[version]

Seems like rigging the votes in his own country isn't enough, how about Iraq now?


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...905936,00.html

[moki]

Originally posted by version:
Seems like rigging the votes in his own country isn't enough, how about Iraq now?

Can you please enumerate the unbiased, proven evidence that Bush engaged in "rigging the votes" in the USA?

You do realize of course that his is a federal offense, and that if it were true, the Democrats would be all over it?

The fact is there is no proof whatsoever the Bush, or Al Gore, for that matter, rigged any votes. It may feel good to you to say, because of your apparent distaste for the man, but that doesn't make it any more real.

I submit to you that if you really think Bush is bad for the country, you will be far more likely to convince people of your position by arguing it in a reasonable manner, and not making an personal insults, wild unfounded accusations, etc.

Focus on your goal. If your goal is to convince people that Bush is not a good President, the method you're using currently isn't going to accomplish it. It's just going to cause people to dismiss you.

[version]

Originally posted by moki:
Can you please enumerate the unbiased, proven evidence that Bush engaged in "rigging the votes" in the USA?

You do realize of course that his is a federal offense, and that if it were true, the Democrats would be all over it?

The fact is there is no proof whatsoever the Bush, or Al Gore, for that matter, rigged any votes. It may feel good to you to say, because of your apparent distaste for the man, but that doesn't make it any more real.

I submit to you that if you really think Bush is bad for the country, you will be far more likely to convince people of your position by arguing it in a reasonable manner, and not making an personal insults, wild unfounded accusations, etc.

Focus on your goal. If your goal is to convince people that Bush is not a good President, the method you're using currently isn't going to accomplish it. It's just going to cause people to dismiss you.

Nope, my goal is nothing =, but to illuminate any who wants to listen to what I might have to say. I know where I stand, and am willing to be corrected, but I when it comes to rigging the vote, it was a scandal, and the Democrats did make a big deal out of it; but sue to the Bush clan's maneuverings with the supreme court, it made Al Gore back down. Anyway, if you're not convinced, just have a read of the numerous news agencies stories on this, it's been debated for ages, and it's out there, no need for me to argue the point.
Also, how about talking about the article I linked to?

[moki]

Originally posted by version:
Nope, my goal is nothing =, but to illuminate any who wants to listen to what I might have to say.

Well, that's my point really. If you want people to listen to you, you have to be reasonable. If you want to illuminate anything, you have to be factual.

I know where I stand, and am willing to be corrected, but I when it comes to rigging the vote, it was a scandal, and the Democrats did make a big deal out of it;

okay. Please present your unbiased proof that any vote rigging occurred, on either side.

but sue to the Bush clan's maneuverings with the supreme court, it made Al Gore back down.

You're saying that Bush and his "clan" have influence over the supreme court? That's an interesting allegation; can you present any proof of this (other than you not liking their decision with regard to the election)?

Anyway, if you're not convinced, just have a read of the numerous news agencies stories on this, it's been debated for ages, and it's out there, no need for me to argue the point.

There is, likewise, no reason for me to accept it as true just because you say it is. I've seen absolutely nothing that shows there was any "vote rigging" in any way.

Also, how about talking about the article I linked to?

That article is actually quite old; I discussed it long ago.

[version]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, that's my point really. If you want people to listen to you, you have to be reasonable. If you want to illuminate anything, you have to be factual.



okay. Please present your unbiased proof that any vote rigging occurred, on either side.



You're saying that Bush and his "clan" have influence over the supreme court? That's an interesting allegation; can you present any proof of this (other than you not liking their decision with regard to the election)?



There is, likewise, no reason for me to accept it as true just because you say it is. I've seen absolutely nothing that shows there was any "vote rigging" in any way.



That article is actually quite old; I discussed it long ago.

Well, how about discussing it now? I'm not interested in discussing the voting issue, it's been done before, and like you said, I've also discussed this before, plenty.

