Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT: How George W. Bush won the 2004 election


Recommended Posts

I don't usually get into the political discussions here, but I think this is important for people to know. Visit these two links to read about how computer voting can be used to rig elections. In the first link, there are a few links at the bottom of the article that are good to read as well. [url=http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html]How George W. Bush Won the 2004 Presidential Election[/url] [url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00064.htm]Bigger Than Watergate![/url]

"And then you have these thoughts in the back of your mind like 'Why am I doing this? Or is this a figment of my imagination?'"

http://www.veracohr.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Cal Thomas recently wrote an article complaining that the Bush administration and the conservative house is spending worse than Democrats! Now, if you're at all familiar with Mr. Thomas, you know he usually has a tendancy to make Rush Limbaugh look like a left-winger. So, when HE gripes that thr Republicans are as bad as, if not worse, than the Democrats, you gotta KNOW the Bush administration is fuckin' UP! Bush is going to NEED those gimmicks to win, that being the case... Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]So much for separation of church and state. [/quote]First seperation of curch and state simplely meant that the church cant run the govt or be the govt or the other way around. when the founding father left england the state was also the church. second. making the comment you made is the same as saying that the teachers ass. (left off the last letter intentionally) shouldnt rally votes or the lesbos shouldnt rally votes. no differance!! they are all special interest groups.(so to speak) Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by jcskid: [b] [quote]So much for separation of church and state. [/quote]First seperation of curch and state simplely meant that the church cant run the govt or be the govt or the other way around. when the founding father left england the state was also the church. second. making the comment you made is the same as saying that the teachers ass. (left off the last letter intentionally) shouldnt rally votes or the lesbos shouldnt rally votes. no differance!! they are all special interest groups.(so to speak) Scott[/b][/quote]In the context of the linked material in the first post, the seperation of church/state comment made sense. Did you read the links?

----------------------------

Phil Mann

http://www.wideblacksky.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmmmmm sounds to me like the dems are already realizing they are going to lose 40+ states in this election, and are attempting to de-legitamize it by saying the machines were rigged. And this from the same people who let dead people vote in Chicago, and let peoples garbage back up in NY if they didn't "vote right".
Chuck Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Philter: Scott[/qb][/quote]In the context of the linked material in the first post, the seperation of church/state comment made sense. Did you read the links?[/QUOTE] "Chalcedon promotes Christian Reconstructionism, which mandates Christ's dominion over the entire world." Sounds like someone doesn't even remotely understand (or have the slightest concern about) separation of church and state, much less the desire and rights of many to, ahem, not be part of Christ's dominion (oddly, Christ isn't around at the moment, so I'll supose that those who will dominate the world in his name will do the tithing and dominating for him) :-/ "Dominion over the entire world"... Sounds like terrorism to me. Do the Patriot Act and Homeland Security cover American militant religious groups with plans of world domination? (I'm hoping that the links are a bad joke and not actually real.) And hey, privatization is the wave of the future. If your friends own the voting machines, hey, you have to know that they'll refrain from campaign contributions or accepting donations or anything untoward.
Give me the ANALOG and no one gets HURT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]And this from the same people who let dead people vote in Chicago, and let peoples garbage back up in NY if they didn't "vote right".[/b][/quote]And what of the people who performed an 'ethnic cleansing' of the voter registry in Florida via falsified info concerning felony records? @ 90,000 voters, if I recall.
I've upped my standards; now, up yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever your beliefs, the fact is is that these electronic voting machines are insecure. The Diebold machines were found to have a back door that allows a person to get in, change the votes, and get out with absolutely no trace. The machines also connect the precincts via the internet to deliver the results back to the servers - which is open to the entire world, rather than a closed WAN connection, which is far more secure (and no more difficult to implement). Would you accept either of these conditions with your DAW? Both? And if not, then why would you accept them with your vote? In the Georgia elections in 2000, the machines had software "patches" applied [i]after[/i] the machines were certified by the state - when they should have beeen 'frozen' - and were never re-checked. And after the elections, the machines' memories were wiped, leaving absolutely no record of the votes cast. Interestingly, that was the first year that Georgia had elected a little-known Republican governor in over a century, against a Democratic incumbent who was heavily favored [i]as of the night before the election.[/i] Now, the mere appearance of impropriety does not mean it is so - but we'll never know in Georgia, will we? Forget your partisan beliefs for a moment - this is far too important to ignore. The votes need to be accurate & secure - period - and we should accept nothing less from our government. How can any official operate with the public confidence if the means that put them there is questionable?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How can any official operate with the public confidence if the means that put them there is questionable?" Apparently, public confidence isn't really an issue nowdays, given what we're experiencing right now. Our current 'elected' official has already said--publicly--that American public protests aren't going to change things.
I've upped my standards; now, up yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: [b]Whatever your beliefs, the fact is is that these electronic voting machines are insecure. The Diebold machines were found to have a back door that allows a person to get in, change the votes, and get out with absolutely no trace. ?[/b][/quote]I doubt that. Remember, we have two powerful parties (plus a host of other parties that would be happy to just be on the ballot) putting their trust in the election process. In elections, when a blind or disabled person goes in to vote and requires help from the officials, BOTH sides are REQUIRED to go with them to help them cast their vote to ensure that nobody takes advantage of the situation. NEITHER party will allow an insecure voting method to be implemented. Keep in mind that an insecure method can allow EITHER party to cheat -not just the Republicans. NOBODY is going to stand for that. I wouldn't worry about it.

