• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Uncensored Gore

"Officials leave voting machines at polling stations days before the election. The machines contain memory cards with ballots already loaded on them. This means before the election, someone could alter the ballot file in such a way that voters would cast votes for the wrong candidate without knowing it.

True. And computerizing medical records or SS# means people could tamper with that information wihtout you knowing it. The question is, is it likely?

Poll supervisors are selected with no background checks and are given keys to buildings where they can access the machines several days before the election.

Well, there goes the conspiracy. To "rig" the elections would mean that all of these supervisors would have to be somehow secretly chosen for their republican sympathies, agree to tamper (or let tamper) with the voting machines to computer hackers of similar sympathies, and of course do the whole thing it COMPLETE secrecy, which nobody will EVER break, or else this would be the biggest scandal in US history and would be the end of the republican party, let alone the president.

In other words, one would need to executed a perfect Watergate * 10,000 or so. Is that likely?
 
Matabiri said:


Problems with voting machines:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60713,00.html

"Officials leave voting machines at polling stations days before the election. The machines contain memory cards with ballots already loaded on them. This means before the election, someone could alter the ballot file in such a way that voters would cast votes for the wrong candidate without knowing it.

The memory card rests behind a locked door on the side of the voting machine. But supervisors receive a key to the compartment the weekend before the election. The same key fits every machine at a polling station.

Poll supervisors are selected with no background checks and are given keys to buildings where they can access the machines several days before the election.

The machines, worth around $3,000 each, are locked on a trolley at polling stations with only a bicycle lock. The combination, which anyone could crack in a couple of tries, is the same for every polling station in the county and is given to poll supervisors during their training.

Although the machines have two blue tamper-resistant ties threaded through holes in their carrying cases, the ties can easily be purchased on the Internet. Supervisors open at least one case the night before the election to charge the machine inside, which means the case remains unsealed overnight."

And that's before you get to the software etc.
Click to expand...


How different is all that from the current way of voting with punch cards? Do the supervisors have access to them beforehand? What stops them from voting on unused ballots at the end of the day? What stops them from removing ballots with votes they do not like?
 
At least if there is a fair election, an election that is not electronic. That would be dangerous. We don’t want an election without a paper trail. The makers of the voting machines say no one can look inside of them, because they would reveal trade secrets. What secrets? Isn’t their job to count votes? Or do they get secret messages from Mars? Is the cure for cancer inside the machines?

EARTH TO GORE VIDAL: they mean the technical details of the patented technology that does the counting.

Jeez!

I mean, come on. And all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?

Corruption--perhaps, conspiracy--no.

That companies that give the ruling party money tend to be rewarded with government contracts is hardly news. But to imply that this is some sort of "insider job" to create "pro-republican" machines is insane. Perhaps the CEO of the company got the contract as part of a kickback.

But can you imagine the chief technical officer of the company saying to the development team of engineers: "now look, out goal here is to create a voting machine that rigs the elections in favor of Bush. First of all, we need a program that makes every 'democrat' vote into a 'republican' vote on command from a remote control. Oh, and it's a SECRET, so DON'T TELL ANYBODY we are establishing a dictatorship here, OK?"

Gore Vidal doesn't seem to know how the real world works anymore.
 
Cain said:


You're rather slow, aren't you?

Check this out: "And I wouldnt' exactly call Vidal liberal. Like most "liberals", he is a left-wing authoritarian."

And yet, you have no idea of his positions. Now you're pointing to question marks. This stuff makes me apoplectic. I might as well spend this time productively arguing with post-modernists... or watching paint dry.
Click to expand...

Damn you're dense, you didnt even have a clue I asked these questions:

Feel free to prove me wrong, what are his positions on taxes, gun rights, free speech, government intrusion, and individual rights?
Click to expand...


Is he like most so-called "liberals" who tend to condemn the tyrants they disagree with while ignoring the ones with which they agree?
Click to expand...