[version]

Since you want to veer off the current topic, I'll post some links to some information for you. Unbiased? please, what is the criterion for being unbiased? It's impossible.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/vote_fraud.html

[moki]

Originally posted by version:
Since you want to veer off the current topic, I'll post some links to some information for you. Unbiased? please, what is the criterion for being unbiased? It's impossible.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/vote_fraud.html

c'mon. That "WhatReallyHappened" web site belongs on the grassy knoll with black helicopters circling overhead. I'll assume you have no proof, or will claim it was "covered up" somehow.

[version]

Originally posted by moki:
c'mon. That "WhatReallyHappened" web site belongs on the grassy knoll with black helicopters circling overhead. I'll assume you have no proof, or will claim it was "covered up" somehow.

More diversion, did you follow the links to credible news sources on the page? The page didn;'t hold any discussion on the topic, but links to others, that's what the site is for.
Why are you veering off the original topic? You know my view on the voting scandal, I think it was a scandal, and I've discussed it plenty before, but I'm not interested in discussing that here. All I want is to hear people's opinions on the title thread, and I'm not saying anything either way. If you want, I'll start another thread on it, but for now, let's keep this on topic please. Cheers.

[moki]

Originally posted by version:
Why are you veering off the original topic? You know my view on the voting scandal, I think it was a scandal, and I've discussed it plenty before, but I'm not interested in discussing that here.

Alright; I'd just be much more inclined to engage you in debate if you weren't stating unproven things as if they were true.

All I want is to hear people's opinions on the title thread, and I'm not saying anything either way. If you want, I'll start another thread on it, but for now, let's keep this on topic please. Cheers.

Fair enough, I'll end discussing this issue here.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
c'mon. That "WhatReallyHappened" web site belongs on the grassy knoll with black helicopters circling overhead. I'll assume you have no proof, or will claim it was "covered up" somehow.

sigh....so, Simey leaves and you're now in charge of derailing threads on "bias" and "partisan" sources?

It only takes one post to make your point, but you stretch it out over several? this isn't the only thread I'm reading this morning where you're doing this....here's a suggestion: Simply say ONCE: "I find your source biased" and then move on to the discussion at hand. That way, your objection is noted but you aren't bogging down the thread.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sigh....so, Simey leaves and you're now in charge of derailing threads on "bias" and "partisan" sources?

That sucks that he left; he seemed quite reasonable.

It only takes one post to make your point, but you stretch it out over several? this isn't the only thread I'm reading this morning where you're doing this....here's a suggestion: Simply say ONCE: "I find your source biased" and then move on to the discussion at hand. That way, your objection is noted but you aren't bogging down the thread.

It's called a discussion. He responded to my posts, and I responded to him.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sigh....so, Simey leaves and you're now in charge of derailing threads on "bias" and "partisan" sources?

It only takes one post to make your point, but you stretch it out over several? this isn't the only thread I'm reading this morning where you're doing this....here's a suggestion: Simply say ONCE: "I find your source biased" and then move on to the discussion at hand. That way, your objection is noted but you aren't bogging down the thread.

[Zimphire]

Another news source I can mark off as bird cage liner.

I was going to email the author some of this..



But he seems to have enough of it now.

[version]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Another news source I can mark off as bird cage liner.

I was going to email the author some of this..



But he seems to have enough of it now.

Oh dear, and now we see what exactly you consider a worthy news source, FOX maybe? The Guardian is a well respected broadsheet here, btw.

[Zimphire]

Well respected by whom? The leftist conspiracy theorists?

[Cooter]

...have the stories of Marines crushing in baby skulls with their jack boots it made online yet?

[finboy]

Originally posted by moki:
Can you please enumerate the unbiased, proven evidence that Bush engaged in "rigging the votes" in the USA?

Come on now, you KNOW they can't! You're just being silly! Please don't feed the (Leftist) trolls.

[version]

Originally posted by Cooter:
...have the stories of Marines crushing in baby skulls with their jack boots it made online yet?

how long have you got? Vietnam? How about some of the horrific stories from the Gulf War, which I witnessed?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by moki:
Can you please enumerate the unbiased, proven evidence that Bush engaged in "rigging the votes" in the USA?

