Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA

On 11 Nov 2006 05:21:39 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

So, now the "operator" (presumably a person) knows how you voted? (how
else to verify?). Or do you mean that the operator verified that a
piece of paper came out? (did you verify what was on that piece of paper?)

He "knows" how I voted the same way that the election officials "know"
how I voted with the paper ballots. Or did you think they can't look
at those, too?

ahh, well. they _can_? *wow* I suspected that your system is screwed, but I
didn't expect it to be f*cked that way.

Of course, they're "x's" on a piece of paper that must be lined up with
a template in order to interpret what they mean. All he did was
verify that it printed out. He didn't look at it in an attempt to see
how I voted.

Not that it matters -- he has no idea who I am, or how many times I've
voted. Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.

yes it is. and it is more of a sham that you accept it they way it is.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:38:23 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

OK, I see how that makes sense in a system designed that way.

thanks.

Matt

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

There were all those UN resolutions that authorized invading
Iraq. We can use Iraq as a staging area for the invasion of
Iran. The "official" Saudi government is "friendly" and
have been attacked by the terrorists.

It is like crime in LA, you can find the Cripps and Bloods
or you can just kill all the black people. The black people
are hostage to the gangs [terrorists] and need to be
empowered to stand up to the gangs. The gangs operate as
tribes or even religions, just like the Muslim terrorists
do.

The police can't just arrest any Crip or Blood they see,
they have to have probable cause and evidence. But LA
police do pretty well. Not perfect, but they do catch some
crooks and they do protect some citizens.

The USA can't just nuke every nation with a large and
possibly dangerous Muslim population [well, yes we could but
won't] so the only way to deal with terrorists is to create
a place were the terrorists can be drawn into open combat
and killed. At the same time you work to alter the
attitudes of the other potential terrorists so they don't
get recruited into sending their kids off to the bus with a
bomb.

Congress reduced the size of the military and sets the
man-power levels. Thus we are limited to the number of
troops available. But now we have a Congress that is set to
cut and run so the USA will be attacked here, probably NYC
and DC, then some other more valuable places that will do
more than hurt our feelings and kill a few thousand people.
As bad as 9/11 was, it didn't really hurt the USA in a long
term way except by our reactions to it and the measures
taken to stop it from happening again.

But there are targets that can be attacked that will cause
long term harm to the USA and are well within the present
capabilities of simple terrorism. No need for nukes or
dirty bombs, not even chemicals. Chemicals and weapons of
terror because just the threat makes you alter your
behavior.

Now we have elected a bunch of scared rabbits to Congress.
Remember back to the fall of 2001, President Bush made a
speech to the world, declaring that we were at war, a long
hard and different kind of war. We wouldn't know a lot
about victories as they happened. The Democrats pledged
their support for the war on terror, but that lasted just a
few weeks. RINO Republicans saw personal goals and promoted
themselves over support for the war effort.

The United States could have still lost WWII in December
1944. I'm afraid that the United States has lost the war on
terror on November 7, 2006.



".Blueskies." wrote in
message . ..
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message ...
| : The whole Muslim terrorist world has declared war on the
| : USA.
| :
| :
| :
|
| Then why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia, or Iran (they
did attack our embassy, remember?). Iraq was pretty well
| contained according to all the inspections, and that has
proven to be true. Plain stupid invasion, could have spent
our
| resources better in other theatres...
|
|

Really. In places, large percentages of the "street" rolls
out waving flags and burning cars after any terrorists
attack. No Muslim nation actually sends troops to fight
terrorists. The terrorists get supplies from within many
Muslim nations and little or nothing is done to stop that
trade.

You tell me the number, I'd say that they have more than
enough terrorists to bomb every high value target, value
being not the military or industrial value, but the
psychological value, schools, bus stops, movie theaters,
national monuments and even a small town just so everybody
knows there is no safe place, that is what terror is and how
it works.

Bush's error was being too good at stopping attacks on the
USA, the people lost their fear and forgot that we are at
war and the front line is your backyard.



"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
| Recently, Jim Macklin
posted:
|
| There are 1.5 BILLION Muslims on the planet. If only
1/10
| of 1% are violent terrorists, it is still 1 million, 500
| thousand. Surveys have put the number as high as 10-25%
of
| the Muslims supporting the terrorists.
|
| There is no basis for thinking that "1/10 of 1% of the
world's Muslim
| population are violent terrorists", if one considers that
by far the
| largest portion of the world's Muslims are not in the
Middle East or from
| countries that are in conflict with the US. This kind of
generalization is
| counter-productive to the effort to deal with those people
that are
| terrorists, Muslim or otherwise.
|
| Neil
|
|

Jay Honeck wrote:
He "knows" how I voted the same way that the election officials "know"
how I voted with the paper ballots. Or did you think they can't look
at those, too?

I was once a volunteer for a local election and, no, you can't; it
was the old fashion system that works as follows: each voter picks
up a ballot from each candidate, goes into the little booth provided
for their privacy, choose one of the ballot and place it into the
envelop; discard or keep the other ballots, then seals the envelop,
goes to the location where the box is located; the volunteer in
charge of the box verify the person's voting card, and that it
matches the corresponding entry in the register, stamps the voting
card and checks off the name in the register, push the lever that
opens the slot in the box and the voter places the envelop in the
box.

