Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA

[Larry Dighera]

Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA

It's about time:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebFlash Volume 12, Number 45b -- November 9, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------------

CHANGES IN CONGRESS WILL AFFECT GA, SAYS AOPA
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663)
On Tuesday, voters changed the balance of power in the U.S. House
of Representatives, and apparently the Senate, from Republican to
Democratic, and this will have a positive impact for pilots, says
AOPA President Phil Boyer
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/061108congress.html).
"Now we can be assured of a fair hearing from people who
understand aviation and aren't beholden to the White House," Boyer
said. Aviation user fees have been strongly pushed by the Bush
administration. But the power shift in the House will most likely
put Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., in charge of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he is a long-time
friend to GA, AOPA said yesterday.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663
So Boyer took offence at the prospect of paying (Jack Abramoff* and
Tom Delay**) to get his agenda before congress?


*
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-06-abramoff-bush_x.htm

**
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/05/bush_delay_give_back_abramoff_funds/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News

[Don Tabor]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:42:47 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
> Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA
>
>It's about time:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVwebFlash Volume 12, Number 45b -- November 9, 2006
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CHANGES IN CONGRESS WILL AFFECT GA, SAYS AOPA
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663)
> On Tuesday, voters changed the balance of power in the U.S. House
> of Representatives, and apparently the Senate, from Republican to
> Democratic, and this will have a positive impact for pilots, says
> AOPA President Phil Boyer


I fail to see how "winning" on the user fee issue is going to be that
much of a help if taxation, economic depression, "Fair Trade," and an
out of control EPA make GA unaffordable for all but the political and
entertainment elite.

Flying is expensive, and we can afford it only in a healthy economy.
The economics of the left work only in Fantasyland, and the Democrats
seem totally resistant to learning the lessons of history. Should they
really obtain a working majority (which has not yet happened), few of
us will be able to afford flying 10 years from now.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA
>
> It's about time:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVwebFlash Volume 12, Number 45b -- November 9, 2006
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CHANGES IN CONGRESS WILL AFFECT GA, SAYS AOPA
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663)
> On Tuesday, voters changed the balance of power in the U.S. House
> of Representatives, and apparently the Senate, from Republican to
> Democratic, and this will have a positive impact for pilots, says
> AOPA President Phil Boyer

Thanks - I needed a laugh.

(Dud: did you win anything?)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Phil]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA
>
> It's about time:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVwebFlash Volume 12, Number 45b -- November 9, 2006
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CHANGES IN CONGRESS WILL AFFECT GA, SAYS AOPA
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663)
> On Tuesday, voters changed the balance of power in the U.S. House
> of Representatives, and apparently the Senate, from Republican to
> Democratic, and this will have a positive impact for pilots, says
> AOPA President Phil Boyer
> (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/061108congress.html).
> "Now we can be assured of a fair hearing from people who
> understand aviation and aren't beholden to the White House," Boyer
> said. Aviation user fees have been strongly pushed by the Bush
> administration. But the power shift in the House will most likely
> put Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., in charge of the House
> Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he is a long-time
> friend to GA, AOPA said yesterday.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663
> So Boyer took offence at the prospect of paying (Jack Abramoff* and
> Tom Delay**) to get his agenda before congress?
>
>
> *
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-06-abramoff-bush_x.htm
>
> **
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/05/bush_delay_give_back_abramoff_funds/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News

Now if we could just get Boyer to hold news conferences on media
hysteria news blurbs (as in the Lidle SR into the high rise building)
some non-pilots might have more sympathy toward us.

Boyer was missing in action, as in the Meigs fiasco, when he should have
been upfront.

It's a waste of money to belong to the AOPA with him as leader.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>> Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA
>>
>>It's about time:
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> AVwebFlash Volume 12, Number 45b -- November 9, 2006
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> CHANGES IN CONGRESS WILL AFFECT GA, SAYS AOPA
>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193663)
>> On Tuesday, voters changed the balance of power in the U.S. House
>> of Representatives, and apparently the Senate, from Republican to
>> Democratic, and this will have a positive impact for pilots, says
>> AOPA President Phil Boyer
>
>
>I fail to see how "winning" on the user fee issue is going to be that
>much of a help if taxation, economic depression, "Fair Trade," and an
>out of control EPA make GA unaffordable for all but the political and
>entertainment elite.
>
>Flying is expensive, and we can afford it only in a healthy economy.
>The economics of the left work only in Fantasyland, and the Democrats
>seem totally resistant to learning the lessons of history. Should they
>really obtain a working majority (which has not yet happened), few of
>us will be able to afford flying 10 years from now.
>


I believe both views are mistaken.
Politics in flying (like politics in many, many things)is about personal
interest, and not ideological or financial issues. The best political
protection for GA is to have the greatest number of pilots in elected
office. They're about equally mixed between Republicans and Democrats -
If you want to go "single issue" on GA, vote for the guy with the plane!

GF

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:22:48 +0100, Greg Farris >
wrote in >:

>Politics in flying (like politics in many, many things)is about personal
>interest, and not ideological or financial issues.

That view overlooks the fact that the Bush administration is VERY pro
privatization of government functions. They've eliminated KP for the
troops. Private contractors make the meals, and they interrogate the
prisoners of war. Unlike US military personnel, they are not governed
by the Military Code of Justice.

>The best political
>protection for GA is to have the greatest number of pilots in elected
>office. They're about equally mixed between Republicans and Democrats -
>If you want to go "single issue" on GA, vote for the guy with the plane!

Bush is a pilot, but he doesn't seem to have any regard for his fellow
pilots' interests. Kerry seems to be more of a GOP secret weapon than
a pro aviation influence. :-)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> They've eliminated KP for the
> troops.

OHMYGAWD!!! when will it end?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Macklin]

With the change in Congress from "we will win" to "Yes,
Osama, we will cut and run" I expect an attack on NYC and DC
between Jan 4-20, 2007 and an attack in SoCal by March 19
that will force evacuation of much of SoCal [it will just be
a few satchels of high explosive on the right/wrong places].
All non-essential people and services will be ordered to
move. Food production and manufacturing will be stopped.
Only military and dock workers will be allowed to stay.
Recovery will take a year or more.

Boy, I really feel good about the election and the stupid
people who slept all the way through history class.



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:22:48 +0100, Greg Farris
>
| wrote in >:
|
| >Politics in flying (like politics in many, many things)is
about personal
| >interest, and not ideological or financial issues.
|
| That view overlooks the fact that the Bush administration
is VERY pro
| privatization of government functions. They've eliminated
KP for the
| troops. Private contractors make the meals, and they
interrogate the
| prisoners of war. Unlike US military personnel, they are
not governed
| by the Military Code of Justice.
|
| >The best political
| >protection for GA is to have the greatest number of
pilots in elected
| >office. They're about equally mixed between Republicans
and Democrats -
| >If you want to go "single issue" on GA, vote for the guy
with the plane!
|
| Bush is a pilot, but he doesn't seem to have any regard
for his fellow
| pilots' interests. Kerry seems to be more of a GOP secret
weapon than
| a pro aviation influence. :-)
|

[Jim Macklin]

BTW, another year or two of flight restrictions, closed
airports and background checks on every pilot, citizen or
not. And airplanes WON'T have been used in any way in these
attacks.




"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message ...
| With the change in Congress from "we will win" to "Yes,
| Osama, we will cut and run" I expect an attack on NYC and
DC
| between Jan 4-20, 2007 and an attack in SoCal by March 19
| that will force evacuation of much of SoCal [it will just
be
| a few satchels of high explosive on the right/wrong
places].
| All non-essential people and services will be ordered to
| move. Food production and manufacturing will be stopped.
| Only military and dock workers will be allowed to stay.
| Recovery will take a year or more.
|
| Boy, I really feel good about the election and the stupid
| people who slept all the way through history class.
|
|
|
| "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| ...
|| On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:22:48 +0100, Greg Farris
| >
|| wrote in >:
||
|| >Politics in flying (like politics in many, many
things)is
| about personal
|| >interest, and not ideological or financial issues.
||
|| That view overlooks the fact that the Bush administration
| is VERY pro
|| privatization of government functions. They've
eliminated
| KP for the
|| troops. Private contractors make the meals, and they
| interrogate the
|| prisoners of war. Unlike US military personnel, they are
| not governed
|| by the Military Code of Justice.
||
|| >The best political
|| >protection for GA is to have the greatest number of
| pilots in elected
|| >office. They're about equally mixed between Republicans
| and Democrats -
|| >If you want to go "single issue" on GA, vote for the guy
| with the plane!
||
|| Bush is a pilot, but he doesn't seem to have any regard
| for his fellow
|| pilots' interests. Kerry seems to be more of a GOP
secret
| weapon than
|| a pro aviation influence. :-)
||
|
|

[Jay Honeck]

> On Tuesday, voters changed the balance of power in the U.S. House
> of Representatives, and apparently the Senate, from Republican to
> Democratic, and this will have a positive impact for pilots, says
> AOPA President Phil Boyer

Actually, this makes a lot of sense.

With power split between the Dems and Reps, we will now return to the
golden days of gridlock, which is always better than what happens when
either party controls all three branches of government. With GA, we
certainly could use less governmental meddling, and the new political
situation almost guarantees that NOTHING will get done for at least the
next two years.

It's really amazing (to me) how the Democrats have become the ones
taking "No new taxes!" pledges, while the Republicans are now the "tax
& spend" party. IMHO, since both parties are now virtually
indistinguishable, the less done, the better.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[.Blueskies.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
:> On Tuesday, voters changed the balance of power in the U.S. House
: > of Representatives, and apparently the Senate, from Republican to
: > Democratic, and this will have a positive impact for pilots, says
: > AOPA President Phil Boyer
:
: Actually, this makes a lot of sense.
:
: With power split between the Dems and Reps, we will now return to the
: golden days of gridlock, which is always better than what happens when
: either party controls all three branches of government. With GA, we
: certainly could use less governmental meddling, and the new political
: situation almost guarantees that NOTHING will get done for at least the
: next two years.
:
: It's really amazing (to me) how the Democrats have become the ones
: taking "No new taxes!" pledges, while the Republicans are now the "tax
: & spend" party. IMHO, since both parties are now virtually
: indistinguishable, the less done, the better.
: --
: Jay Honeck
: Iowa City, IA
: Pathfinder N56993
: www.AlexisParkInn.com
: "Your Aviation Destination"
:

You are right on there Jay. Talk about flip flops. We do need a strong third political party, some sort of strong
leadership...

[Mxsmanic]

Don Tabor writes:

> Should they
> really obtain a working majority (which has not yet happened), few of
> us will be able to afford flying 10 years from now.

It's already unaffordable for the vast majority of the population, and
even those who claim to afford it generally spend less time each year
in an aircraft than they spend on the toilet, which hardly seems like
a significant amount of flying to me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John T[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com
>
> It's really amazing (to me) how the Democrats have become the ones
> taking "No new taxes!" pledges, while the Republicans are now the "tax
> & spend" party. IMHO, since both parties are now virtually
> indistinguishable, the less done, the better.

Like I've said, no matter which party wins, they all turn Democrat.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Jay Honeck]

> It's already unaffordable for the vast majority of the population, and
> even those who claim to afford it generally spend less time each year
> in an aircraft than they spend on the toilet, which hardly seems like
> a significant amount of flying to me.

Now THERE is a time study I've never seen before...

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

[Don Tabor]

On 9 Nov 2006 17:11:30 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>It's really amazing (to me) how the Democrats have become the ones
>taking "No new taxes!" pledges, while the Republicans are now the "tax
>& spend" party. IMHO, since both parties are now virtually
>indistinguishable, the less done, the better.

"We've been waiting for you."

The Libertarian Party, not the Air Force.

Don

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> With the change in Congress from "we will win" to "Yes,
> Osama, we will cut and run" I expect an attack on NYC and DC
> between Jan 4-20, 2007 and an attack in SoCal by March 19
> that will force evacuation of much of SoCal

Then, on July 4, Jesus will return and transport the Republican Party to
heaven.

--Gary

[Doug[_1_]]

The big Dem victory can be summed up in the following words, "Get us
out of this war!" The economy is fine, the foreign policy is tolerable
(excluding the war), but Bush got us into it, he now has a mandate to
get us out of it. If he doesn't the Republicans will see an even bigger
debacle in 2008.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The big Dem victory can be summed up in the following words, "Get us
> out of this war!" The economy is fine, the foreign policy is tolerable
> (excluding the war), but Bush got us into it, he now has a mandate to
> get us out of it. If he doesn't the Republicans will see an even bigger
> debacle in 2008.
>

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

[Super Dave]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > The big Dem victory can be summed up in the following words,
> > "Get us out of this war!" The economy is fine, the foreign
> > policy is tolerable (excluding the war), but Bush got us into
> > it, he now has a mandate to get us out of it. If he doesn't the
> > Republicans will see an even bigger debacle in 2008.
> >
>
> 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.

[fromTheShadows[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> We got into this war with attacks on NY and DC. What is your evidence that
> Bush was responsible for those attacks?
>

There's about as much evidence that Bush was involved as there is that
Iraq/Saddam was involved.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Super Dave" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> 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.
>

Same war, different theaters.

[Jose[_1_]]

> 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Only if you buy the PR.
>

Actually, you have to buy the PR to believe they are different wars.

[Jim Macklin]

I doubt that Jesus will ever return, that is just religious
superstition.



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > With the change in Congress from "we will win" to "Yes,
| > Osama, we will cut and run" I expect an attack on NYC
and DC
| > between Jan 4-20, 2007 and an attack in SoCal by March
19
| > that will force evacuation of much of SoCal
|
| Then, on July 4, Jesus will return and transport the
Republican Party to
| heaven.
|
| --Gary
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

The German's did not attack the USA in 1941.



"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.

[Jim Macklin]

good point.


media spin by the liberal press.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
nk.net...
|
| "Jose" > wrote in message
| t...
| >
| > Only if you buy the PR.
| >
|
| Actually, you have to buy the PR to believe they are
different wars.
|
|

[RST Engineering]

"need...strong...leadersh "

....snort, whinny, the old warhorse is ready for another political battle ...
stand by America, here I come \\\

{;-)


Jim



".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. ..


> You are right on there Jay. Talk about flip flops. We do need a strong
> third political party, some sort of strong
> leadership...
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> The German's did not attack the USA in 1941.
>

No, but they did declare war on the USA.

[Doug[_1_]]

It doesn't matter what you believe or history or the "facts" are. The
majority of voters went into the voting booth and said "lets send the
president (and his supporters) a message". Kachung!

[Jim Macklin]

The whole Muslim terrorist world has declared war on the
USA.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > The German's did not attack the USA in 1941.
| >
|
| No, but they did declare war on the USA.
|
|

[Don Tabor]

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.

Their short term goal is to unify the Arabian Peninsula and Central
Asia by driving the West out and leaving the Western friendly regimes
like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to conquest and future use as
economic weapons of intimidation.

Their strategy is to subject us to an endless sequence of 9/11 and
Madrid type attacks until we acquiesce and stand aside while they take
control of a large part of the world petroleum supply by force.

Simply driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan would do no good. The
leaders would simply relocate to Iran and Iraq and other havens while
their troops simply melted away into the tribal areas of Pakistan
until we left. Quite simply, they could afford to lose Afghanistan for
a decade or so, and they are patient.

So, we had to take the war some place they could not afford to lose.
Iraq filled that bill in both location and population. A capitalist,
secular and self-governing Iraq in the middle of the feudal Islamic
world was intolerable, and its success would have spread to
neighboring countries as the miracle of the rule of law and capitalism
raised the Iraqi standard of living beyond anything Islam has to
offer. They had to come out and fight or their strategy would be
defeated. That is why we went to Iraq, to make them meet us in the
kind of war we can win.

This war has not been well managed. We are simply too civilized to do
what is expected in that part of the world. Al-Sadr and his militia
should have been utterly wiped out at the first instance of resistance
early in the occupation. Likewise, Falujah should have been flattened.
Those would have seemed harsh initally, but in the long run, lives
would have been saved and the new government would have been
stabilized.

Now, if we leave in defeat, they are back on their game plan and we
can expect more 9/11's until we withdraw completely and let them have
Kuwait and SA. I don't think we have the unity now to prevail.

That is the price of underestimating the ability of the American
people to understand the big picture. Had bush laid all this out in
the first place, explained the stakes and the strategy from the
beginning instead of all the lawyer talk about UN resolutions and
other foolishness used to justify an unspoken strategic plan, I
believe the people would have stood by the plan as long as it takes.
No, I am afraid we will withdraw and let them build strength until my
children and grandchildren are forced to choose between Sharia and
nuclear war.

Don

[Jim Macklin]

I worked the polls all day on Nov 7. I've got to tell you
that a very large number of the voters [even in an up scale
educated area] are idiots. As an example, after explaining
a woman that there were four pages on the ballot and the
VOTE button would be in-active until she had looked at and
voted on each page and then that the machine would require
that she review all four pages and vote again and then
confirm that she had voted the way she wanted before the
machine would actually register her vote. I asked her if
she had any questions and she said "No." A few minutes
later I saw her standing at the machine with a perplexed
look. I went over and asked if she had a problem or a
question. She said "The machine didn't let me vote!"
She had just scrolled through all four pages, not made any
selections, pushed VOTE. Then she reviewed her blank ballot
and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question and
pressed the CONFIRM button.

We gave her a provisional ballot, which then had the reason
that she had voted a blank on the machine. I doubt that the
ballot will be counted, since there were no close races and
she did vote. I would have said that these new machines
would make a "Palm Beach" ballot impossible this woman
proved again that idiots can break any machine or system.



"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| It doesn't matter what you believe or history or the
"facts" are. The
| majority of voters went into the voting booth and said
"lets send the
| president (and his supporters) a message". Kachung!
|

[Newps]

Don Tabor wrote:

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


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:58:15 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>:

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

With all due respect, please explicitly express (your version of) the
facts that lead you to believe that there is a link between the
attacks you mention and the botched vendetta Bush is executing in
Iraq.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:27 GMT, "Super Dave" >
wrote in t>:

>Iraq was the result of stupidity on the part of our fearless leaders,

Never underestimate the influence of avarice on political decisions.

>and the stupidity of the populace that supports those leaders.

That reminds me of a Bill Maher quote:

The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

[DonSideB]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>Don Tabor wrote:
>
>>
>> So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
>> Pearl Harbor?
>
>
>Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.

When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
place of their choosing.

Don

DonSideB

Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

[A. Sinan Unur]

Martin Hotze > wrote in :

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>> Then she reviewed her blank ballot
>> and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question and
>> pressed the CONFIRM button.
>
>
> So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
> means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?

Read carefully: That is exactly what she did but she did not know she was
doing that and she was complaining that the machine registered her
"white" vote even though she confirmed that is indeed what she wanted to
do.

She was given a provisional ballot because she wanted to change her vote.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur >
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

[Don Tabor]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>Don Tabor wrote:
>
>>
>> So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
>> Pearl Harbor?
>
>
>Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.

When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
place of their choosing.

Don

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>
>>Then she reviewed her blank ballot
>>and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question and
>>pressed the CONFIRM button.
>
>
>
> So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
> means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?

What is the purpose of that?

Matt

[Newps]

Don Tabor wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Don Tabor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
>>>Pearl Harbor?
>>
>>
>>Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?
>
>
> A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
> Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.
>
> When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
> after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
> led us.
>
> We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
> place of their choosing.

Normandy is in France. Why would the French bomb Pearl Harbor? By the
way we attacked the Japanese at many locations before doing any serious
damage to the Germans. We agreed with our other Allies to defeat the
Germans first even though Japan was a much more dangerous enemy to us at
the time. The only way the Germans were going to be defeated was to
have the Russians do the lions share of the fighting and dying.

[Sylvain]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>> So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
>> means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
>
> What is the purpose of that?

Expressing your opinion. That's pretty much the point of the
whole voting thing.

--Sylvain

[Jay Honeck]

> I worked the polls all day on Nov 7. I've got to tell you
> that a very large number of the voters [even in an up scale
> educated area] are idiots. As an example, after explaining
> a woman that there were four pages on the ballot and the
> VOTE button would be in-active until she had looked at and

<Snip of incredible story>

Here in Iowa, for the first time, we had the choice of voting either
electronically, using a bone-simple touch screen, or on paper.

Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose to vote
electronically, while everyone else in this VERY left-wing area (the
last Republican elected here was in 1957) chose paper -- no doubt
because of all the liberal media gibberish about how the Republicans
were going to "steal" the election by using Diebold's computers...

What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people who voted on
paper were then directed (as always) to feed their ballot into a (you
guessed it!) computer tabulator! I just about died laughing.

My night manager, after being told this story, went to vote in a
different precinct. He had to *ask* to vote electronically, and their
response was "Why would you want to do *that*?" They were actively
discouraging the use of the new system.

And, as usual, no attempt was made to verify that I was, indeed, the
voter I said I was. Once again, I could easily have voted multiple
times, in multiple precincts. Yet we're spending thousands
(millions?) of dollars "tightening up the system" by investing in
computerized voting machines.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> >We got into this war with attacks on NY and DC. What is your evidence that
> >Bush was responsible for those attacks?
>
> With all due respect, please explicitly express (your version of) the
> facts that lead you to believe that there is a link between the
> attacks you mention and the botched vendetta Bush is executing in
> Iraq.

Now THIS should be fun!

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

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> The whole Muslim terrorist world has declared war on the
> USA.

There are only a handful of Muslim terrorists in the world, and they
don't represent a sovereign state, so they cannot formally declare
war.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, that is exactly what the woman did, but she wanted to
vote for somebody. I suspect she was a dimocrat.



"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Then she reviewed her blank ballot
| > and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question
and
| > pressed the CONFIRM button.
|
|
| So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called
here)?
| means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
|
| #m
| --
| I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Jim Macklin]

Clear to me. He's saying that Normandy France did not
attack England or the USA, so how could we kill all those
innocent French citizens while claiming to be fighting the
war on socialism, aka NAZI.



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Don Tabor wrote:
|
| >
| > So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy
did not bomb
| > Pearl Harbor?
|
|
| Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?
|

[Gary Drescher]

"DonSideB" > wrote in message
...
> When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
> after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
> led us.

Uh, no. Japan attacked the US. The following day, the US declared war on
Japan. Three days later, Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US.

In contrast, Iraq's conduct in the aftermath of 9/11 included neither a
declaration of war on the US, nor an invasion of the US. The strongest link
you appear to be making between Iraq and the 9/11 attackers is that they
share the same religion. They were in fact enemies of one another, not
allies; Saddam Hussein was precisely the sort of secular, US-supported Arab
ruler that al Qaeda despised.

> Their ultimate goal is to unify Islam under a restored Caliphate and
> proceed on their god given mission of world domination.

Uh, can you attribute that goal to *Iraq*? On what evidence? "Protocols of
the Elders of Islam"?

> Likewise, Falujah should have been flattened.

It is trivial to rationalize whatever mass atrocities you'd like to commit
if you allow yourself to simply proclaim, without evidence, what your
targets' motives and plans are.

--Gary

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>
>>The whole Muslim terrorist world has declared war on the
>>USA.
>
>
> There are only a handful of Muslim terrorists in the world, and they
> don't represent a sovereign state, so they cannot formally declare
> war.


>

Your ability to completely and utterly miss a point is astounding.

[Jim Macklin]

NONE of the ABOVE

The machine requires that you at least view each page of the
ballot, but you are never obligated to vote for anyone. The
machine won't let you vote for more candidates for any
office than are allowed.

The machines we use in Sedgwick County, Kansas are
iVotronic.
A demo
http://elections.co.lake.fl.us/ivotronic_voting_demo.asp

http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/elections/index.html


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Martin Hotze wrote:
|
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
| >
| >
| >>Then she reviewed her blank ballot
| >>and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question
and
| >>pressed the CONFIRM button.
| >
| >
| >
| > So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called
here)?
| > means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
|
| What is the purpose of that?
|
| Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Sylvain wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
>>>means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
>>
>>What is the purpose of that?
>
>
> Expressing your opinion. That's pretty much the point of the
> whole voting thing.

You can express the "do nothing" opinion by staying home. I can see
this if they are just voting to maintain their registration to vote in
future elections. However, as a political statement, it is pretty much
a waste of time. Not voting at all sends nearly the same message.


Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
>>>>means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
>>>
>>>What is the purpose of that?
>>
>> Expressing your opinion. That's pretty much the point of the
>> whole voting thing.
>
> You can express the "do nothing" opinion by staying home. I can see this
> if they are just voting to maintain their registration to vote in future
> elections. However, as a political statement, it is pretty much a waste
> of time. Not voting at all sends nearly the same message.

Hardly. Not voting at all is indistinguishable from apathy or laziness; many
who don't vote are simply content with any likely outcome. In contrast, a
blank vote (or voting for a protest candidate) shows an affirmative effort
to express dissatisfaction. If "blank" were to receive a majority of the
votes cast, the message would be profoundly different than if most people
just stayed home.

--Gary

[Jim Macklin]

The machines we use keeps two paper records and two
electronic records. Only the sworn poll clerk has the
device needed to turn a machine on and that is for each
voter.
We also have paper ballots and the scanner. The point is
that canvassing clerks can look at and count paper if there
is a need to recount.

Here is a video instruction
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/elections/index.html link on
the page.

If you have honest poll workers, you'll get honest
elections. If you have crooks, any method will get crooked
results.




"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> I worked the polls all day on Nov 7. I've got to tell
you
| > that a very large number of the voters [even in an up
scale
| > educated area] are idiots. As an example, after
explaining
| > a woman that there were four pages on the ballot and the
| > VOTE button would be in-active until she had looked at
and
|
| <Snip of incredible story>
|
| Here in Iowa, for the first time, we had the choice of
voting either
| electronically, using a bone-simple touch screen, or on
paper.
|
| Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose
to vote
| electronically, while everyone else in this VERY left-wing
area (the
| last Republican elected here was in 1957) chose paper --
no doubt
| because of all the liberal media gibberish about how the
Republicans
| were going to "steal" the election by using Diebold's
computers...
|
| What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people who
voted on
| paper were then directed (as always) to feed their ballot
into a (you
| guessed it!) computer tabulator! I just about died
laughing.
|
| My night manager, after being told this story, went to
vote in a
| different precinct. He had to *ask* to vote
electronically, and their
| response was "Why would you want to do *that*?" They
were actively
| discouraging the use of the new system.
|
| And, as usual, no attempt was made to verify that I was,
indeed, the
| voter I said I was. Once again, I could easily have voted
multiple
| times, in multiple precincts. Yet we're spending
thousands
| (millions?) of dollars "tightening up the system" by
investing in
| computerized voting machines.
|
| It is to weep.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Sylvain]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> You can express the "do nothing" opinion by staying home. I can see
> this if they are just voting to maintain their registration to vote in
> future elections. However, as a political statement, it is pretty much
> a waste of time. Not voting at all sends nearly the same message.

bow do you know the difference between someone who did stay home because
they thought about the issues, and reject all the choices put before them,
and the folks who did stay home out of apathy or laziness?

You are unfortunately right in saying that voting 'none of the above' is
a waste of time, since it is not counted differently but it certainly
ought to be.

--Sylvain

[RST Engineering]

One of the minor party planks is to have a "none of the above" choice for
any office. My bet is that half of the congressional seats in this race
would have been won by None Of The Above.

Jim



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...


>
> Hardly. Not voting at all is indistinguishable from apathy or laziness;
> many who don't vote are simply content with any likely outcome. In
> contrast, a blank vote (or voting for a protest candidate) shows an
> affirmative effort to express dissatisfaction. If "blank" were to receive
> a majority of the votes cast, the message would be profoundly different
> than if most people just stayed home.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose to vote
> electronically, while everyone else in this VERY left-wing area (the
> last Republican elected here was in 1957) chose paper -- no doubt
> because of all the liberal media gibberish about how the Republicans
> were going to "steal" the election by using Diebold's computers...

it is not gibberish that these machine are unreliable, and so easily
hacked that a chimpanzee can do it (as it has been demonstrated); I would
certainly never accept using these pieces of crap to vote -- note: I know
a thing or two about computer science -- and would use paper if given
a chance if only as a form of protest; the sooner these machines are
taken offline and discarded, the better, and one way to achieve this
is to refuse using them.

>
> What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people who voted on
> paper were then directed (as always) to feed their ballot into a (you
> guessed it!) computer tabulator! I just about died laughing.

except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need be, since
they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your* vote...


--Sylvain

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Martin Hotze > posted:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>> Then she reviewed her blank ballot
>> and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question and
>> pressed the CONFIRM button.
>
>
> So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
> means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
>
If I read Jim's message correctly, that is exactly what this woman did. A
decently designed user interface would alert the voter that they are about
to do such things. However, Diebold has convinced me that they can't
design decent hardware *or* software. I'm just very glad that they aren't
involved in aviation.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Newps > posted:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>>
>>
>>> The whole Muslim terrorist world has declared war on the
>>> USA.
>>
>>
>> There are only a handful of Muslim terrorists in the world, and they
>> don't represent a sovereign state, so they cannot formally declare
>> war.
>
> Your ability to completely and utterly miss a point is astounding.
>
On this, I think Mxsmanic's point is right on target. "The whole Muslim
terrorist world..." can most likely be counted in the thousands, and they
don't represent (nor are they represented by) a sovereign state. Of
course, now there are a lot of "normal Muslims" that are rather ticked off
at the inept manner in which we are dealing with those few terrorists, and
that doesn't help matters any.

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need be, since
> they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your* vote...

The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my vote, which was
verified by the operator.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> "We've been waiting for you."
>
> The Libertarian Party, not the Air Force.

Actually, Don, I'm still waiting for *them*...to find candidates that
can be elected to ANYTHING.

Of course, that's a "chicken-and-egg" problem of the highest order.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:00:39 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>One of the minor party planks is to have a "none of the above" choice for
>any office. My bet is that half of the congressional seats in this race
>would have been won by None Of The Above.
>
How about "yes, but" and "only if" options on the measures?

Don

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:04:38 -0800, Sylvain > wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose to vote
>> electronically, while everyone else in this VERY left-wing area (the
>> last Republican elected here was in 1957) chose paper -- no doubt
>> because of all the liberal media gibberish about how the Republicans
>> were going to "steal" the election by using Diebold's computers...
>
>it is not gibberish that these machine are unreliable, and so easily
>hacked that a chimpanzee can do it (as it has been demonstrated); I would
>certainly never accept using these pieces of crap to vote -- note: I know
>a thing or two about computer science -- and would use paper if given
>a chance if only as a form of protest; the sooner these machines are
>taken offline and discarded, the better, and one way to achieve this
>is to refuse using them.
>
>>
>> What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people who voted on
>> paper were then directed (as always) to feed their ballot into a (you
>> guessed it!) computer tabulator! I just about died laughing.
>
>except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need be, since
>they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your* vote...
>
There was a machine at my precinct, along with six tables for marking
paper ballots. There was also a guy there to help people use the
machine.

The guy in line ahead of me requested the machine, so I took a paper
ballot. While I was coloring inside the lines, I could hear the
dialog at the machine. When I left, the two guys were still trying to
back out of a Cinese ballot and get one in English. (The guy in front
of me was NOT identifiably Chinese.)

Apparently, once the Chinese ballot was selected, accidentally or not,
you couldn't get of it. It had to be voted. Otherwise, it was an
invitation to voter fraud.

Beta testing? You could have caught THAT with a walk-through!

Don

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need be, since
>> they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your* vote...
>
> The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my vote, which was
> verified by the operator.


which model of machine were you using? are you saying that you do
not have private voting in your location and that the operator actually
get to see what each voter did? that sounds odd. From what I understand
of the touch screen machines, the thing prints out an initial tape when
booted up, that is supposed to show that no vote has been entered (but
is in fact meaningless as have been demonstrated multiple times) and then
another tape at the end of the poll that shows a tally of the votes entered
(and which of course can easily be faked as well); but no print out of
individual votes...

--Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

The iVotronic machine prints a random [secret] paper tape of
every action the machine takes. It also records each vote
electronically. The "zero tape" and closing paper tapes
also show the totals. These can be checked by people to
that the totals add up, from the signatures in the register
book, to the individual machine and the collected reports.
Just like double entry bookkeeping, it gives a cross
reference for each operation. But to identify an individual
voters VOTE, would be very difficult.

As a result of ballot secrecy, I don't "know" that any of
the ballots I have cast since 1967 has ever actually been
counted. I have been the first voter at a precinct and was
asked to look inside all the ballot boxes just so if there
was a question, I could say they were empty. I have worked
a half dozen elections, some with one kind of machine or
another and now two with the iVotronic machines.

The biggest problem with voting is, stupid voters who don't
pay any attention until two days before the election.




"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
| Jay Honeck wrote:
|
| >> except that these voters' votes can be recounted if
need be, since
| >> they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your*
vote...
| >
| > The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my
vote, which was
| > verified by the operator.
|
|
| which model of machine were you using? are you saying
that you do
| not have private voting in your location and that the
operator actually
| get to see what each voter did? that sounds odd. From
what I understand
| of the touch screen machines, the thing prints out an
initial tape when
| booted up, that is supposed to show that no vote has been
entered (but
| is in fact meaningless as have been demonstrated multiple
times) and then
| another tape at the end of the poll that shows a tally of
the votes entered
| (and which of course can easily be faked as well); but
no print out of
| individual votes...
|
| --Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

On the iVotronic machine, a judge or clerk can insert the
PEB [looks like a game cartridge] and the machine will offer
the chance to cancel the current ballot. It requires
several steps, and has a list of reasons, such as voter
request, machine errors and such. The actions are recorded
on paper and the vote tally is reset down one. Then you
re-insert the PEB and get the voter the correct ballot.


"Don Tuite" > wrote in
message ...
| On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:04:38 -0800, Sylvain >
wrote:
|
| >Jay Honeck wrote:
| >
| >> Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to
choose to vote
| >> electronically, while everyone else in this VERY
left-wing area (the
| >> last Republican elected here was in 1957) chose
paper -- no doubt
| >> because of all the liberal media gibberish about how
the Republicans
| >> were going to "steal" the election by using Diebold's
computers...
| >
| >it is not gibberish that these machine are unreliable,
and so easily
| >hacked that a chimpanzee can do it (as it has been
demonstrated); I would
| >certainly never accept using these pieces of crap to
vote -- note: I know
| >a thing or two about computer science -- and would use
paper if given
| >a chance if only as a form of protest; the sooner these
machines are
| >taken offline and discarded, the better, and one way to
achieve this
| >is to refuse using them.
| >
| >>
| >> What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people
who voted on
| >> paper were then directed (as always) to feed their
ballot into a (you
| >> guessed it!) computer tabulator! I just about died
laughing.
| >
| >except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need
be, since
| >they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your*
vote...
| >
| There was a machine at my precinct, along with six tables
for marking
| paper ballots. There was also a guy there to help people
use the
| machine.
|
| The guy in line ahead of me requested the machine, so I
took a paper
| ballot. While I was coloring inside the lines, I could
hear the
| dialog at the machine. When I left, the two guys were
still trying to
| back out of a Cinese ballot and get one in English. (The
guy in front
| of me was NOT identifiably Chinese.)
|
| Apparently, once the Chinese ballot was selected,
accidentally or not,
| you couldn't get of it. It had to be voted. Otherwise, it
was an
| invitation to voter fraud.
|
| Beta testing? You could have caught THAT with a
walk-through!
|
| Don
|

[Jim Macklin]

It is not a Diebold machine and it does clearly show the
ballot twice and it does require the voter verify the ballot
is as they want it three times. Stupid people should not
breed or vote.



"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
| Recently, Martin Hotze > posted:
|
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
| >
| >> Then she reviewed her blank ballot
| >> and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question
and
| >> pressed the CONFIRM button.
| >
| >
| > So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called
here)?
| > means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
| >
| If I read Jim's message correctly, that is exactly what
this woman did. A
| decently designed user interface would alert the voter
that they are about
| to do such things. However, Diebold has convinced me that
they can't
| design decent hardware *or* software. I'm just very glad
that they aren't
| involved in aviation.
|
| Neil
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

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.



"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
| Recently, Newps > posted:
|
| > Mxsmanic wrote:
| >> "Jim Macklin" >
writes:
| >>
| >>
| >>> The whole Muslim terrorist world has declared war on
the
| >>> USA.
| >>
| >>
| >> There are only a handful of Muslim terrorists in the
world, and they
| >> don't represent a sovereign state, so they cannot
formally declare
| >> war.
| >
| > Your ability to completely and utterly miss a point is
astounding.
| >
| On this, I think Mxsmanic's point is right on target. "The
whole Muslim
| terrorist world..." can most likely be counted in the
thousands, and they
| don't represent (nor are they represented by) a sovereign
state. Of
| course, now there are a lot of "normal Muslims" that are
rather ticked off
| at the inept manner in which we are dealing with those few
terrorists, and
| that doesn't help matters any.
|
| Neil
|
|

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> It is not a Diebold machine and it does clearly show the
> ballot twice and it does require the voter verify the ballot
> is as they want it three times. Stupid people should not
> breed or vote.

"You can't fix stupid"

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

> Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose to vote
> electronically...

Is there a paper trail? How is a recount of electronic votes done with
those electronic voting machines?

> What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people who voted on
> paper were then directed (as always) to feed their ballot into a (you
> guessed it!) computer tabulator!

.... but the paper still exists, and can be counted by trained monkeys if
there is a question.

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.

[Jose[_1_]]

> You can express the "do nothing" opinion by staying home.

Actually, in races where winning requires (say) a majority of votes
cast, rather than a plurality, voting white makes it harder for a
winning candidate to win.

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.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my vote, which was
> verified by the operator.

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?)

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.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> 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.

The figure is probably closer to one in a million. There are only a
few thousand Muslim terrorists in the world.

> Surveys have put the number as high as 10-25% of
> the Muslims supporting the terrorists.

Support comes in many forms; simply being sympathetic to the cause of
a terrorist is not the same as being a terrorist.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:31:12 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>>>>So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
>>>>means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
>>>
>>>What is the purpose of that?
>>
>>
>> Expressing your opinion. That's pretty much the point of the
>> whole voting thing.
>
>You can express the "do nothing" opinion by staying home. I can see
>this if they are just voting to maintain their registration to vote in
>future elections. However, as a political statement, it is pretty much
>a waste of time. Not voting at all sends nearly the same message.

at least here the percentage on how many seats go to which party is
determined on the quote of votes based on the total given votes.
If you don't vote you indirectly support the party with the most votes,
because then the percentage calculation is in their favour (and is bad for
the smaller parties). Voting without actually giving one party a vote
expresses that you are interested in the democratic process itself but that
you are generally disappointed in choices given to you. And you don't
indirectly support the party with the most votes (see above).

but here we have more than 2 or 3 parties to chose from and the election
system itself is more direct voting.

>Matt

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:59:43 -0800, Sylvain wrote:

>You are unfortunately right in saying that voting 'none of the above' is
>a waste of time, since it is not counted differently but it certainly
>ought to be.

see my other post. at least here it makes a difference.

>--Sylvain

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

[Martin Hotze]

On 10 Nov 2006 13:05:40 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

>It is to weep.

true. but for different reasons.

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

[Martin Hotze]

On 10 Nov 2006 14:29:25 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need be, since
>> they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your* vote...
>
>The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my vote, which was
>verified by the operator.

so the operator checked after every single vote?

so he knew what you voted. nice.

but did he show you the print and ask you to verify that you voted for X or
Y? how will you know? are do you simply _trust_ the machine?

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

[Stefan]

Martin Hotze schrieb:

> but here we have more than 2 or 3 parties to chose from and the election
> system itself is more direct voting.

Actually, this doesn't matter. Here where I live, there was recently an
election with only *one* candidate. Everybody thought that this election
was pretty much a joke. But the majority of the voters didn't just stay
at home, but rather voted "blank", resulting in this only candidate not
being elected. Sometimes, democracy actually works.

Stefan

[Neil Gould]

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:20:22 +0100, Stefan wrote:

>But the majority of the voters didn't just stay
>at home, but rather voted "blank", resulting in this only candidate not
>being elected. Sometimes, democracy actually works.

hmmm. With only one candidate thre would only be one vote required. Except
the voting system requires something like "more than 50% of all votes". But
IMHO this is a rather unusual voting system. Mostly it is "highest
percentage of all votes".

>Stefan

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

[Don Poitras]

Don Tabor > wrote:
> 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.

Or maybe he realized that most people would think this "real strategy" was
even crazier.

> 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.

British had the same problem. Darn Americans just wouldn't stand up
in a line to get shot at.

> 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.

Won't they have to share the world with the commies?

> Their short term goal is to unify the Arabian Peninsula and Central
> Asia by driving the West out and leaving the Western friendly regimes
> like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to conquest and future use as
> economic weapons of intimidation.

Did they publish a manifesto? I really only believe in conspiracies that
have a really rousing manifesto.

> Their strategy is to subject us to an endless sequence of 9/11 and
> Madrid type attacks until we acquiesce and stand aside while they take
> control of a large part of the world petroleum supply by force.

Won't they have trouble running the refineries if they can't produce a
turbojet engine?

> Simply driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan would do no good. The
> leaders would simply relocate to Iran and Iraq and other havens while
> their troops simply melted away into the tribal areas of Pakistan
> until we left. Quite simply, they could afford to lose Afghanistan for
> a decade or so, and they are patient.

This part turned out to be true. Killing lots of people in Afghanistan
didn't seem to help much. Why that means that killing more people in
more places would be better is unclear.

> So, we had to take the war some place they could not afford to lose.
> Iraq filled that bill in both location and population. A capitalist,
> secular and self-governing Iraq in the middle of the feudal Islamic
> world was intolerable, and its success would have spread to
> neighboring countries as the miracle of the rule of law and capitalism
> raised the Iraqi standard of living beyond anything Islam has to
> offer. They had to come out and fight or their strategy would be
> defeated. That is why we went to Iraq, to make them meet us in the
> kind of war we can win.

You really don't see anything wrong with waging war on a country that
was no threat to you at all just so you could gather some jihadis in
one spot so you could blow them up? You don't think our track record
in setting up peaceful puppet governments since WWII makes this rosy
outcome a tad far-fetched?

> This war has not been well managed. We are simply too civilized to do
> what is expected in that part of the world. Al-Sadr and his militia
> should have been utterly wiped out at the first instance of resistance
> early in the occupation. Likewise, Falujah should have been flattened.
> Those would have seemed harsh initally, but in the long run, lives
> would have been saved and the new government would have been
> stabilized.

And we would have "won" in Vietnam if we had only bombed them back to
the stone age. Why oh why do they hate us?

> Now, if we leave in defeat, they are back on their game plan and we
> can expect more 9/11's until we withdraw completely and let them have
> Kuwait and SA. I don't think we have the unity now to prevail.

So you're saying that if we leave Kuwait and SA we _won't_ have more
911's? Excellent advice.

> That is the price of underestimating the ability of the American
> people to understand the big picture. Had bush laid all this out in
> the first place, explained the stakes and the strategy from the
> beginning instead of all the lawyer talk about UN resolutions and
> other foolishness used to justify an unspoken strategic plan, I
> believe the people would have stood by the plan as long as it takes.
> No, I am afraid we will withdraw and let them build strength until my
> children and grandchildren are forced to choose between Sharia and
> nuclear war.

Or perhaps we could have debated that war is serious business and he
better think again if he thinks we're going to slaughter innocent lives
because he's got some racist paranoid delusion that all muslims are
out to get us and it's us or them.

> Don

--
Don Poitras

[Jay Honeck]

> 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. Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:31:12 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>>>So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
>>>>>means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
>>>>
>>>>What is the purpose of that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Expressing your opinion. That's pretty much the point of the
>>>whole voting thing.
>>
>>You can express the "do nothing" opinion by staying home. I can see
>>this if they are just voting to maintain their registration to vote in
>>future elections. However, as a political statement, it is pretty much
>>a waste of time. Not voting at all sends nearly the same message.
>
>
> at least here the percentage on how many seats go to which party is
> determined on the quote of votes based on the total given votes.
> If you don't vote you indirectly support the party with the most votes,
> because then the percentage calculation is in their favour (and is bad for
> the smaller parties). Voting without actually giving one party a vote
> expresses that you are interested in the democratic process itself but that
> you are generally disappointed in choices given to you. And you don't
> indirectly support the party with the most votes (see above).

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

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> Martin Hotze schrieb:
>
>> but here we have more than 2 or 3 parties to chose from and the election
>> system itself is more direct voting.
>
>
> Actually, this doesn't matter. Here where I live, there was recently an
> election with only *one* candidate. Everybody thought that this election
> was pretty much a joke. But the majority of the voters didn't just stay
> at home, but rather voted "blank", resulting in this only candidate not
> being elected. Sometimes, democracy actually works.

So, does the previous office holder than just remain in office? Or do
you have a vacant office until the next election?

Matt

[.Blueskies.]

"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...

[Don Tabor]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:56:14 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Poitras) wrote:

>> 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.
>
>Won't they have to share the world with the commies?
>
>> Their short term goal is to unify the Arabian Peninsula and Central
>> Asia by driving the West out and leaving the Western friendly regimes
>> like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to conquest and future use as
>> economic weapons of intimidation.
>
>Did they publish a manifesto? I really only believe in conspiracies that
>have a really rousing manifesto.


Actually, Osma Bin Laden has stated this plan quite clearly on many
occasions.

Iran's President Adbaashcan has said pretty much the same thing,
adding an apocalyptic 12th Iman to the finale.

It's not exactly a secret. They have been very clear about their
intent. Its one of those requirements in the Koran that you announce
your intentions to your enemy before attacking so they have the
opportunity to submit.

The clever ones say it is such an over-the-top manner that you don't
take them seriously and are caught by surprise even though in
retrospect you were clearly warned.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Jay Honeck]

> It's not exactly a secret. They have been very clear about their
> intent. Its one of those requirements in the Koran that you announce
> your intentions to your enemy before attacking so they have the
> opportunity to submit.

You're wasting your breath, Don. Those who don't actually read -- and
understand -- what the the enemy says can't possibly be expected to
understand how to beat them.

You're right, though. Within four years we will have pulled out of the
Middle East, tail between our legs, and our children and grand-children
will be left to face a much stronger, nuclear-armed enemy in the
future. Bush blew it, but in ways the Left truly can't appreciate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Judah]

Sylvain > wrote in news:B_SdnQ9-
:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> You can express the "do nothing" opinion by staying home. I can see
>> this if they are just voting to maintain their registration to vote in
>> future elections. However, as a political statement, it is pretty much
>> a waste of time. Not voting at all sends nearly the same message.
>
> bow do you know the difference between someone who did stay home because
> they thought about the issues, and reject all the choices put before them,
> and the folks who did stay home out of apathy or laziness?
>
> You are unfortunately right in saying that voting 'none of the above' is
> a waste of time, since it is not counted differently but it certainly
> ought to be.
>
> --Sylvain

Perhaps there should be a selection for Monty Brewster in all elections.

[Jose[_1_]]

> 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?

We use mechanical machines. But were we to use a paper ballot, I would
not hand it over face up. I would put it in the ballot box. The
operator does not have to see what's on it. The ballot box is locked.
Sure, the operator could sneak it open, but that would be a fairly
obvious action, and would require him to figure out which ballot was mine.

> He didn't look at it in an attempt to see how I voted.

Probably not. Most people wouldn't even be interested. But in certain
election situations the prospect that one could could serve as
intimidation of certain people.

> he has no idea who I am

That's not always the case, and wouldn't be the case if it mattered.

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

Mandatory IDs have their own problems. What about the voter signing on
a form (like a petition) in order to vote? If the losing party wants to
claim voter fraud, the signatures could be matched up. (Otherwise it
doesn't matter).

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.

[Stefan]

Martin Hotze schrieb:

> hmmm. With only one candidate thre would only be one vote required. Except
> the voting system requires something like "more than 50% of all votes". But
> IMHO this is a rather unusual voting system.

Incidently, your opinion, humble or not, doesn't matter. It's a pretty
usual voting system in many contries, at least in the first round.
(Hint: Just look westwards over the frontier.) The party involved in
this non-election was wise enough to understand the message and change
the candidate for the second round.

Stefan

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Super Dave" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Same war, different theaters.

You must know something that most of us don't on Iraqi's responsibility
for 9/11.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:13:05 +0100, Stefan wrote:

>> hmmm. With only one candidate thre would only be one vote required. Except
>> the voting system requires something like "more than 50% of all votes". But
>> IMHO this is a rather unusual voting system.
>
>Incidently, your opinion, humble or not, doesn't matter. It's a pretty

my opinion doesn't matter, true, but I referred more to a AFAIK.

>usual voting system in many contries, at least in the first round.

hmm. IBTD.

>(Hint: Just look westwards over the frontier.) The party involved in

means: your country (Switzerland). well, sorry, I don't know much details
about your way of voting or how your system works in detail, sorry.

>this non-election was wise enough to understand the message and change
>the candidate for the second round.

*hehe*

>Stefan

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

[Martin Hotze]

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/>

[Martin Hotze]

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/>

[Jim Macklin]

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...
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

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
|
|

[Sylvain]

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

[Don Poitras]

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

[Jessica Taylor]

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....)

[LWG]

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.

[LWG]

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:Qu5wMpEIpkYJ:www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm+dan+simmons+%22Time+Traveler%22&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&strip=1

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>