I guess to you a question mark is just a swiggly line that looks cool. To the rest of us, it is used to incate a question being asked. Now, are you going to answer my questions? Im honestly interested in this guy.
 
a_unique_person said:

Washington, D.C. Burr, Lincoln, Creation, 1876, Messiah. He has written numerous books, but I found his 'history' of the US to be enthralling, and so mainly stuck to that. Washington DC is relatively small, but very readable. It is his take on the Kennedy Clan.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Ill check'em out.
 
Skeptic said:
At least if there is a fair election, an election that is not electronic. That would be dangerous. We don’t want an election without a paper trail. The makers of the voting machines say no one can look inside of them, because they would reveal trade secrets. What secrets? Isn’t their job to count votes? Or do they get secret messages from Mars? Is the cure for cancer inside the machines?

EARTH TO GORE VIDAL: they mean the technical details of the patented technology that does the counting.

Jeez!
Click to expand...


You want to put the patents for an invention before people's trust in democracy? I think you need to reconsider your priorities.

I mean, come on. And all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?

Corruption--perhaps, conspiracy--no.

That companies that give the ruling party money tend to be rewarded with government contracts is hardly news. But to imply that this is some sort of "insider job" to create "pro-republican" machines is insane. Perhaps the CEO of the company got the contract as part of a kickback.
Click to expand...

"Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." Openess and transparency is an essential part of the political process. It generates trust. Without that, you don't have a democracy.





But can you imagine the chief technical officer of the company saying to the development team of engineers: "now look, out goal here is to create a voting machine that rigs the elections in favor of Bush. First of all, we need a program that makes every 'democrat' vote into a 'republican' vote on command from a remote control. Oh, and it's a SECRET, so DON'T TELL ANYBODY we are establishing a dictatorship here, OK?"

Gore Vidal doesn't seem to know how the real world works anymore.
Click to expand...

I's say you need to reconsider it. There are plenty of examples out there of why all democratic countries, but particularly the US, Great Britain and Australia, need to reconsider just what is happening to the Democratic process in light of the recent war.

I don't care how good the machines are, without the ability to demonstrate you can trust them, they are worthless.
 
Tony, c'mon, is this a bit? Are you putting me on? You calling me dense?


Look over the sequence of your posts one more time. You called him a left-wing authoritarian before even bothering to ask those questions. So why don't you holster that sidearm, cowboy, and try to pick a target before shooting wildly.

You are picking up on the shoot first, ask questions later theme here, right? Gosh, I can only hope...

Where are you rolleyes emoticon?

:rolleyes:

^^I wuv you.^^
 
a_unique_person said:


In what way is he a kook?
Click to expand...

"His belief that America is an imperial nation run by a small group of powerful corporate and political insiders; the loss of our ideal of a democratic Republic where the people actually have some influence on their government; his assertion that "homosexual" is an adjective that describes behavior and not a noun that describes a type of person because there is "no such thing as a homosexual," the notion having been created by psychiatrists who wanted to demonize the naturalness of same-sex relations.."

Maybe you're right, woowoo might be a better term than kook.
 
Tricky said:
Any particular reason why you chose your thread topic to suggest Al Gore rather than Gore Vidal? Vidal is an outspoken liberal who is quite controversial. Al Gore, by contrast is pretty moderate and is only controversial because Republicans hate him.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that when you say "Gore" we would think "Vidal". This sort of misdirection is disingenious, to say the least. I expect more honesty of you.
Click to expand...

Hey now, who could get mad at the guy who invented the Internet?

If Tony posted "Vidal", would you have chastised him because it's easy to confuse with Vidal Sassoon? Only your hairdresser knows for sure :p
 
BTox said:


"His belief that America is an imperial nation run by a small group of powerful corporate and political insiders;
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence for that.


the loss of our ideal of a democratic Republic where the people actually have some influence on their government;
Click to expand...

Most of them can't even be bothered voting any more. Does that tell you something?



his assertion that "homosexual" is an adjective that describes behavior and not a noun that describes a type of person because there is "no such thing as a homosexual,
Click to expand...

