Slashdot Mirror

Diebold, Diebold, and Diebold

From the story: "How is this functionally different from a national ID card?"

It isn't different. The driver's license name is the kind of lying with which many things are sold to U.S. citizens. Other examples are: 1) The "Patriot" Missile, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of a particular weapon of mass destruction. 2) The "Patriot" Act, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of laws that most congress people passed without reading. And, 3) The "Peacekeeper" Missile, which tries to give people the idea that a nuclear weapon keeps the peace.

This kind of lying takes advantage of the fact that most U.S. citizens have to trust their government because they simply don't have time to understand what their government is doing.

Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another.

Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Have a quick look at the reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that try to tell you a little about U.S. goverment corruption: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. If you don't read about the subjects mentioned, you are not informed. If you don't like the books listed, pick your own.

Even though most people simply don't have time to understand their government, it is still amazing how much distrust U.S. citizens have of their government, and yet they don't take control.

There is good reason not to trust a more efficient national driver's license, because it would be used by the government to suppress political dissent. For example, see the New York Times article, F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies. Here's a quote: "Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes." There are many people whose jobs depend on their ability to fly. They may be forced to stop any analysis of government activity if they are harassed when they try to fly.

That article discusses a few of the other abuses. If you didn't like the Vietnam War, and demonstrated against it, the FBI would go to your neighbors and friends and "investigate" you. Merely the investigation caused enough fear to discourage most people; they could not afford to lose friends and the support of neighbors. People would think, "If someone is being investigated, that person must have done something wrong."

(Note that you can read that article at the New York Times web site, but only under extremely adversarial conditions. You can pay more than the entire cost of the newspaper in which the article was originally printed. Or, you can get a discount under plans which cause you to lose your money in a short time if you don't use the plans quickly enough. No one should underestimate the self-destructive rapacity of managers of ad-supported media.)

Driver's licenses are already a national ID card. The U.S. government is only trying to make the data gathering more efficient. The fundamental problem is not whether or not a national ID card is a good idea, the problem is that, although the U.S. government functions well in many ways, the government is corrupt in many other ways.

If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

This isn't the first time a 3rd party candidate has been kicked out of the debates. In October 2000, Ralph Nader had a ticket to attend the one of the debates. Instead of his ticket being honored, he was not allowed in. See CNN and Nader's own account of what happened.

In February 2004, Nader and a slew of other 2000 third party candidates and parties sued the FEC over the debates. One of the exhibits contained in the lawsuit is a "face book" that was used by debate planners to know which third party candidates to keep out of the debates. See this Boston Post story and a press release about the lawsuit.

Here are the "face book" images:
Page 1 (Has photos of Winona LaDuke, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, and Ezola Foster)
Page 2 (Has photos of Howard Philips, John Hagelin, and Nat Goldhaber)
Page 3 (Has a photo of Russ Verney)

Indeed!

Patricia LaMarche, Cobb's running mate was once quoted as saying she may not vote for herself in the coming election. She's registered in Maine and believes a vote for herself is a vote for Bush.

Logic is failing me.

I was listening to CSPAN radio this evening and heard some Democrat senator, who, incidentally, had an ebonics overtone in her voice (seriously, no flamebait intended, this is what I heard), making absolutely outrageous accusations like "diebold, the company who is making the current electronic voting machines, has ties to the current administration" without substanciating this charge with a single piece of evidence, and continued to rant on with these mindless and baseless accusations.

Ummm actually there is a lot of evidence of a Diebold/Bush adminstration link documented in the media. I find it hard to believe you regulary listen to CSPAN radio and not know about the mass amount of evidence. What does the "ebonics overtone" have to do with anything? Maybe you listen to KKKSPAN radio?

Some of the lies which helped beat the drums of war came from the New York Times and Judith Miller. In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press", Vice President Cheney referred to the Times' coverage while spreading his own lies to justify the war. The New York Times is quite an influential newspaper; it has been known to set the agenda for other media. The Times fired Jayson Blair for his repeated lies about far less consequential things. The Times printed a multi-page expose detailing Blair's lies. When it came to their coverage on the invasion of Iraq, The Times has issued a semi-apology to the public that never mentions Miller by name. Amy and David Goodman took the Times to task for the lack of coverage of and appropriate apology for what they call the Times' lowest point in its 152-year history. Miller, however, continues to work at the Times.

Some of the lies which helped beat the drums of war came from the New York Times and Judith Miller. In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press", Vice President Cheney referred to the Times' coverage while spreading his own lies to justify the war. The New York Times is quite an influential newspaper; it has been known to set the agenda for other media. The Times fired Jayson Blair for his repeated lies about far less consequential things. The Times printed a multi-page expose detailing Blair's lies. When it came to their coverage on the invasion of Iraq, The Times has issued a semi-apology to the public that never mentions Miller by name. Amy and David Goodman took the Times to task for the lack of coverage of and appropriate apology for what they call the Times' lowest point in its 152-year history. Miller, however, continues to work at the Times.

Ok, keep in mind I'm a jaded, paranoid conspiracy nut... and a Canadian to make it worst. But the reality of the war was to gain resources in particular oil.

Iraq was no threat to theat the US, what could they do? Honestly, maybe Saddam could have said a few nasty words about George W's daddy (but then again who hasn't).

If you want to know what this war really is about look at who profits http://www.halliburton.com/index.jsp and then start looking at the connections between those who profit and those who make the decisions.http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0331 -01.htm

Honestly isn't it a conflict of interest when your leaders are making more money from corporate interests than by their own job?
I suggest to anyone to really look at some of the news out there that is being suppressed and question now whether good people who are willing to defend their country are now being used as corporate bodyguards while Iraq's oil is being plundered.

Not to say Canada is so great we have similar problems but not on the same scale of course.

For instance, I live in Texas, so I know my vote will go to Bush no matter what. This gives me the freedom to vote for whomever I want, rather than just the "lesser of two evils".

So, you threw away your vote is what you're saying?

How many people voted for Nader in 2000 knowing that their state would go to Bush anyway?

Now, I'm not really trying to say that voting for a third party candidate is always a wasted vote but what bothers me is the difference between Bush, Gore and Nader. Instead of voting for someone who would be closer to your third party choice you practically wasted your vote on the third party choice. Instead of getting Gore which could have sided with Nader followers you got Bush which is about as anti-Nader as you can get.

This election, IMHO, is too important to vote for someone who will never win. Pick the lesser of two evils - because that choice is the lesser of two evils.

Your mentality reminds me of people who say "my vote doesn't count anyways". I wonder how many people who voted for Nader, in Florida mostly, are now kicking themselves in the ass. Bush is about as far away from as Nader as you can get. If Enron, Worldcom and the rest would have happened under Nader they would all be facing death by electrocution. Nader would never give a government super-contract to Halliburton. Nader would have never taken unilateral action in Iraq.

If you think your state is going to go to the greater of two evils your job as a citizen is to get out the word about your pick, register voters if necessary and try to change peoples minds. You don't just roll over and accept the problem.

Apathy.

You might find this interesting:
Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense

There's now (alledged) doubts about whether Saddam was the one that ordered the gassing of kurds. The article claims there's evidence that Iran was responsible, in an effort to start a civil war between the Kurds and Saddam's forces.

Now flash forward a few months.. you are the leader of Iraq and are about to make an important address in the United States. Who do you get to help you write you speach? You want someone who has seen the situation in Iraq first hand, but more importantly knows the US governments policies and attitudes for a future free Iraq. Oh, and you probably already have a working relationship with the man established over the months leading up to the hand-over of power...

Moving on, ... what is the basis for the claims that Senor is a Bush campaign operative? The Bush campaign has publicly stated that Senor "did not work for the campaign." Considering the number of posts swallowing the Senators suggestion as fact and deriding the link between the "campaign" and Allawi's speech, I would think that this would be an easy fact to check and catch the GOP in a flat-out lie...

I don't doubt that he is partisan... this story points out that he was seen jogging wearing a Bush-Cheney 2004 t-shirt. But the senator's allegation is that he is part of the Bush campaign though... can anyone prove this?

Surprised? Allawi and his fellows gave the CIA a "hint" for weapons of mass destruction in iraq. He told the CIA that Saddam could deploy chemical and biological WMDs in 45 minutes. Now, he returns to iraq to earn his reward.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iyad_ Allawi
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0529-02.ht m
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Iyad +Allawi+45+minutes+WMD+iraq&btnG=Suche&met a=

You're kidding me, right? Come on. You buy this shit?

If they had real elections in Iraq, do you know who would win?

It's funny that those same blogs don't fact-check the Bush administration as much as they do the Kerry campaign. Here is an administration that has told more lies to the public (in the few press conferences that they've had; they're also very secretive) than any that I can remember (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II).