I think rigging the votes would include pressuring election officials to count improper military absentee ballots.

This article was published in the New York Times: How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote.

Their goal was simple: to count the maximum number of overseas ballots in counties won by Mr. Bush, particularly those with a high concentration of military voters, while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties won by Vice President Al Gore.

A six-month investigation by The New York Times of this chapter in the closest presidential election in American history shows that the Republican effort had a decided impact. Under intense pressure from the Republicans, Florida officials accepted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state election laws.

[chris v]

This doesn't bode well.

CV

[rhombus]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Another news source I can mark off as bird cage liner.

Interestingly though, you didn't remind Moki that the Guardian was 'bird cage liner', when you praised his post in the 'Revealed: How Kelly article set out case for war in Iraq' thread, which was from a Guardian article, 7 minutes after you dismissed the Guardian in this thread.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by version:
Seems like rigging the votes in his own country isn't enough, how about Iraq now?


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...905936,00.html

The Neturei Karta should protest

[finboy]

Originally posted by version:
Seems like rigging the votes in his own country isn't enough, how about Iraq now?


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...905936,00.html

I guess everyone (including me) overlooked the facts on this, but it discusses UN votes, not Iraq votes, and it discusses a "memo" which has a questionable parentage. Wasn't this "NSA memo" debunked months ago?

I looked it up -- the "memo" was published using British words and spellings. I guess the NSA does that as part of its "spy stuff." On this one, once again, the media has no credibility.

FUD, indeed.

[Nonsuch]

Not apropos to the whole Bush-bashing thing, but this article from today's Salon is quite on point. It's an interview with Bev Harris, a journalist who's looked into Diebold, the US' largest provider of paperless voting technology. (Kudos to thunderous and others who've discussed this earlier.)

Tell me about the flaw you uncovered in the Diebold system.

Well, we uncovered a few problems in the memos, but the first one that we published specifically supported the flaw that I wrote about in July of 2003. And to my surprise these memos admitted they were aware of the flaw, and it was actually brought to their attention by Ciber labs -- which is a certifier -- in October 2001, and they made a decision not to fix it.

Specifically the flaw was that you can get at the central vote-counting database through Microsoft Access. They have the security disabled. And when you get in that way, you are able to overwrite the audit log, which is supposed to log the transactions, and this [audit log] is one of the key things they cite as a security measure when they sell the system.

So you can break in and then hide your tracks.

You don't even need to break in. It will open right up and in you go. You can change the votes and you can overwrite the audit trail. It doesn't keep any record of anything in the audit trail when you're in this back door, but let's say you went in the front door and you didn't want to have anything you did there appear anywhere -- you can then go in the backdoor and erase what you did.

Who would have access to this? Are we talking about elections officials?

A couple situations. Obviously anybody who has access to the computer, whether that's the election supervisor, their assistants, the IT people, the janitor -- anybody who has access to the computer can get into it.

The other situation would be supposing someone gets in by either hacking the telephone system or by going backwards in through the Internet, because the Internet does connect to these GEMS computers, even though they deny it. A lot of the press watches election results come in on the Web and what they're watching is actually being uploaded directly off the GEMS computer.

These computers in the counties are connected to the Internet, and someone can go through the Internet --

-- and just go into it, correct. It would be as the results are uploading. You see, they make a big point of the fact that there's no Internet connection to the voting machine, but that's sort of parsing the issue. That's true, in the polling places there's no Internet connection, but the voting machines connect into the GEMS machine through modem. And the GEMS machine then connects to the Internet, and that's what the press watches.

And somebody who knows about this can go to each one of those GEMS machines and have access to the vote and change the results?

Yes, as they're coming in.

What led you to believe that there might be this flaw in the first place?

Well I work with about 22 computer programmers who have been looking at this stuff -- I'm not that brilliant. Immediately when they began looking at the GEMS program they began commenting on the fact that it has no -- it's something called referential integrity. And what that means is that there are many different ways that it can become vulnerable to hacking. It has to do with how one part of the database is hooked into the next part.