Seems fair enough to me. He is trying to get away from the labelling process. I would find it strange if everyone assessed me first and foremost as being hetero. I am, but I don't see myself as being defined by that. Eg. Saying "Gore Vidal is one of the great Gay writers of the 20th Century" is not what he wants to be defined as.



" the notion having been created by psychiatrists who wanted to demonize the naturalness of same-sex relations.."
Click to expand...

For him, being gay, it is entirely natural. Psychiatrists did try to treat it, and many Fundies still want to 'cure' it.



Maybe you're right, woowoo might be a better term than kook.
Click to expand...

What 'woo-woo' is there?
 
Tricky said:

Of course, Al Gore didn't say that he invented the internet, but this lie has been repeated so many times that lots of people believe it is true. Are you one of them?
Click to expand...

From your link:
Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."
Click to expand...

OK ... "created" ... :D
 
For those asking why Vidal is a "crank", the reason is that he is a conspiracy theorist which, like other paranoids, lives in a world of "terrifying significance", in Aldous Huxley's apt phrase. EVERYTHING is proof for him of the evil Bush's secret hand at work.

Voting technology is becoming--gasp!--computerized? (Can you IMAGINE? In 2003?) Can't be simply an update, must be a conspiracy.

The company that got the contract has donated money to the Bush administration? Can't be the usual "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", must be a conspiracy.

The voting machines are made by a private company which wants to protect its trademarked technology? Can't be simple economic sense, must be a conspiracy.

Well, guys... if you want a private company to design the machine, OF COURSE it would protect its own patents! No company would bother to do the research and create the technology to do so, otherwise. Your other options is to let THE GOVERNMENT design the voting machine that will decide who the next government will be... now what's wrong with THAT picture?

Of course, Vidal has not the TINIEST BIT of evidence of any conspiracy. On the contrary, his "arguments" show that he is:

1). A technological ignoramous, as his sneering assertaion that there cannot be any worthwhile technology to protect in the machine because HE cannot think of one shows.

2). Disrespectful of other people's property: give up your patents! His highness Vidal had spoken and said you are just bluffing!

3). Totally lacking in common sense: such a "conspiracy" would necessarily involve dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of people, all of whom would have to keep quiet forever, and would create the greatest scandal in US history--let alone put Bush in jail--if anybody blabbed, as they are sure to do within two weeks, at most.

This is not the attitude of somebody who is worth listening to. It is an arrogant, sneering, ignorant rant by someone who just KNOWS the "truth", evidence--and common sense--be damned; he's right, you're wrong, that's that.

This is, in other words, the classical personality of an egomaniacal crank.
 
Skeptic said:
For those asking why Vidal is a "crank", the reason is that he is a conspiracy theorist which, like other paranoids, lives in a world of "terrifying significance", in Aldous Huxley's apt phrase. EVERYTHING is proof for him of the evil Bush's secret hand at work.

Voting technology is becoming--gasp!--computerized? (Can you IMAGINE? In 2003?) Can't be simply an update, must be a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Once again, you have to have faith in the system. Paper trail, etc. Gore has been involved in politics, he knows the dirty tricks everyone gets up to. He is being skeptical. He wants them to demonstrate that the system that is being proposed is above reproach.

It's not like dealing with a bank, say, where if you don't believe their computers work, you can just stuff your money under your mattress, or you can have a physical paper trail of all the transactions.

There is only one election, and it has to be a transparent system that can be available for all to verify. I have acted as a voting scrutiniser. I could verify that all parties concerned agreed on the votes cast. Not so with these machines.

You want to verify that these machines are technically sound. Sorry, that is a patent issue. It is more important than democracy.
 
EARTH TO GORE VIDAL: they mean the technical details of the patented technology that does the counting.
Click to expand...

If something is patented then you don't have to worry about anyone "stealing" it, becuase you havea legal right of ownership to the technology.There is no need at all to "protect" anything that is patented, that IS what the patent does, it legally protects it.

The defense of the idea that the public should have full access to the inerworking of any vote counting device is beyond absurd. No one can seriously be in defense of democracy and sit there and say that the public should not have full access to the working of any device or proces that is used to count votes. That should be design consideration #1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom