those freebies from the lobby? You can’t. The only people to blame are those who published the information. In essence, this is what the Coleman web team did.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I don’t care. I’ll just keep sending checks so that vile piece of crap Al Franken isn’t seated. My gawd, what a pair: Gutless Amy and Nutless Al. Throwing your money at losers to keep them losers and themselves in office. Pay your mortgage, and your taxes, ya feckin’ bums.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I agree with AC only because I just recently had a business law class. Much of law is built into culture and common sense. Although it is wise if someone puts a piece of furniture that belongs indoors right to the edge of the yard near sidewalk or curb it is considered free for the taking. Custom and culture and common sense are much of law. Often judges when something is unclear to them use the “reasonable person test” which is kind of convenient don’t you think?
March 11th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I mean it is wise to tape a FREE FURNITURE sign on the old moldy couch kicked to the curb, but not needed.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
AC,
After reading your last post, I guess the answer to my question: “how morally bankrupt are democrats, anyway ??? ….
….. is you are pretty darn morally bankrupt.
So, when you find a purse an old lady forgot at the library …. do you use her credit cards yourself …. or just post them on the web for everyone to use ?
March 11th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
My name appears on the bigger list with my correct address but an email I’ve never seen. I have never given Coleman a dime and I do not appear on the smaller credit card list. Anyone know how people got on the bigger list? I am certainly no Coleman supporter.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Randi RHodes is a far left wacko.. we all know that.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Chris..
“each of them need to be shot in the head and killed.”
This language is dangerous and unacceptable, just like yelling “fire” in a crouded theatre. You are smart enough to realize that.
I have never stated any views here that are in any way an attempt to sensor free speech.
Anna should take back her statement, with an apology to Leroy and PlymouthDem. Do you think she has the character to retract?
March 11th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Keep it simple it isn’t custom to give away credit cards by leaving a purse in public. If someone were to find this purse and take the cards and use them and used your defense it would fail the “reasonable person test.” Now if this were done all the time it still wouldn’t be lawfull because the credit card is personal property and its worth isn’t in its pyshical substance. It is a key to intangible (service transactions) and tangables (credit for cash and psychial cash from teller machine). The card is issued in the owner’s name tied to an intangable account.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
My spell check is down.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
danbrome what if you were in a theater before the film rudely talking on your cell phone to me and I didn’t know you were in the crowed theater and lets say you accidently click on loud speaker option and I yell fire!!! at the top of my lungs. Why would I do that? Well let’s just pretend for a moment I am crazy and I as I’m talking to you just before your popcorn butered thumb triggers the loud speaker a Fire truck flies by my street and I’m outside sitting on the curb and the excitement of sirens inspires me to scream fire at the top of my lungs. Imagine this causes a stampede. Just imagine all that can go wrong….no brew some green tea and meditate.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
danbrome … Anna does have a right to free speech. You can’t compare what she said to yelling “fire” in croweded theatre.
Personally, I would have chosen to phrase what Anna said a little differently. I wouldn’t have singled out just Leroy and Plydumb – I would have included AC, Integrity, danbrome, & Tubby Tommy Johnson.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
The Republicans here are still ignoring this rather major point, so let’s mention it one more time: you have zero proof that the Franken campaign or the DFL downloaded the information let alone anything with it. All you know is someone, at this point unknown, gave the information to Wikileaks, and that Wikileaks revealed that Coleman failed to tell the people in the database that their information might have been compromised. We know that the Coleman campaign secured the database after the reports in January that it was open, which means someone gave them a month to inform their contributors. But they didn’t. They also stored the three digit security code, which is illegal, though I would be willing to accept it was an innocent mistake by someone who didn’t know not to store it.
There’s as yet no evidence that whoever found the database did more than report the vulnerability, and someone, maybe the same person, told Wikileaks that donors hadn’t been told. If someone used the credit card numbers that would be wrong, just as much as if they had gone to great effort to hack in. However, there is as yet no evidence anyone did this, let alone evidence of who they were. Therefore, those of you making accusations are treating suspicions as equal to facts.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Eric,
I have no knowledge of who did this. But I would love to see someone go after Wikileak over their re-publishing of the list. Moreover, given the tone of the four e-mails I’ve received from Wikileak, there is no doubt that there is an initimidation factor going on. How do you stop a recount from being litigated? Of course, you cut off the funding. How do you cut off the funding? You obtain the Coleman donor list and scare the hell out of them by sending out a barrage of e-mails saying their credit card information is at risk and they might be subject to identity theft, etc. It’s pretty simple really.
AC,
Just because information is “hiding” in plain sight, does not give you the right to take the info and re-publish it. We’re dealing with highly sensitive private financial information here. The FBI, which was apparently informed of the breach in January, would take a rather dim view of your “finders keepers, losers weepers” mantra — particularly in the age of rampant credit card fraud and identity theft. If you want to test who’s right, why don’t you put the Coleman list on your website?
March 12th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Chris,
I’ve said nothing about republishing the database. I think WikiLeaks might be on some shaky ground in doing that. I don’t know. But the root of this problem stems from the Coleman web team making a big mistake.
If I posted my brother’s name, social security info, credit card info, expiration dates, and three-digit security code in this post right here, then you are arguing that every single person who reads this comment has committed a crime simply by clicking the “read comments” link and reading my post?
March 12th, 2009 at 8:29 am
This might shine some light on WikiLeaks – the front group for the Democratic Party.
http://wikileak.org/
Wikileaks needs money. On their own website they beg for money. By encouraging ID theft, Wikileaks is making it easy for liberals to steal money from conservatives and donate it to … WikiLeaks.
Just as ACORN has defended it’s right to promote voter fraud, Wikileals is promoting identity theft.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Dash, Exposer sounds exactly like Tommy Johnson, the convicted criminal.
What Exposer/Tommy calls “childporn” is actually a picture of a penis next to Tommy Johnson’s head.
Jake has comments on this over at bigfateva.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:48 am
I checked out the lists and found both to be inaccurate. I donated with a credit card last year and I am not on the list. My name does not show up on either list but yet I get frequent emails from the Coleman campaign. I do know some of the people on the list and their information is only partially correct. In fact there is at least one name attributed to an address of a person who does not exist (at least not at that address).
I hope the people on the list get together and sue everyone involved. I’m willing to bet there are links to the DFL in this organization.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Chris, agree. I have not donated to Coleman’s campaign, but received to somewhat threatening emails from the Democrats (and at a private email address).
March 12th, 2009 at 9:39 am
AC,
Your comments are absurd. I’m not saying that someone who reads the leaked information is committing a crime. What I am saying, and please read carefully, is that it is illegal to re-publish private financial information about individuals no matter how or where the information was obtained. In other words, it doesn’t matter that there was a security issue with the Coleman website. You can’t just take the sensitive, private financial information and pubish it.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Maybe this database that was left out there unprotected and unencrypted wasn’t the only one? Or maybe this one was outdated? And wasn’t the database in question secured sometime on January 28. How much has it been updated since then? Maybe (hopefully) Coleman had another, more up-to-date database in a secure location. That could account for some of the discrepancies people are noticing.
So Pete, you downloaded and checked out the database. Does that make you a criminal as some of your friends have suggested in this thread and elsewhere?
March 12th, 2009 at 9:43 am
It appears that democrats are not only threatening people who donated to Coleman – the message is being spammed to others as well.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:25 am
AC, as far as I know none of my friends post here but thanks for asking. Does it make me a criminal? Only if I use it or make it available to others.
How did you get this information anyway AC?
March 12th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I see these cyber-terrorists want to be funded (or are funded … they … are not transparent enough to tell) by the “Soros Open Society Institute”.
Cyber-terrosism … just another tool in the democrat tool box. Makes you wonder what’s next…
March 12th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
AC,
You’re being assenine. It’s not a crime to download and check the database. It is illegal to publish the private financial data of another person.
Also, the age of the database is irrelevant. What is relevant are the credit card numbers and their expiration dates. A database could be several years old but contain valid credit card numbers and active expiration dates. This is why publishing the database is so insiduous. In an effort to “get” Norm Coleman, people have exposed private individuals to identity theft and credit card fraud. And that’s why publishing the information is illegal.
Can you try to get this through your thick skull?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Pete, are you just incorrect or lying in post #18 above where you say it is not against the law to store the security code.
State Statute 325E.64
“No person or entity conducting business in Minnesota… shall retain the card security code data, the PIN verification code data, or the full contents of any track of magnetic stripe data… A person or entity is in violation of this section if its service provider retains such data subsequent to the authorization of the transaction.â€
We await your explanation and the flawless logic that is sure to follow.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
That statute is no longer valid. Sorry to disappoint you.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Chris, in post #70 I am simply trying to explain possible reasons why some people are saying they are on the list or not on the list. Or how come they got an email and aren’t on the list. Or that they donated but aren’t on the list.
Maybe there is more than one database? Maybe this one was old and outdated? Maybe WikiLeaks has more than one but only published this one? Or part of a larger one? Who knows?
Chris, I said earlier that “The only people to blame are those who published the information.” See the word PUBLISHED? You are arguing the same point as me! I’m not sure if what WikiLeaks did was legal or not. But people (Coleman’s legal team included) on here and other blogs are making claims that anyone who accessed that database – not matter where from – have committed a crime.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Chris, don’t get mad at whoever posted the database at WikiLeaks. Get mad at the person on the Coleman team who screwed up and allowed that information to get out in the first place? Trace the problem back to the source.
I think the emails that came from WikiLeaks were a bit on the weasely side, but the Coleman team got caught with their pants down and were forced to react in panic mode. If the Coleman team would have let their donors know about all of this as soon as it happened, all of this could have been avoided, or at the very least, they would have been in control and could have minimized damage.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Looks like a 2008 Statute to me:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=325E.64
Pete, please show us where it has been revoked.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Pete F, you did use it! Albeit for different reasons than the initial person who downloaded, but you two just did the EXACT same thing, download a database of private information and looked at it. Dun dun dun! But whatever, that isn’t illegal. In fact, I just went and downloaded it and holy shit, I would be SOOOOOOO pissed if I were on that list. So sorry to all those on that list, really inappropriate for that information to be out there.
I think a lot of the GOP’ers here need to tone it down and actually review what the DFL’ers are saying, and what the news is actually saying. Frankly, if you guys weren’t so goddamned bitter towards the DFL, maybe you guys could look at the facts instead of just screaming accusals and the DFL has no morals, blah blah blah. Saying stupid shit that you cant back up with facts is what you got your party in trouble in the first place (WMD), and will continue to bite your party in the ass (anything Limbaugh says.) Id like to see your party survive as I think having at least a somewhat viable opposition party is good for democracy but coming here is one big example of why I think the GOP is doomed to irrelevance for the next couple decades. Only one of you have strung together coherent sentences that are intelligent and factual and aren’t just name calling. That is your national party apparatus as well and it is sad and will be your downfall, wait, already has been your downfall. But anywho, on to the facts.