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."
"Saddam is in cahoots with al Qaeda, and could give WMD to them."
"We went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people."
"These tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy and create many new jobs by stimulating investment."
"We've inherited a recession from Clinton."
"You don't need to know who Cheney spoke to in his secret energy policy meetings."
"We're going to whole-heartedly support fighting AIDS in third-world countries."

It's so funny that I could cry.

I think that either way the 2000 election went, Microsoft would have gotten the case dropped. Granted, the Republicans would have been more likely to drop it. Of $4.7 million in political donations, 53% went to Republicans. By your reasoning that MS bought it's way out, it would seem that MS was hedging it's bets.

I found this article clarifying the Perot story http://www.commondreams.org/views/100100-103.htm

The same writer has an excellent current analysis that present a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique of the CPD and, more importantly, introduces a real plan for change: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/bi-pa rtisan_appearances_real_debates.html . Some interesting background links follow the article.

The same writer has an very good new article (that link is from 2000) that presents a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique than Rice's: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/bi-pa rtisan_appearances_real_debates.html

Actually, arbitrary imprisonment is now simple and convenient - you just need to be declared a "material witness":

• Intel programmer "material witness",
• aliens
• military custody
• 800 detainees!
• lawyer losing rights after misidentified fingerprint, (with great terrorist media smear campagain!)
• legal limbo for "material witnesses"

Clickable version of parent's link

Given the national embarrassment, never mind the hypocrisy demonstrated in killing thousands & spending billions exporting your laughable democratic process...

Can anybody seriously believe that the fact that these problems still haven't been fixed after 4 years isn't deliberate???

When you look at the extensive funding involved in electing a candidate, it's obvious that some people really have a vested interest.

Are the OSCE being asked to ensure the fairness of (and will they have access to) the whole process? Us Brits are becoming quite used to fake authorities apparently sanctioning Blair's deceptions.

Of course, we didn't even start on why the Democrats put forward John Kerry - an unelectable candidate.

There's a nice computer game based on this year's presidential election. Buy it, play it and then make sure someone else plays it.

so i won't attempt any alternate history. The point is that he did nothing. It seems acceptable by all that Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said to him "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Opinions diverge at this point. Card later had this take on it:

The President, in front of very young students, paused for a quick and quiet moment as he focused on the challenge. His leadership and resolve were soon evident to the world.

Criminy! The US was under attack by persons/entities unknown and he did not bolt? The SS Red Team did not spring into action? WTF was going on here? He sat there for seven minutes completely outside communication* while this was unfolding. Appearing resolved for the cameras a few days later doesn't cut it. I can't fathom that he's been compared to Winston Churchill.**

Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone immediately said to Balkwill, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02]*** But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave. (my emphasis)

The quote above is from this page which gives an account of Bush's actions that day. Interesting read. Is it factual? That's what we're trying to find out.

I'm not going to download the video on my dialup connection

i urge you to see the (entire) video. It's sobering.

* though supposedly, Ari Fleischer, his press secretary, wrote "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" and held it up for Bush to see. But that doesn't really count
** But it's funny for two reasons. Here's an interesting article about some parallels between events in America during ~1930--45 and those today.
*** the attribution to the herald-trib points to this link, which appears to no longer exist.

Honestly, how can you prove that you voted? Unless she makes everybody present one of those "I voted today" stickers they hand out at the voting centers.

An interesting aside to this article, Fox reporters harrassed students trying to register their peers to vote in Arizona..

But it's in the US's best interest to promote larger militaries in other nations.

After all it's good for the american economy. Consider:

The US is the largest exporter of weapons:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Arms_trade#Top_15 _arms_exporters_in_1999
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0821-02.htm

Read This

COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

It seems to me that someone who makes voting software shouldn't be promising to deliver votes, but maybe it's just me.

-Dan

Who? Where? Please provide examples of a credible (ie. non-conspiracy theorist) source suggesting that Republicans might abuse a security hole.

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
- Wally O'Dell, CEO Diebold

• Black Box Voting
• CommonDreams
• Subliminal News

>William W. O'Dell [...] has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.

No he has not. He said that he will do everything he can to deliver the votes to the president. This is not the same thing as saying that he will get GWB reelected.

Exact quote: "[We are] committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" source (about halfway down the page)

> PS - the predictable copout... is a little tired

Or, if you look at he facts of the situation, what you've spun as a "copout" is a reasonable response to a real situation.

> ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft
> routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly"
> wanting to bring it back

This isn't about "cronies", this is about the military (which is directed by the executive branch and not the legislature) overtly preparing infrastructure required in order to reinstate the draft. The legislative movements you see are in response to the military actions.

> Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you
> come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats
> who are the ones closest to making it a reality?

Except that the Dems lack a majority in Congress - this makes raising such a controversial position a primarily symbolic act (you don't often see minority parties proposing legislation which the majority are likely to strike down).

The goal is to draw attention to a radical option, thus pre-emptively defusing the possibility of that option being adopted, before the nation is backed into a situation in which the "radical option" can be framed as "the only solution".

In other words, this helps to build up national resistance to the idea of bringing back the draft before those who are interested in actually reinstating it can create any momentum.

Just because you don't understand (or like) that this is a legitimate way for the minority party to play the political game doesn't make it illegitimate.

Diebold has been incredibly resistant to being damaged, no matter how many problems arise with their software.

It must help that Deibold has some really strong connections to the Bush adminstration.

I tire of this. How much do you need? I have posted several links already, as have others before me. This is not a new issue... there were articles about it before the 2000 (s)election, and there are articles now. You want articles? Here:

• http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/02/ 02_802.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-200 4Feb2?language=printer
• http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0219-03.htm
• http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/2 0guard.htm

Some of these links are from admittedly conservative sources, others from admittedly liberal sources. They do discuss the releases of info by the WH on the issue, and all come to the same conclusion: the pay stubs and the dental record do not disprove the gap in service, but only support it. Now, as I have said before, I tire of this. You obviously have your opinion, which is fine. What wears on me, though, is your steadfast dedication to the expression of this opinion through falsehood. It is one thing to state that Bush is a "war president," or to state that he is at all presidential material. It's a clearly seperate thing, though, to state that Bush was obviously not AWOL. This is not an opinion, but a simply act of willful ignorance. Maybe Bush wasn't AWOL. I sure as hell don't know. What I do know, though, is that I have evidence supporting that he was AWOL, and none opposing. Thus, until the situation stands, it is not logical, nor reasonable to confuse this simple reality with opinion. What is the signifigance of this issue? Well, that's your opinion. What is the fact of the issue? That isn't.

What's evil? Selling an idea? Buying an idea? What's your problem?

What is evil is earning money off of another person's work- no matter how you try to make it moral.

Those who do not work, should not eat. EVER.

I don't see, how "the current market" is stealing anything from anyone. Lenin-esque or not. May be, the little piece of the sky right above you fell down, but I don't see it.

Any time somebody earns money off of your work, that is stealing from you. And that is evil.

You are changing the subject and I will not bite. Here is some reading for you, though. And here is some more.

And here's an article for you. You brought up globalization- and neither of your articles show why water supplies all over the world, even already privatized ones, need to be sold to foreign companies. Yet it's a requirment in WTO treaties that YOUR CITY has to sell it's water supply to foreign interests. When GATS is complete, your money you pay for water will be going someplace else.

Your last sentence makes no sense to me. I "overvalue the use of finances as a tax"? Sorry, that's gibberish. But you seem to dislike Imperialism, so I'll defend it a little.

You support the Bankers having control over ideas that they never had themselves- that's imperialism.

Capitalism (Imperialism? Nyah, its globalisation now) survives and prospers. The most efficient way to organize millions and billions of people currently known.

Depends on what you're organizing them for- it's certainly efficient if you're trying to make slaves out of them. It's not very efficient at spreading democracy and freedom- which is why we've yet to succeed at planting a democracy ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET.

Madison concluded by saying he felt the Constitution he and Hamilton were promoting with the Federalist Papers was the best solution they could come up with to solve the problem of factions.

But, as he noted, the constitution wasn't perfect: "The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger [of factions] on this side, as was wished and expected." His only solution was to beg Americans not to form factions.

Although George Washington was soon thereafter elected unanimously and by acclimation, America's second presidential election (won by John Adams) almost immediately led to the creation of Madison's feared "factions" in the form of Vice-President Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" party (today called the "Democratic Party"). Ever since then, we've largely been a two-party nation - because our Constitution is written in a way that causes anything else to result in the least democratic outcome to an election.

Most of the rest of the world, however, has learned from our mistake and taken a different path.

Of the 86 other "fully democratic" nations in the world (according to the UN), only a few like Greece and Australia had repeated our mistake, although Australia solved the problem with a national variation on what in America is called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where you select your first, second, third, etc., preference among candidates, and if there's no majority winner, the "instant runoff" is instantly recalculated.