Low tech and primitive, but privacy is protected, only people
entitled to vote can vote, votes can be counted and recounted,
i.e., the whole thing is traceable, everybody involved, from
the dumbest of the voters to all the officials and volunteers
involved can understand the process and how things works; everything
is done out in the open for anyone who want to see (including the
counting of the votes -- actually good fun, never lacks volunteers);

And it is surprisingly fast; it does scale pretty well actually;
the more voters, the more volunteers.

And no, none of the election officials know who voted for whom.

voted. Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.

the problem is that mandatory IDs will only prevent individual voters
from committing fraud; it certainly ought to be done, but I am
far more concerned by a system that makes it extraordinarily easy
for the party in power to fraud on a massive and global scale...

--Sylvain

Jay Honeck wrote:
So, now the "operator" (presumably a person) knows how you voted? (how
else to verify?). Or do you mean that the operator verified that a
piece of paper came out? (did you verify what was on that piece of paper?)

He "knows" how I voted the same way that the election officials "know"
how I voted with the paper ballots. Or did you think they can't look
at those, too?

Of course, they're "x's" on a piece of paper that must be lined up with
a template in order to interpret what they mean. All he did was
verify that it printed out. He didn't look at it in an attempt to see
how I voted.

Not that it matters -- he has no idea who I am, or how many times I've
voted.

Didn't they ask who you were when they handed you a ballot (or whatever
the equivalent computer thingy is)?

Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.

Absolutely. Just think of the thousands of times that somebody's shown
up to vote only to be told, "Hey! You already voted!" The chorus of those
poor impersonated voters is what's driving the calls for internal
passports. Wait, there weren't thousands? No? Hundreds? Any? No? Gee,
you'd think even with a 40% turnout, this would have happened somewhere...
No? Gosh, if that's not happening, what other reason could there be
to mandate ids for voting? What could it be...

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


--
Don Poitras

Don Poitras wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
So, now the "operator" (presumably a person) knows how you voted? (how
else to verify?). Or do you mean that the operator verified that a
piece of paper came out? (did you verify what was on that piece of paper?)

He "knows" how I voted the same way that the election officials "know"
how I voted with the paper ballots. Or did you think they can't look
at those, too?

Of course, they're "x's" on a piece of paper that must be lined up with
a template in order to interpret what they mean. All he did was
verify that it printed out. He didn't look at it in an attempt to see
how I voted.

Not that it matters -- he has no idea who I am, or how many times I've
voted.

Didn't they ask who you were when they handed you a ballot (or whatever
the equivalent computer thingy is)?

They can ask, but have no idea if the answer is correct. That's the problem.



Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.

Absolutely. Just think of the thousands of times that somebody's shown
up to vote only to be told, "Hey! You already voted!" The chorus of those
poor impersonated voters is what's driving the calls for internal
passports. Wait, there weren't thousands? No? Hundreds? Any? No?

In the last election (two years ago), a friend went to vote and noticed his mother
had already voted. He asked if the volunteer remembered when she voted, and was
told that she just left. He said, wow that is amazing because she has been dead
for a year!

There is a lot of hanky-panky going on with elections and voter registrations. The
group called ACORN is notorious for dumping phony registration forms by the pallet
at elections offices around the country. This year in St Louis, officials actually
mailed a letter to 5,000 of the registrants with a request for contact. How many
responded? Less than 40. In 2004, County election offices in Pennsylvania were
completely inundated with registrations from ACORN and almost all of those checked
were phony. Unfortunately most of them were not checked, because there are no
resources to do so.

The system desperately needs positive identification. Some states are already
doing this.

Gee,
you'd think even with a 40% turnout, this would have happened somewhere...
No? Gosh, if that's not happening, what other reason could there be
to mandate ids for voting? What could it be...

There was an interesting article in the New York Times or the NY Daily News (can't
remember which) after the election in 2004 about all of the people in New York who
vote there and also vote where they have winter homes, particularly Florida. In
this day and age, that should be easily prevented. But it is not.

Turnout percentages will always be underestimated for the simple reason that all
the ineligible voters (died, moved, etc) are never removed from the rolls in time
for the next election. (or the one after that....)

Or if you bother to read something other than MSM.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Same war, different theaters.

Only if you buy the PR.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it
keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Sounds like Dan Simmons. This is a good read, but the link is to a page
cache. I hope it comes up (if you are interested).

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...efox-a&strip=1

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:27 GMT, "Super Dave"
wrote:

We got into this war with attacks on NY and DC. What is your
evidence that Bush was responsible for those attacks?


No, we got into the Afghanistan war due to the attacks on NY and DC. Iraq
was the result of stupidity on the part of our fearless leaders, and the
stupidity of the populace that supports those leaders.


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?

Bush's big mistake was to not trust the American people with the truth
about this war from the beginning, choosing instead to tout a
simplistic justification for the war, the possibility of Saddam Husein
developing nuclear weapons, instead of laying out the real strategy
and trusting the people to understand.

We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, we are at war with
Islamofascism. This is an asymmetric war, and the primary problem in
this sort of war is to get the enemy to engage on terms under which we
can win.

Their ultimate goal is to unify Islam under a restored Caliphate and
proceed on their god given mission of world domination. A bit
grandiose for a culture that represents 20% of the world's population
but couldn't produce a turbojet engine if their lives depended on it,
but none-the-less, that is where they eventually want to go.