Coleman broke the law, he kept a database of private information out and in the open for people to download it and use it, he stored information that is illegal to store, and he didnt notify the donors of a breach in security until Wikileaks did, which was a month later and another illegality. Stop defending Coleman, this is all illegal and extremely serious. Stop twisting it around to blame those who downloaded it as Coleman, or rather, the Coleman campaign, is clearly the ones at fault for putting this information out there ILLEGALLY in the first place. Clearly, you can’t put this information out there without expecting someone to download it and abuse it, which is why it is ILLEGAL to put out there in the first place.
Now, I think whether Wikileaks is acting illegal is of question. Name, phone number, address, amount donated, that can all be found publicly online extremely easily (anyone who has done donor research for a campaign can do this. Tray.com, Whitepages.com) The legality issue should be focused on re-releasing the information as edited, with the edit still to leave the last 4 digits of the credit card numbers and the security code. I would argue the last 4 digit thing is not illegal since you cant do anything with 4 digits to a credit card number. However, since it has been pointed that the databasing of the security codes is illegal, then one could possibly make the argument that re-releasing a database that is illegally comprised is also illegal. I guess my one question would be, wouldnt Wikileaks immediately contact a lawyer when given this information to know how they can legally use it? I would assume they did do this and acted within accordance of the law, but I’m no lawyer and their actions are extremely questionable and should be legally examined.
That is what we know so quit making shit up that says otherwise. Stop the conspiracy theories and blaming the DFL for this. This is all speculation and the word speculation is not the same as fact.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
AC, Don’t be stupid. That statute only applies to businesses that use the physical credit card to complete the transaction. They are not permited to retain that information.
In this case it was a online transaction in which the payee does not have the credit card in hand. Two totally different scenarios.
At one time it was illegal to retain the security code but that has not been true for several years now.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
sorry that turned out so long, that means no one will read it because i tend to skip the really long ones sometimes and i assume others do as well…
March 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Andrew, Most of your post is based on speculation. Speculation is not the same as fact. So quit making shit up.
Oh no, we were admonished by Andrew, oh what will we do now… Andrew – take a hike
March 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
AC, I usually get paid for my consulting services. Where do I send the bill?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Let’s go back to the freedom of speech argument just for a second. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can say or write whatever you want. There are limits to your freedom of speech as it is guaranteed under the constitution. Here is the first amendment for any of you that are curious to see what it actually says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
For our purposes here we can look just at the part about the freedom of speech. Along with the freedom of speech, there are limits to speech. These include, but are not limited to, obscenity, child pornography, content and non content based restrictions, prior restraint, commercial speech, and defamation.
The area of limits that you have to look at to see why danbrome said that it was inappropriate to say that people should be shot in the head, is the “content based” restrictions. Looking at these, you will also be able to answer your questions about yelling “fire” in a movie theater (Keep in mind that each case is evaluated on its special set of circumstances and no two cases are the exact same, although precedence from previous cases are almost always used to rule on future cases). This idea can be more easily understood by looking at the case of Schenck v. United States. This is a free speech case from 1919.
“Justice Holmes, in one of his most famous opinions, wrote:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic…. The question in every case is whether the words used … create a clear and present danger…”
In its current formulation of this principle, the Supreme Court held that “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation†is protected unless “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.†Similarly, the Court held that a statute prohibiting threats against the life of the President could be applied only against speech that constitutes a “true threat,†and not against mere “political hyperbole.—
(The above quoted section was taken from Henry Cohen’s report on the limitations of free speech. You can view the entire report at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf )
Threats against the president can be considered “political hyperbole” whereas threats against the lives of ordinary citizens cannot. This is because of the president’s position as a “celebrity” figure. What matters is if the person being threatened feels that they are in danger. Is there a “clear and present danger” being created by what the defendant said? Free speech looks not at what you meant to say, but what you did literally say, and how it affects those who receive it. Because this is the case, if any of those you mentioned feel as though there is a “clear and present danger” that you might actually follow through on what you said, then they have the grounds to bring a free speech case against you. If the court agrees that you have either incited people to carry out the illegal actions you spoke about, or that you have the potential of carrying them out yourself, you would be found to be in violation of the law. Simple as that.
Because of this restraint on free speech, you are not allowed to just go around threatening to shoot people in the head.
Let me know if you guys need any other explanations about the constitution that you love and protect so much, but clearly know very little about.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Did someone actually threaten to do that? Does saying something “needs” to be done mean that it is a threat? Not that I agree with the person who posted that comment but I think that liberals here are taking it to far and giving the poster way to much credit. I don’t know how many times I have said someone needs a good ass kicking but it certainly wasn’t a threat – just a statement.
Besides, I’m betting it is one of you who posted it just to change the conversation.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Sounds like a moderate Democrat to me!
Thanks Integrity. Your thoughtful expose is much appreciated here at MDE.
Who got exposed this time?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
danbrome, we are still waiting for you to identify one current issue that you are a “moderate” on.
Will today be the day or will you just sit there getting off on the word “exposed”?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I have to apologize for the simple thoughts presented in my previous post. After all I am a graduate of the Minnesota public school system. To top it all off I graduated from a state college as well. Perhaps one of the privately educated and therefore “better educated” people can make a more scholarly post on the free speech issue for the intellectuals to read. For now, the simple minded words from my previous post should be good enough for the stupid, smelly, porn craving, pork loving Democrats like Danbrome, Tommy Johnson, Leroy, myself, and so on.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Pete-
Let’s face facts, no matter what danbrome says he is a moderate on, you will jump back with how that’s the most liberal position you could possibly take, and how that position is not moderate at all. Then you will go on to say how you have proven that danbrome is a liar, and that you were right. We know danbrome is a liar, he is a Democrat. Haven’t we covered that ground enough times?