I got a call from one of our more brilliant computer programmers -- he's got quite a few advanced degrees -- and he called me on a weekend and he said, "I want you to go to your computer." And he walked me through it just like a support tech does -- open this panel, click this, do this, do that. And as I'm doing this it was appalling how easy it was. Once you know the steps, a 10-year-old can rig an election. In fact it's so easy that one of our activists, Jim March in California, put together a "rig-a-vote" CD. He's been going around showing it to elections officials, and now this CD has been making its way to Congress members.

It's shocking. All you do is double-click the icon. You go backwards through the Internet to that county computer, and if you have Microsoft Access on your machine you can walk right into that election database while it's open. It's configured for multiple access at the same time. You can be in there changing things and you can change anything you want.

There's nothing -- no security in this?

No, in fact in the memo, [Ken Clark, an engineer at Diebold] says specifically that they decided not to put a password on it because it was proving useful. They were using the back door to do end runs around the voting program. And he named two places where they were doing this, Gaston County, N.C., and King County, Wash.

Right, in the memo he says, "King county is famous for it. That's why we've never put a password on the file before." What does that mean? Why would the counties find this useful?

I have no idea what they were doing. [But] because you can change anything on the database, they could have been doing anything, whether it was nefarious or just fixing a stupid thing that they had done. The problem is this: You should set up the program so that anything you do is going to be recorded and watched and audited -- it's official. There's nothing you can do that's legitimate by going into a back door that never records anything. If you need to go change some vote total because they came out wrong, that needs to be done publicly and the candidates should be aware of it. You don't do that by going into a back door.

Georgia used Diebold's touch-screen machines in 2002, right?

Yes.

And Georgia also had some wacky results, right?

They did. They had six upsets. The most famous one is Max Cleland [the Democratic senator and the incumbent]. That's because he was quite far ahead in the polls and an 11-point shift happened overnight and [Republican] Saxby Chambliss won instead. And the other upset that surprised people was Sonny Purdue, who was the first Republican governor elected in 134 years.

Do you think those elections were legitimate elections?

Well, I think that it was an illegal election in that they had no idea what software was on the machines at the time. Georgia was a situation where they had changed the software not once or twice but seven or eight times so it went through so many permutations without even being examined by anyone, and nobody has any idea what the machines did. [Harris says she confirmed these preelection changes to Diebold's software in conversations with Georgia voting officials, but Diebold denies that any changes were made. In February, Joseph Richardson, a spokesman for the company, told Salon: "We have analyzed that situation and have no indication of that happening at all."]

I do find this suspicious -- they have since scrubbed clean the flash memory [small cards that store the results from each touch-screen machine]. They've overwritten it with a whole new thing. What's amazing is you keep paper ballots for 22 months, and they're an awful lot bulkier than these credit card-size memory cards, but for some reason they felt compelled to get rid of them all. They have also overwritten all of the GEMS programs in the counting machines. They've gone through and overwritten everything in the state.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by finboy:
I guess everyone (including me) overlooked the facts on this, but it discusses UN votes, not Iraq votes, and it discusses a "memo" which has a questionable parentage. Wasn't this "NSA memo" debunked months ago?

I looked it up -- the "memo" was published using British words and spellings. I guess the NSA does that as part of its "spy stuff." On this one, once again, the media has no credibility.

FUD, indeed.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by finboy:
I guess everyone (including me) overlooked the facts on this, but it discusses UN votes, not Iraq votes, and it discusses a "memo" which has a questionable parentage. Wasn't this "NSA memo" debunked months ago?

I looked it up -- the "memo" was published using British words and spellings. I guess the NSA does that as part of its "spy stuff." On this one, once again, the media has no credibility.

FUD, indeed.

agreed.

Who posted this crap?

[version]

Originally posted by finboy:
I guess everyone (including me) overlooked the facts on this, but it discusses UN votes, not Iraq votes, and it discusses a "memo" which has a questionable parentage. Wasn't this "NSA memo" debunked months ago?

I looked it up -- the "memo" was published using British words and spellings. I guess the NSA does that as part of its "spy stuff." On this one, once again, the media has no credibility.

FUD, indeed.

Care to show me where it was debunked?

[gadster]

Originally posted by version:
Care to show me where it was debunked?

bunk
���������������

|
|
|
|
|
|
v
memo

There.
See?
Debunked hmmmmk?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
agreed.

Who posted this crap?

The same person that has been flooding the political forum with crap.

[version]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The same person that has been flooding the political forum with crap.

Aww, Zimphire, and I thought you and I were best buddies now? Nah, I've noticed a trend when someone like myself pposts something of contention, you don;t actually discuss, or critique the content of such posts, but rther the messenger, and use avoidance. Fair's fair I guess, when you you can't really back up an agenda with facts.

[Zimphire]

version, people aren't taking these threads seriously because they ARE SO RIDICULOUS. As many people have pointed out many times.

You can go on and on about people not arguing about your actual post all you want. People aren't going to argue silliness and absolute absurd ideals and conspiracy theories. They just point and laugh.

[version]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
version, people aren't taking these threads seriously because they ARE SO RIDICULOUS. As many people have pointed out many times.

You can go on and on about people not arguing about your actual post all you want. People aren't going to argue silliness and absolute absurd ideals and conspiracy theories. They just point and laugh.

Silliness? Bloody hell, and you think a topic on Ariel Sharon being blameless of a massacre is not riduclous? Most of the world seems to think he is a war criminal, and yet only you, Auto guy, adn a few ludicrous websites are proppign up complete garbage.

Also, my post on the activites of Bush on 9/11 was put down by you lot, but then it turned out that I was right, he did say those things, since they appeared on the Whitehouse website. So tell me, how can everythign I say be riduclous, when it seems that you are backign a more extreme form of denial than I am?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by version:
Silliness? Bloody hell, and you think a topic on Ariel Sharon being blameless of a massacre is not riduclous?

It has been proved over and over again there was no massacre. Yet you still persist. And you wonder why people ignore your rants.

Most of the world seems to think he is a war criminal, and yet only you, Auto guy, adn a few ludicrous websites are proppign up complete garbage.

Talk about complete garbage. Most of the world does not think he is a war criminal. Not from what I have seen. MacNN is not the norm. MacNN is actually a bizarro leftist ranting hole. It has ALWAYS been known to be.

Also, my post on the activites of Bush on 9/11 was put down by you lot, but then it turned out that I was right, he did say those things, since they appeared on the Whitehouse website. So tell me, how can everythign I say be riduclous, when it seems that you are backign a more extreme form of denial than I am?

It not what you post, it is what you are trying to IMPLY under said things. You take something, and then promote your own agenda into it. That is what we are picking on you about.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
MacNN is actually a bizarro leftist ranting hole. It has ALWAYS been known to be.

Known by whom? Bizzaro rightist ranting holes?

[tie]

Moki, you made three or four posts asking for evidence of vote rigging. BRussell posted evidence, then you started another thread about how criticism is anti-American. What's your response to the evidence?

[finboy]

Originally posted by tie:
Moki, you made three or four posts asking for evidence of vote rigging. BRussell posted evidence, then you started another thread about how criticism is anti-American. What's your response to the evidence?

I think you'd be more correct to say that BRussell pointed to a New York Times study and opinion about legally collected absentee ballots. After all, if they were illegally collected or applied, where's the indictment? NYT neglects to mention that part.


In fact, later in the same reference it mentions that:

The Times study found no evidence of vote fraud by either party. In particular, while
some voters admitted in interviews that they had cast illegal ballots after Election
Day, the investigation found no support for the suspicions of Democrats that the
Bush campaign had organized an effort to solicit late votes.

Oops.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Known by whom? Bizzaro rightist ranting holes?

Every other Mac forum I have been to. MacNN is KNOWN to be full of leftist nutjobs that hate Christians.

Even the Atheists say it.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Every other Mac forum I have been to.

List them.