37b81045   
   1d2f1ac1   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism   
   From: cbell97@bellsouth.net   
      
   On Nov 19, 4:49 am, Charles Bell  wrote:   
   > On Nov 18, 10:44 pm, Dänk 42Ø  wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:33:16 +0000, Matt wrote:   
   > > > Bert  wrote in news:XnsA10F91C678480VeebleFetzer@   
   > > > 216.250.188.141:   
   >   
   > > >> Innews:XnsA10F86CD3A7D7matttellessprynetcom@88.198.244.100Matt   
   > > >>  wrote:   
   >   
   > > >>> Bert  wrote in news:XnsA10F71397ED23VeebleFetzer@   
   > > >>> 216.250.188.141:   
   >   
   > > >>>> Innews:k8avs0$3mt$2@reader1.panix.comXox   
   > > >>>> wrote:   
   >   
   > > >>>>> Anonymous sabotaged or blocked these functions.   
   >   
   > > >>>> While making absolutely no changes of their own?   
   >   
   > > >>>> Really?   
   >   
   > > >>>> You believe this crap?   
   >   
   > > >>> Are you saying that the election machines can be hacked?   
   >   
   > > >> No, but the other poster certainly was.   
   >   
   > > > Then certainly, there is nothing to worry about, right?   
   >   
   > > > Never mind that the voting machines can be hacked easily, as shown by a   
   > > > number of independents.   
   >   
   > > > Electronic voting is safe, and Republicans simply can't win on their own   
   > > > merits.   
   >   
   > > Electronic voting is *NOT* safe, and leftards like you have said so   
   > > repeatedly in the past.  The only difference now is that Democrats   
   > > outrigged the Republican rigging.   
   >   
   > > I oppose electronic voting.  Banning it nationwide could have been one of   
   > > the things Democrats did to avoid impeaching Bush upon taking control of   
   > > Congress in 2007,   
   > >  but they decided farm subsidies were more important   
   > > than clean elections.   
   >   
   > > Electronic voting can be made secure in theory,   
   >   
   > But any other form that utilizes paper such as optical scanning which   
   > is a hybrid which has two levels of opportunies for fraud, stuffing   
   > the paper ballot with paper votes and stuffing the electronic   
   > cartridge in "early votes", is always in theory not secure.   
   >   
      
      
   update of the West/Murphy FL18 Congressional race referenced earlier:   
   Murphy wins by 2000 with one precinct having 900 votes and 7   
   registered voters and one cartridge not read because of defect.  At no   
   time were the optically-scanned paper ballots counted.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)