It’s hard to prove to the neo-cons, such as yourself among others here, that there is even a moderate position to take on an issue. For you it’s “my way or the wrong way.” So please, quit asking for people to provide “proof” that they are a moderate when no such proof is available. No matter what they say, it will be unacceptable to you.
In case you didn’t already know, that is why people refuse to try and provide you with the “proof” you are so often seeking. It is a lose-lose to even respond with any sort of “proof” for an argument when anyone takes a stance that is different from yours. That’s not because you’re right, it’s because you’re stubborn and unwilling to see the parallels to your tunnel vision of how things should be.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
You people are all full of shit. The databasing of the information is not illegal. The information needs to be databased because the credit cards are being accepted over the phone and the campaign retains the information as proof of the authorization in the event a charge is questioned, etc.
The statute does apply to merchants copying the magnetic strip off of a credit card — which has to do with the potential for making “clone” cards and has nothing to do with the issue of identity theft.
Also, I don’t know what the evidence is as to who leaked the information to Wikileaks. But there is no doubt that Wikileaks used the donor list in order to intimidate Coleman’s contributors. I will just say that it’s completely illogical to suggest the GOP or Coleman’s allies leaked the list considering the information and tone conveyed by Wikileaks.
I won’t even go into the absurdity of thinking someone was threatened with physical violence or harm here. The only harm anyone has received from reading the comments here is the brain cells wasted from reading the B.S. written by commentators like danbrome and others.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Integrity, Can’t little danbrome speak for himself? Or are you danbrome? I still wait for his response. He has declared himself a moderate. All he needs to do is provide one current issue and his moderate position on that issue. Since he refuses to do I will continue to believe he is a liar and a liberal – but I repeat myself.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Integrity..
Please ease off on Pete, seriously.
I just feel bad for him after the smack-down conservative Republicans recently suffered at the hands of moderate Democrats. The grief must be unbearable, knowing that Democratic leaders will be running the show in Washington D.C. for many years to come.
I suppose he will have to fall back on calling me a liar, and labelling me as a kook.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Chris, well said. Having worked with a variety of companies that store customer credit card information I know for a fact that it is not illegal for a company accepting payments over the internet to keep the credit card information entered by the customer. I does however need to be encrypted and secured.
Having said that the Coleman campaign did bring in federal authorities when this happened and were told that nothing had been taken. If that is the case the Coleman campaign should have nothing to worry about. The federal authorities do have something to worry about if this is the best their people can do.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Moderate Democrats? What a joke. You are a kook and a propagandist.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
danbrome, I see you managed to post without explaining your moderate position. Coward? You be the judge…
BTW, I’m really enjoying seeing the Chosen Ones ratings continue to fall in the polls. Many who voted for him are now having buyers remorse. So far his administration has made all the wrong moves.
I am actually happy that the Democrats are in charge. I’ve said this before Danbrome, why must you continue to lie about this? With the Democrats in charge there is no one to blame but themselves. This is their last term in power for many years to come.
But a kook like you would never understand that. Liar. (Doing what I can to help you become less of a liar danny boy.)
March 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Pete..
I suggest you re-read Integrity’s post concerning your shortcomings when it comes to listening.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
danbrome, why did you post it then?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Why did I post what?
March 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
What does a death threat sound like then?
on another note, I saw that Obama spoke on TV today, and the stock market closed up! I conclude that we should let Obama speak every day on TV so that the market will continue to rise…
I guess if you say it Pete, it must be true. Where are all the Democrats who have jumped ship? I have no buyer’s remorse. I can’t imagine how you can already claim that Obama has made all the wrong moves, and that everyone, even the Dems, are jumping ship. Obama has only been our president for 50 days! Let’s give these bold new policies a chance to work before we declare that we elected the wrong guy. The economy isn’t just going to magically turn around and become all better over night. This fix is going to take YEARS to repair our economy. You can’t honestly expect that there is any person we could have elected to be the president Democrat or Republican, that would have things all fixed right now. Let’s get real.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Integrity,
So you found one day out of seven weeks that Obama has spoken and the market went up? Good job. That doesn’t solve the fact that the market has gone down almost 3000 points since he was elected. And it doesn’t solve the fact that Obama is going to add $3.2 trillion to the national debt in 20 months while Bush added $2.9 trillion to the national debt over 8 years.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Chris..
With all due respect, how do you solve a fact?
Sheeesh
March 12th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Chris..
It’s gonna be a long 8 years for you, given that you already have your head buried in the sand.
Too bad Integrity doesn’t have greater access to the Oval Office, so he can get the President to take stronger action to fix the conservative Republicans hard earned crisis.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Pete..
“Many who voted for him are now having buyers remorse.”
Either you think I”m a fool or you are a big fool.
Where did you get this bit of information. Many Democrats are even more impressed with our President now than the day they rushed to the polls to elect him. This is gonna be fun.
If making up statistics about what Democrats are think makes it possible for you to get by, then be my guest. However, you are incredibly misinformed, or you simply spend too much time watching Hannity’s America.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
danbrome,
Stronger action to run up the national debt and kill the stock market. Sounds like a helluva solution to me. Really, you’re nothing but a little pest. You don’t contribute anything here. Don’t you have something better to do?
