Moon Pie wrote:
] Not only is the American voting code secretly held by private
] companies (naturally for copyright reasons; the Dollar trumps
] Democracy every time), but private companies manufacture the
] voting machines. And those companies are owned, predominantly,
] by Republican interests. Including Senator Chuck Hagel of
] Nebraska, who won by a landslide on machines made by Election
] Systems and Software (ES&S), a company he owned a considerable
] interest in. And he wasn't the only one.

That's pretty 'conspiracy theory' if you ask me. That's like saying that the slots and video poker machines in vegas are rigged. Everyone knows that gambling is basically just giving your money to someone else for the privilege of them wasting your time. In the case of digital voting machines, it's hard to say that they would be 'biased'.

but then again, I might file this under my three rules:

1) everything you hear is untrue
2) everything you hear has some truth to it
3) everything in life is rigged

flynn23 wrote:
] Moon Pie wrote:
] ] Not only is the American voting code secretly held by
] private
] ] companies (naturally for copyright reasons; the Dollar
] trumps
] ] Democracy every time), but private companies manufacture the
]
] ] voting machines. And those companies are owned,
] predominantly,
] ] by Republican interests. Including Senator Chuck Hagel of
] ] Nebraska, who won by a landslide on machines made by
] Election
] ] Systems and Software (ES&S), a company he owned a
] considerable
] ] interest in. And he wasn't the only one.
]
] That's pretty 'conspiracy theory' if you ask me. That's like
] saying that the slots and video poker machines in vegas are
] rigged. Everyone knows that gambling is basically just giving
] your money to someone else for the privilege of them wasting
] your time. In the case of digital voting machines, it's hard
] to say that they would be 'biased'.
]
] but then again, I might file this under my three rules:
]
] 1) everything you hear is untrue
] 2) everything you hear has some truth to it
] 3) everything in life is rigged

It's amazing what people think is conspiracy theory. History is full of this kind of stuff, but somehow we don't think it can happen to us. Really though, it's just natural that people pursue their own interest. Cheat on tests. Fix prices. Rig elections. Happens all over.
A lot of people are decent too, but that kind of thing doesn't get you promoted into power so well. Politicians really do have to sell themselves, after all. Nobody seems to think that's a conspiracy, and that's just one easy example. There's no argument, it's just understood: politicians are bought. What's for dinner?
That said, I don't know if computer voting machines are rigged. But I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be. The system being replaced is already corrupt, why would adding computers help?

Moon Pie wrote:

] It's amazing what people think is conspiracy theory. History
] is full of this kind of stuff, but somehow we don't think it
] can happen to us. Really though, it's just natural that
] people pursue their own interest. Cheat on tests. Fix
] prices. Rig elections. Happens all over.
] A lot of people are decent too, but that kind of thing doesn't
] get you promoted into power so well. Politicians really do
] have to sell themselves, after all. Nobody seems to think
] that's a conspiracy, and that's just one easy example.
] There's no argument, it's just understood: politicians are
] bought. What's for dinner?
] That said, I don't know if computer voting machines are
] rigged. But I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be. The
] system being replaced is already corrupt, why would adding
] computers help?

Well, I think that people *attempt* to pursue their own interest. Cheat on tests. Fix prices. Rig elections. But given that this is newer technology, that it is sufficiently more sophisticated than punch cards, and that fewer people know of it or how it works, then I would say that the potential for abuse is lower than other means. That's not to say that there's no abuse, just that it's lower.

I think the thing that made me think 'conspiracy theory' is that people always tend to draw a straight line between obvious points. Sen SoAndSo is majority shareholder of company who makes digital voting machines. Sen SoAndSo wins election in landslide. A HA! He must have rigged the machines!!! Conspiracies tend not to be so neat and tidy. Like people today thinking that we're invading Iraq because of oil. It has nothing to do with oil.

Remember Iran/Contra? I mean... who would've thought that could happen in a million years? It was so convoluted you KNEW it had to be true. Same thing with Watergate. The crazier the story, the more I tend to believe in it. Rigging digital election machines just sounds so 'simple'. It sounds like something my grandmother would be frightened by. "Those kids with their computers and the hacker. I don't trust them!"

flynn23 wrote:

] Well, I think that people *attempt* to pursue their own
] interest. Cheat on tests. Fix prices. Rig elections. But given
] that this is newer technology, that it is sufficiently more
] sophisticated than punch cards, and that fewer people know of
] it or how it works, then I would say that the potential for
] abuse is lower than other means. That's not to say that
] there's no abuse, just that it's lower.
]
] I think the thing that made me think 'conspiracy theory' is
] that people always tend to draw a straight line between
] obvious points. Sen SoAndSo is majority shareholder of company
] who makes digital voting machines. Sen SoAndSo wins election
] in landslide. A HA! He must have rigged the machines!!!
] Conspiracies tend not to be so neat and tidy. Like people
] today thinking that we're invading Iraq because of oil. It has
] nothing to do with oil.
]
] Remember Iran/Contra? I mean... who would've thought that
] could happen in a million years? It was so convoluted you KNEW
] it had to be true. Same thing with Watergate. The crazier the
] story, the more I tend to believe in it. Rigging digital
] election machines just sounds so 'simple'. It sounds like
] something my grandmother would be frightened by. "Those kids
] with their computers and the hacker. I don't trust them!"

I think I see what you're saying about the point-to-point thing. By itself, Senator Fuckhead owns part of voting machine company, Senator Fuckhead wins election doesn't prove anything. I'd file that under "things that make you go hmmmm". Doesn't it seem like a lot of items are going into that file, like the 18,181 winning vote margin in two or three states?

Your point about the sophisitcation of the computer voting machines, to me, makes it actually more likely that something screwy is going on. After all, who can look at the code? Just thems that wrote it. Who knows how that funny box works? Even my friendly neighborhood hacker nerd knows not. If ANYTHING should be open source, it should be the code for election ballot counting.

I wouldn't put the current state of affairs down to rigged votes. That's just your daily petty larceny kind of thing. Why shouldn't they do it? Who's stopping them? The fearsome pot smoking, table-waiting left? Senator F. trembles. "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" heh heh.

Now your point about Iran-Contra, very well taken. Not simple. How about 9-11, Brought To You By Cheney N Bush? It's convoluted all right, but mark my words, those fuckers pulled it off. It's the Northwoods plan, the 1965 Joint Chiefs-approved plan to fly a plane into a US skyscraper and blame Cuba for it, updated for a new generation. They finally did it. That's some shit that scares me a lot more than rigged election machines.

Now these fuckers can do anything they want - like, say, attack Iraq because, well fuck because. Because whatever you want to hear. Why do you think they want to do the deed?

Moon Pie wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ]
] Like people
] ] today thinking that we're invading Iraq because of oil. It
] has
] ] nothing to do with oil.
] ]
] ]
]
] I'm sincerely curious, if the anticipated war on Iraq has
] nothing to do with oil, what does it have to do with? WMD?

We don't get our oil from Iraq. Most of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia and Latin America. Europe gets a lot of oil from Iraq, so I suspect that's why they are not interested in the war. Also, there's certainly a lack of interest in paying for it, since both France and Germany's economy is in the toilet. It has also been noted that France has some under the table agreements with the Iraqis that I'm sure they don't want aired.

I don't think it's about money either. At least not as the prime motivator. I think there is an interest in protecting our assets in the region, but I'll get to that in a second.

If you were to ask me really what I think it's about, it's about eliminating a home base for extreme terrorist activities. Saddam funds, trains, harbors, and incites a lot of terrorist activity, particularly within the region. He was the only person in the entire world to PUBLICALLY praise the 9/11 attacks. The point of disarming him seems more to make sure that a rogue group doesn't get ahold of one of his WMD versus him lobbing one at Israel, although I can see that happening as well.

A very close second seems to be the US's attempt at installing a westernized Arabic regime that would influence the rest of the region. Iraq is already the most progressive of the Arabic states in terms of culture, literacy, education, science, and economy. The only thing that's keeping them back is Saddam, a very well documented tyrant. If the US were to put in a regime that was more democratic, it would quickly accelerate the western influence in Iraq and eventually its neighbors. In effect, they would become more tolerant of western views and less likely to be militantly opposed to them, or at least have militants that can get serious support. This worked with the Soviet Union very well, and I can see the same gears turning for the Middle East. This would help protect the US's financial interests in the region (Saudi, Israel, India) and open up new markets and new allies, all the while helping to limit aggression.

I don't agree with the concept of war. I don't agree with spending $70B+ on this escapade. And I certainly don't agree with sticking our noses in other country's businesses. But what is the solution here? It's a complex problem. We could take the high road and say 'not our problem'. But what happens in 5 years? And what is the cost then? Sometimes life is messy, and you are forced to do things that are against your conscience because the long term benefits outweigh your morals. I'm not sure that this is completely that case, but it's beginning to feel that way to me.

flynn23 wrote:
] Moon Pie wrote:
] ] flynn23 wrote:
] ] ]
] ] Like people
] ] ] today thinking that we're invading Iraq because of oil. It
]
] ] has
] ] ] nothing to do with oil.
] ] ]
] ] ]
] ]
] ] I'm sincerely curious, if the anticipated war on Iraq has
] ] nothing to do with oil, what does it have to do with? WMD?
]
] We don't get our oil from Iraq. Most of our oil comes from
] Saudi Arabia and Latin America. Europe gets a lot of oil from
] Iraq, so I suspect that's why they are not interested in the
] war. Also, there's certainly a lack of interest in paying for
] it, since both France and Germany's economy is in the toilet.
] It has also been noted that France has some under the table
] agreements with the Iraqis that I'm sure they don't want
] aired.
]
] I don't think it's about money either. At least not as the
] prime motivator. I think there is an interest in protecting
] our assets in the region, but I'll get to that in a second.
]
] If you were to ask me really what I think it's about, it's
] about eliminating a home base for extreme terrorist
] activities. Saddam funds, trains, harbors, and incites a lot
] of terrorist activity, particularly within the region. He was
] the only person in the entire world to PUBLICALLY praise the
] 9/11 attacks. The point of disarming him seems more to make
] sure that a rogue group doesn't get ahold of one of his WMD
] versus him lobbing one at Israel, although I can see that
] happening as well.
]
] A very close second seems to be the US's attempt at installing
] a westernized Arabic regime that would influence the rest of
] the region. Iraq is already the most progressive of the Arabic
] states in terms of culture, literacy, education, science, and
] economy. The only thing that's keeping them back is Saddam, a
] very well documented tyrant. If the US were to put in a regime
] that was more democratic, it would quickly accelerate the
] western influence in Iraq and eventually its neighbors. In
] effect, they would become more tolerant of western views and
] less likely to be militantly opposed to them, or at least have
] militants that can get serious support. This worked with the
] Soviet Union very well, and I can see the same gears turning
] for the Middle East. This would help protect the US's
] financial interests in the region (Saudi, Israel, India) and
] open up new markets and new allies, all the while helping to
] limit aggression.
]
] I don't agree with the concept of war. I don't agree with
] spending $70B+ on this escapade. And I certainly don't agree
] with sticking our noses in other country's businesses. But
] what is the solution here? It's a complex problem. We could
] take the ... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]