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]I doubt that. Remember, we have two powerful parties (plus a host of other parties that would be happy to just be on the ballot) putting their trust in the election process. In elections, when a blind or disabled person goes in to vote and requires help from the officials, BOTH sides are REQUIRED to go with them to help them cast their vote to ensure that nobody takes advantage of the situation. NEITHER party will allow an insecure voting method to be implemented. Keep in mind that an insecure method can allow EITHER party to cheat -not just the Republicans. NOBODY is going to stand for that. I wouldn't worry about it.[/b][/quote]Worry about it. It's already happened. Diebold memos published on the web confirm that they knew about the flaws and chose not to do anything. Diebold tried really hard to suppress these memos (but never denied them - they claimed copyright infringement, which of course requires ownership...) and has since retreated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all know, americans how did Bush got voted. He just went to mafia school and learned well. America is corrupted, never before it was so much corrupted. Be aware, you are fooled.

:) Features Are Not An Opinion. :)

(John Hope, 2003)

http://johnhope.blogspot.com/

 

Addresse:

UIPLPPICDSS

Ufficio Internazionale Per La Presa Per Il Culo Dei Sbruffoni Statunitensi

Att. Tua Sorella

Codice Mavapigliatelindomo

Pirla Chi Legge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super, Sorry to disagree, but most politicos have little or no understanding of technology. Look at how well they've handles identity theft on the net. How about music downloads. If you've ever gone to any government hearings, what you see is a dog and pony show by the proponets like a vender, which typically do not discuss hidden dangers like trap door access to voting machines giving the criminal element the means to sell an election to the highest bidder. The Diebold machines are a danger to fair elections. They are defective, simple as that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you don't have a good point, it is a good point you have raised, and there can be court challenges of the results too. It's just that the Diebold machines are known to have a number of design flaws that make them more susceptible to cheating and fraud. Like all technology, eventually it will get better and the designers will do a better job with V2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concern about the Diebold voting machines is the real deal. The reason there's information floating around the net about it is because someone was able to break into a web server used by Diebold and get messages as well as actual code from Diebold employees. The very fact that comeone could do this proves that they have no business anywhere near our voting process. Here's one interesting read about it: http://theregister.co.uk/content/55/34051.html It's also worth pointing out that Diebold recently admitted that some of their embedded Windows XP ATM machines were infected with a blaster variant: http://theregister.co.uk/content/55/34175.html One question that I can't get away from: Why is something as important as this outsourced to [i]any[/i] private company, allowing them to claim our voting process as their own intellectual property. I don't know...all partisan crap aside, as a programmer myself, I think the whole thing stinks big time. Tom

http://www.digitalaudiorock.com

The Protools Plugin Preset Co-op

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, Super...if you hold office, and get to participate in approving the voting machines, you just [i]might[/i] want to know that they can be accessed easily. Job security, ya know? Anyone who'd go to the trouble to get elected unfairly would certainly do everything they could to try and stay there - so it's not necessarily in [i]every[/i] politician's interests to ensure fairness, if they would be the recipient of the spoils.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go along with the premise that there are some security issues with the electronic machines. One solution for the lack of verification that has been talked about is for the machine to spit out a paper ballot that can be checked against the electronic tally. I spent the last 2 elections as a pole watcher, so I can say that both sides watch the poles very closely for any evidence of impropriety. I think electronic machines are beeing rushed prematurely into service because of what happened in Florida, and anytime you rush the technology, there will be issues. Also, it defies logic to think that people who can't manage to properly use the punch ballots they have seen all their lives will be any more successfull at a touchscreen. I think we do need to slow down on the electronic machines 'till they get it right, but I don't buy the whole "evil republicans stealing the election" thing. Like Super 8 said, there watching each other very closely, and purposefull tampering is unlikely.
Chuck Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by WOW: [b][QUOTE]This entire post sounds like you guys have already given up on the 04 election and are making excuses. Lets see the dems lose one election and not CRY like a bunch of babies when they lose. Computers are rigged, Florida was rigged, Texas is rigged, and on and on. Just lose your 40+ States with some dignity. :idea: [/b][/quote]So why you got your undies all in a knot about it then? Sorry, but I have a hard time accepting the fact that planes full of money are headed to Iraq when college grads are living in their cars. I was unemployed for almost 5 months last summer, living in my van at one point. If not for some well-off friends, it could have gotten much worse. Fuck Dubya and Fuck the Dems. They're all self-serving hypocrites. No vote-y vote for any of them from me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...