XPost: alt.society.liberalism   
   From: matttelles@sprynet.com   
      
   Dänk 42Ø  wrote in   
   news:IpGdnaIy-_QGxTfNnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@earthlink.com:   
      
   > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:15:19 +0000, Matt wrote:   
   >   
   >> Dänk 42Ø  wrote in   
   >> news:S4KdnfOlRfeNNjTNnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthlink.com:   
   >>   
   >>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:33:16 +0000, Matt wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Bert  wrote in news:XnsA10F91C678480VeebleFetzer@   
   >>>> 216.250.188.141:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> In news:XnsA10F86CD3A7D7matttellessprynetcom@88.198.244.100 Matt   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Bert  wrote in   
   >>>>>> news:XnsA10F71397ED23VeebleFetzer@ 216.250.188.141:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> In news:k8avs0$3mt$2@reader1.panix.com Xox    
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Ahhh, so it ISN'T safe.   
   >>   
   >> Then why are you backing it?   
   >   
   > I'm not backing it.  I may have misinterpreted your sarcasm, assuming   
   > you supported e-voting because the machines registered a win for   
   > Obama.   
   >   
   > One example of possible e-voting fraud is in Clark County, Nevada,   
   > where Sequoia Pacific machines registered a win for Barack Obama.  The   
   > machines are maintained AND PROGRAMMED by technicians who are members   
   > of SEIU, a union that is a de facto organ of the Democrat Party.   
   > Perhaps they didn't rig the machines, but if they worked for a   
   > Republican organ and the machines recorded a Romney win, you would   
   > definitely be screeching fraud.  This is why we need comprehensive   
   > national electoral reform to ensure that no election can be rigged.   
   >   
   > BTW, Mexico solved its election rigging problem by introducing tamper-   
   > proof voter identification cards.  The cards not only prove the   
   > voter's identity and address, they contain the location of the polling   
   > station and ensure the voter is properly registered BEFORE ELECTION   
   > DAY, eliminating the U.S. problem of shady registration groups   
   > destroying registration forms.  Another reform was the use of clear   
   > plastic ballot boxes so voters can see that they are empty when the   
   > polls open.  Last time I voted in California, I inserted my paper   
   > ballot in a heavy-duty steel box which may have been a shredder for   
   > all I know.   
   >   
      
   No, I've been against e-voting since it began, for many of the reasons   
   you state, and quite a few others. Lack of transparency really about   
   covers it, lack of paper receipts make me refuse to even consider it.   
      
   My point is that a certain Republican owns quite a few of the electronic   
   voting machines. Therefore, anyone backing the Republican party is pro-   
   electronic voting   
      
   Matt   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)