March 12th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
By the way danbrome,
WTF are you talking about, making up statistics for? You provide no statistics to back up your assenine claims. When they call, “Hey Kool Aid Man!,” danbrome comes running.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Another thing to look at is how the credit card companies are going to deal with the Coleman campaign from here on out. Unless it has changed, the requirement from the card companies was that the computer that is used to store card numbers and process transactions CAN NOT be the same computer/physical machine as your web server.
At the U a few years back, the entire campus had to go through this process. All of these “credit card machines” couldn’t even be in the same room as the rest of the machines. They had to be secured in a locked room and no internet browsing software could be installed on those machines. So basically we had all our file servers and web servers in one room, then in a small locked closet, we had the credit card machines with no other software installed (Office, web browsers, email, etc.) And there was only a highly secure connection from that card machine that allowed communication with the web server.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I don’t mind long posts Andrew. You did a good job with that one.
Keep ‘em coming and welcome to the conversation.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
AC,
You assume one thing: that the Coleman campaign uses credit card machines and not a web-based service (such as Cardservice International) to run credit card numbers.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Yeah, I find it hilarious that Pete is always demanding proof, but a few weeks back he was on a tear whenever anyone asked him for proof to back up his claims. We were all labeled and told to “do our homework,” and accusing us of being spoon fed.
Put up or shut up.
That being said, hopefully someone (maybe me this weekend) can research MN and federal laws and statutes to see which ones apply. Pete says the ones I mentioned above (same as been mentioned in the MSM) are obsolete and/or irrelevant.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Good point Chris. Anyone know 1) who did web development and hosting for Coleman and 2) who managed his credit card transactions? Did he outsource these tasks or were they done in-house?
March 12th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
AC,
Since Norm Coleman is not in the business of processing credit cards, he likely uses the services of companies in that business. Since Norm Coleman does not have supporters typically walk in the door with card to run through machines, I’d bet his campaign uses a web based service, like Cardservice International, and that his campaign staff types in the credit card numbers online through a secure server (just as donors would do the same if they went to his website). In fact, Coleman’s website states that only web contributions were released.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
AC, please povide a link where I “was on a tear whenever anyone asked him for proof”.
When did I ever say that Democrats were having buyers remorse? Most of them have been drinking the Flavor-Aid for to many years to have any thoughts at all.
What I said was many people who voted for him are having buyers remorse. That would be the independents who fell for his lies about change. That would be some Republicans who fell for his lies about change.
I would ask if you guys are really that stupid but I already know the answer.
As far as the MSM they are to lazy to do any research. Even an idiot like AC can read the statute he quoted and see that it only applies to transactions where the credit card is actually scanned.
How you store the data is at issue, not the storing of the data in this case. I guess that isn’t good enough for these guys so they have to sprinkle some of their fairy dust and try to make things appear that aren’t there.
Final note: I think AC loves Andrew.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Pete-
Usually when you find that you are always right and everyone else is always wrong, you are the fool in the equation, not everyone else…
March 12th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Pete’s question:
“When did I ever say that Democrats were having buyers remorse?”
I refer you to post #97 by Pete F. (YOU).
“Many who voted for him are now having buyers remorse.”
Pete, do you stand corrected?
March 12th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Pete..
You are completely dishonest when you bob and weave through your prior statements, and you know it.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Pete..
Everybody here remembers your rants when you have been asked to provide proof of your allegations.
Eye witnesses are hard to rebut.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Sorry to disappoint all you haters and blind partisan defenders of Coleman, but his web site was not “hacked”, there was no “breach”. The only thing that was needed to access the credit card information was – a web browser. The omly fault here lies with whoever administered Coleman’s web site. They did a poor job of it, exposing data for everyone to see.
Talk about “threats to post that information online” is absurd – the information was ALREADY available to anyone with a web browser!
No firewalls were breached – there were no firewalls in place protecting the data. All one needed to find the data was the IP address of Coleman’s website – information that is commonly used by people browsing the web.
Defending Coleman on this is laughable. Accusing the Democrats of some conspiracy is nutball territory.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/28748/colemans-site-wasnt-hacked-says-it-pro-who-discovered-donor-breach
March 12th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Snowman, how nice of you to come a defend your fellow DFL criminals.
Your “experts” quoted at mindy ignored one thing: A hacker would not need to “download” the information. The database could have been stolen using a simple copy-past quality. There is no way for the host website to detect this.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Snowman,
It doesn’t matter whether the website was hacked or not. The fact is that whomever downloaded and re-published the information was not entitled to do so under the law. I can’t wait to see what happens when the FBI and Secret Service get done with investigating this.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Danbrome, once again you show you lack of morals. You lie instead of admit you were wrong. I never once said Democrat as I explained in my last post.
Why is it liberals always have to lie and cheat? Is it a mental illness? Can it be treated? Or is it just frequent and heavy drug usage that destroys the brain cells that are used to determine right and wrong?
I believe that last one is the correct answer.
I pity people of your ilk danbrome. How can you live with no standards?
March 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Integrity, In post 117 you reveal something about yourself. The question is will you now take your own advise.
But since you “are never wrong” I doubt it. You will ignore established facts just to avoid admitting that you are wrong. Typical liberal.
Thank God the current goverment is a short term problem that will be run out of town in 2 years.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Pete..
With all due respect, who is going to run the Democrats out of town in 2 years? The conservative Republicans?
LOL!!!!
March 13th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Pete..
Now THAT’S funny… Your contention that you know what an established fact is.
Your “established facts” are pure fiction 99% of the time.
LOL!!!
March 13th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Pete, danbrome is a liar. Possibly even a bigger liar that Lobbyist Leroy, the jackass.
danbrome keeps trying to pass himself off as a “moderate democrat.” Those who see danbrome as a commie-socialit bastard have asked him to provide examples of issues where he has a “moderate” stance. True to his lefty leanings, he always cuts-and-runs. He is a coward.
Last fall, danbrome was posting anywhere he could, to lie and say that Asslick Madia was a “Social Moderate” and a “Fiscal Conservative”. When challenged to provide proof, he ran like a scared little girl everytime!
danbrome: LYING COWARD
March 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am
chile & Pete..
Re-read post #90. Better yet, print it out and read it before you go to bed each night.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Pete, Chile, Chris, etc:
The problem for you guys is that you see everything as black and white. For example, on fiscal policy this is your take:
Raising taxes = LIBERAL (SOCIALIST)
Cutting taxes = CONSERVATIVE (AMERICAN HERO)
Unfortunately for people of your “ilk” this isn’t how the real world works. The movement conservatives (neo-cons) have had their shot. They made one hell of a run, and were able to use their influence and power to secure the White House for 8 years. Unfortunately their ultra conservative plans that looked so great to them and their followers on paper haven’t worked the way they planned. The consequences of their actions are being brought to bear. You guys have a long way to go if you think that you will run the Democrats out of town in 2010. It took the movement conservatives over 50 years to build up this movement, but their support has crumbled as a consequence of their actions, and the voters won’t have it anymore.
Instead of harassing danbrome and others about posting a position that they are a moderate on, why don’t you guys tell us what you are moderates on, unless you want to label yourselves as movement conservatives as I have…good luck.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Integrity,
First, neo-conservatives are not movement conservatives. It’s a term used to usually refer to Jews who are foreign policy hawks on issues relating to the Middle East in general and, specifically, Israel.
Second, while Bush cut taxes (and we saw not only economic growth but also increased government revenue), Republicans also spent money like Democrats and added new entitlements like Medicare Part D.
And last, just how is danbrome or you, for that matter, a moderate? Or President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? Is it moderate to add $3.2 trillion to the national debt in the first 20 months of President Obama’s administration? (For your information, $2.9 trillion was added to the national debt during 8 years of the Bush administration.) Is it moderate to raise income and capital gains taxes? Even Bill Clinton cut capital gains taxes. Is it moderate to eliminate mortgage and charitable deductions for people who make over $200,000 a year?
I don’t know whether Democrats will be run out of town in 2010. But I do know that already polls are showing Chris Dodd is in trouble in the blue state of Connecticut. I also know polls show that Beau Biden is behind in the blue state of Delaware. And John Corzine is severely behind in the polls in New Jersey, another blue state. I don’t think I’d be bragging about how great the Democrats are under the circumstances.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Integrity, STFU.
I’m a conservative. Unlike danbrome who’s ashamed of being a liberal-socialist, I don’t feel the need to use a silly adjective to hide my true beliefs.
danbrome: LYING LIBERAL BASTARD
Integrity: ILL-INFORMED
March 13th, 2009 at 10:06 am
The neo-conservatives are movement conservatives, you just don’t know it. I don’t know where you got that definition from your previous post. The neo-conservatives are the new conservatives; they are members of the conservative movement.
The people you mentioned are not moderate in the sense that you mean. For you a moderate would be any “regular†ReBublican and a conservative would be somebody like Strom Thurmond, or Ann Coulter. In times like these, a moderate action won’t do. We need progressive policy to get us out of the economic crisis.
Also, let’s wait to talk about what the polls say until we actually know who the challengers are, and for that matter, if the current members will even seek re-election. The Democrats are doing fine, the sun is still coming up every day, and we haven’t been instantly attacked by the terrorists now that the cowboy isn’t in the White House. You would just assume give the Democrats no chance to succeed, and label them cheats and liars right from day one. You’re learning well from Boss Limbaugh. We all know that Rush is the moderate head of the RNC. He is surely a moderate, just like Chris, Pete, and so on…
March 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Chili-
What am I ill-informed on? What you really mean to say is that I don’t agree with you so I am a “lying, liberal bastard” who doesn’t know what they are talking about. You are just like Pete, Chris, MBB, Ryan, and all the rest. If somebody doesn’t agree, cast doubt on their level of knowledge and defeat their character with school boy insults. You guys are at the pinnacle of the ReBublican party. With a leader like Boss Limbaugh, how could you guys go wrong? You want to talk about a drugged out wacko, take a look at the head of your party…
March 13th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Integrity,
I love hearing liberals tell the rest of us about our party and our movement. It’s really hilarious.
As for Rush wanting Obama to fail, how is that any different than James Carville, who on the morning of 9/11 said to a bunch of Washington reportars, “I certainly don’t want him (Bush) to succeed.”?
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-to-fail/
As for my party having a drugged out whacko, how is Rush any different than “I did a lot of blow but never tried any smack” Obama? Well, I’ll tell you how he’s different: Rush becaome addicted to prescription drugs that were legally prescribed to him by his doctors. Obama did illegal hard drugs.
You know for preaching about how wonderful progressives are and how compassionate they are, etc., you surely show just how mean spirited and hateful your side really is. Thanks for exposing yourself to not be a reasonable and moderate person.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I am a conservative. I am not a moderate. I am not a liberal. I am a conservative and proud of it.
danbrome is a coward because he will not admit what he is. He knows that being a liberal is a bad thing so proclaims himself to be a moderate to hide his shame.
You boys can call me what you want because I know what I am. You do so enjoy labeling people don’t you? So stop bitching about people calling you liberals/socialist. At least we are being truthfull.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Pete, you asked for it in post 116. These are all your words…
“all you libtards have is speculation and accustations with nothing to back it up. But that is all you folks usually have. Keep trying…”
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/01/28/thousands-of-hits-crash-coleman-website/
Post #23 asks for your proof and you respond with “believe what you want” and don’t provide any proof.
“Facts please, not fantasy.”
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/02/11/breaking-from-politico-reid-says-he-wont-seat-franken-prematurely/
In http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/02/07/wccoesmes-blog-desperately-seeking-al/ I asked for proof from someone else, and you made fun of me for asking. Then you state “youu never provide any links to support anything you said.” to someone else in that same thread.
“What proof do you have…”
“You want proof, find it. You seem to have a lot of free time on your freeloading hands.”
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/12/14/walz-decides-against-running-for-governor-in-2010/
“danbrome, why can’t you post just ONE link that proves what you are saying? ”
and
“danbrome is incapable of even posting one piece of actual factual proof for the great majority of his insane rants here. That is why he responds that there are thousands and just to many to post. If there were truely thousands you would think he would post just one.”
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/01/12/coleman-recount-update-a-statement-from-cullen-sheehan/
“How come you haven’t posted a link to proof…”
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/12/29/double-counting-of-ballots-disenfranchises-millions-of-minnesotans/
“What proof do you have?”
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/12/18/must-read-from-mpr-lets-play-senate-style-3-card-monte/
Pete, is this enough proof for you? I can provide more. All of these examples came from the first two of six pages of search results of pages that include you discussing “proof” in some way. Took me about five minutes to find this much.
I here Heinz makes a big bottle of ketchup that will make you foot taste better if you are interested.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:21 am
To follow-up with SnowMan…
If I recall correctly, back in January, when that database was available, the log files were not on the computer. So when the Secret Service says they could not find any evidence, well probably not if the log file was not there at the same time! Any traffic to the site (and how many people viewed/downloaded that database) during that window of time was probably not logged.
Chris,
WikiLeaks says this: “Our servers are distributed over multiple international jurisdictions and do not keep logs. Hence these logs cannot be seized.â€
If this is indeed true, then I think the FBI and the Coleman team – or anyone – is going to have a hard time tracking this down. And compared to some of the other items on WikiLeaks, this is small potatoes.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am
AC, I certainly don’t see any of those comments worth considering as “going on a tear” (whatever that is…). I never denied requesting proof. A person has to with all the lies that liberals tell. Of course people of your ilk do not see that because you are in lies up to your neck.
Have you spent your welfare check already? You are spending so much time researching worthless information you must have run out Boones Farm already. Too bad March is such a long month.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
AC,
You may be right. Which is why unknown shadow organizations like Wikileaks are insiduous. It may take individuals (or a class of individuals) suing Wikileaks for posting their personal and credit card information to get to the bottom of what happened.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Chris..
“polls are showing Chris Dodd is in trouble in the blue state of Connecticut. I also know polls show that Beau Biden is behind in the blue state of Delaware. And John Corzine is severely behind in the polls in New Jersey, another blue state.”
FYI – This is taken word for word from Sean Hannity’s show on Thursday night.
Another solid performance by Chris when repeating Republican talking points.
Sad, sad, sad.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
danbrome, so which poll are you saying is wrong? Do you have numbers that show what Chris supposedly quoted is incorrect?
Sean Hannity speaks more truth in one show than you have in your entire life danny boy.
danbrome = a coward and a liar. He does his party proud!
March 13th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“Sean Hannity speaks more truth in one show than you have in your entire life danny boy.”
With that statement, all here can be certain beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you are crazy.
Hannity is a walking talking hatchet man, with no connection to reality. He has every right to be a partisan, but his clueless rhetoric is nauseating. His nightly “panel” discussions are hilarious.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Pete, Sean Hannity is a boob. He wouldn’t even be on the air if it weren’t for Fox. But since Fox is all about being fair and balanced, I’m sure Hannity has an equal amount of lies in one show to balance out all of his “truth.”
March 13th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
With his $100 million contract, I surprised he is worried about the Obama Administration’s plans for his “wealth”.
LOL!!!
March 14th, 2009 at 1:47 am
danbrome,
That’s funny because I didn’t watch Hannity this week to hear the “talking points.” Although if you want to know about talking points, maybe you should ask George Stephanopolous who has daily conference calls with Rahm Emanuel, James Carville and Paul Begala.
AC,
You’re right that if it weren’t for Fox, Hannity wouldn’t be on television. That’s because the rest of the cable networks only cater to liberal Democrats. Speaking of those cable networks, you ever check out their ratings? Thursday night’s prime time ratings for Fox were 2.64 million viewers, CNN had 1.21 million viewers and MSNBC had 1 million viewers. These numbers are consistent week after week. You can check them out here:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news
March 14th, 2009 at 1:53 am
P.S. danbrome,
You can see the polls here:
Chris Dodd/Quinnipiac Poll (trails Rob Simmons by 1)
http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewire/hc-ap-ct-connecticutsenatemar10,0,2659885.story
Beau Biden/Public Policy Poll (Democratic polling firm) – (Trails Mike Castle by
http://www.rollcall.com/news/33014-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090311/NEWS02/903110343&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
Jon Corzine/Quinnipiac poll (Trails Chris Christie by 9)
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/new_jersey_gov_jon_corzine.html
March 14th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Chris, don’t give them facts – they don’t understand them. They are Democrats and only know lies. Their party is sinking faster than the Titantic and they are playing with each other in the corner.
Thank God they are all fat, dumb, and blind. It makes the coming change just that much easier to pull off.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Pete, you are the last person who should criticize anyone about facts. You never produce any of your own, poo-poo any that are presented to you, and can’t admit when people can find your old posts to illustrate what a hypocrite you are. Give up already.
And in response to post 139, face it. You got called out. You are a hypocritical liar and you got caught. You can’t even remember what you accuse people of from from week to week on here. That’s because you lie. If you tell the truth, that wouldn’t be a problem.
And the level of hate and rage in your posts is going up. I can’t imagine how frustrating this must be for you now that the economy is starting to settle down a bit and all the failure you’ve been hoping for looks like it might just not happen.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Pete..
I am definitely not fat (6′1″ 175), dumb (college GPA 3.45), or blind (I loved watching Obama sworn in). So I would appreciate if you could stop making your broad brush trash talk here.
I do not hold the position that every Democrat is safe, or that every Democrat is ahead in the polls.
“Many who voted for him are now having buyers remorse.â€
Either you think I’m a fool or you are a big fool.
Where did you get this bit of information. Many Democrats are even more impressed with our President now than the day they rushed to the polls to elect him. This is gonna be fun.
If making up statistics about what Democrats are think makes it possible for you to get by, then be my guest. However, you are incredibly misinformed, or you simply spend too much time watching Hannity’s America.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Many who voted for him are now having buyers remorse. It is a simple fact. Yes, many Democrats are even more impressed with your President because he is destroying our country. People of your ilk thrive on class warfare.
I am right, you are wrong. Deal with it.
AC, do you really think anyone besides your socialist buddies give a damn what you think? You are such a fool.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:27 am
danbrome,
You might not have said that every Democrat is safe, but you certainly accused me of repeating false talking points about the vulnerabilty of some very prominent Democrats, which I certainly did not do.
It’s shocking that at this stage of the game multi-decade incumbents like Chris Dodd and long-serving politicians like Jon Corzine are in such trouble in the polls.
You know, it seems the only one spreading talking points around here, danbrome, is you.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Pete, I don’t care what other people think of me. But I will continue to expose you as the hypocritical fraud whenever I can.
“I am right, you are wrong. Deal with it.”
This statement by you proves once and for all that you have the biggest head in the room and is a perfect illustration of your immaturity.
I’m sure your next response will include you typical grade-school name calling.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Chris..
Please listen carefully.
I never accused you of repeating false talking points about the vulnerabilty of some very prominent Democrats. What was interesting to me was the exact words that you and Sean Hannity shared. The races were even mentioned in the exact same order!
The Democrats in the talking points are vulnerable. However, one small correction.. Senator Corzine is in his first term, so has not been around long, hardly a “multi-decade incumbent” as you suggested.
I like you Chris, because you are reasoned and you will listen. A far cry from our convervative friend who suffers from tunnel vision and ignorance.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
AC..
Just ignore the idiot. He is clearly a legend in his own mind.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
danbrome,
Correction, Jon Corzine served in the U.S. Senate for six years before being elected Governor of New Jersey. He is one of the most prominent elected officials in New Jersey — hardly a newbie to the scene.
I’m glad you watch Sean Hannity and can recall the exact order he mentions things on the show. That means that there’s still hope for you. I’ve met Hannity on a few occasions and don’t know of a nicer person on the national stage. But, as I said, I didn’t watch him last week and don’t usually get the chance to watch.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Corzine served 5 years of his first senate term. That does not make him a “multi-decade incumbent”.
Calling Sean Hannity “nice” ignores the fact that he has no honor. His dishonest presentation of the talking points he is so well paid to present are legendary on cable television.
He has every right to be a partisan, but NO RIGHT to be dishonest with the viewers. I would seriously be shocked if Sean Hannity truly believes the scripts he is given to espouse.
I watch for the laughs, not the policy notes.
I suppose you think RL is a nice man too, eh?
March 16th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
danbrome,
I never called Corzine a multi-decade incumbent, you moron. I called Chris Dodd a multi-decade incumbent and said that Corzine was a long-serving politician, which he is. After serving in various high offices for ten years.
As for Hannity, unless you can prove that he is paid to present talking points, I’d be careful. You claim him to be dishonest (along with the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard) but what you said was dishonest is a provable fact.
danbrome, you’re the one who posts inane talking points. You never back up anything you say. Not once, never, ever. Considering how uninformed you are, perhaps you should watch for the policy notes. Perhaps you’d learn something.
Rush Limbaugh is the king of conservative talk radio. He’s one of the most articulate and hilarious voices in politics. And he’s also a very, very nice man. He’s given away everything from automobiles to Select Comfort beds to Super Bowl tickets to members of his audience whom he treats as family.
The sad thing about people like you is how you demonize people you disagree with. Just like how Two Putz Tommy attacked Norm Coleman’s war hero dad. Just like James Carville and Paul Begala push poll you into doing on behalf of President Obama. I thought Obama was going to change politics. The only thing that’s happened is that politics have gotten worse.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
AC, you are just so easy to get going. You, like the rest of the liberals here, take yourselves way to seriously. It is so easy to get you guys going – all it takes is a little thing like that quote to get you kids running home and crying to mommy.
It sure is fun kids.