Had this been in place in the US in 2000, for example, and had most of Nader's voters chosen Gore as their second choice (as most polls indicate was the case), then when neither Gore nor Bush received more than 50 percent of the vote, Nader's first-choice votes (he being the lowest of the vote-drawers) would have reverted to their second-choice and Gore would have been elected by the majority of the people (as he was anyway, but that's a different rant).

Don't worry, the American people are only as out of touch with reality as the leaders!

Donald Rumsfeld said these things in a speech a week ago:

"the leader of the opposition Northern Alliance, Masoud, lay dead, his murder ordered by Saddam Hussein, by Osama bin Laden, Taliban's co-conspirator."

"Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001."

Let me say that again -- he said this *last week* -- 9/10/2004.

Here's the original CSPAN realvideo clip. The whole thing is a prime example of 9/11-Iraq-9/11-Iraq conflation by repetition and insinuation. Iraq was celebrating shooting an unmanned American drone, and at the same time, Hanni Hanjour was checking into a Marriott in New Jersey...

This stuff goes on all the time, and no one seems to notice. Instead all they do is chant shit like "Al Gore said he invented the internet!" but I can't even imagine what kinds of spasms they'd go into if he was in charge and said shit like this on a daily basis. Paul Wolfowitz said a couple of months ago that there were 350 combat deaths in Iraq, at a time when there were more than 700. '"He misspoke," spokesman Charley Cooper said later. "That's all."'

And Orwell wrote this in 1949:

O'Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. "We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation -- anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature."

You clearly have no idea what that word means.

What are you, a child? You confirm that you understand the hypocrisy and try to defend yourself in the following paragraph.

Given that there was no possible way in which Iraq could be perceived as a threat to us, it's obviously not that.

Oh nevermind, apparently you don't understand. I was referring to the war to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. I had no idea what you were talking about, Donald Rumsfeld selling GAS to Saddam Hussein. Here in the US, we have outlawed chemical weapons. We don't manufacture gas. Donald Rumsfeld attempted a diplomatic relationship with Saddam Hussein but was stabbed in the back. You can read all about it here. It's so ridiculously stupid of you to find Donald Rumsfeld at fault. You are truly an idiot, and now you're officially a liar.

Dick Cheney? Hmmm... Well he's making bank off of this occupation.

Care to explain this? This may very well be a lie, I don't have time to refute you, you've already been discredited. Dick Cheney makes "bank" as the vice president already. He went in their a multi-millionaire.

Typical delusional idiocy. I never claimed to support Clinton. Additionally, you think a blowjob is worse than murder. Unless you're giving it, right Sparky?

No, I already told you, all I care about is integrity. Clinton lied to the nation. This is really sad, you've sunk to homosexual accusations. Maybe someone will step in and save you with some real arguments.

What, the ones that say the same thing as the real ones but weren't the actual copies? Oh wow, the President is proven to be a cowardly deserter, but they copied off of somebody else's paper. That's much worse, really it is.

What are you talking about now? Copies? No they were copies of forgeries, haven't you heard? CBS News is probably going to be investigated for criminal acts. There is a cover up going on by Dan Rather, claiming that they are authentic without releasing the source. If you're one of those that believes "sure they were forgeries, but they're TRUE!" then you're an idiot. Why don't you go look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Hot tip, Sparky: We're more than 200 miles from Iraq. The atlas is your friend.

I don't even know why I bother with you crackpots. You're more afraid of a nuclear bomb in a suitcase than missiles. Ok.

No, not really. I'm just a bit bothered by an administration that thinks putting old dying people in jail for smoking a plant is more important than terrorists that they were warned by 7 different countries in increasing detail, who were planning on attacking our freaking country. I'm sorry you're so sick and deluded that you have your priorities so out of whack.

Ok, so you're a druggie who thinks that the patriot act was designed to catch druggies. Bill Clinton's administration, Sandy Berger, was given an opportunity to have Bin Laden on a plate, and knowing he was a threat passed up the opportunity. Recently, Sandy Berger removed and apparently "lost" a bunch of files from the national archive. Personally I think this guy is worse than any druggie like yourself, but he gets off free. This is truly an injustice. As for your claim that 9/11 could have been prevented, the 9/11 commission found that George Bush could not be held accountable for that. This is another moot point. By the way, throwing druggies in jail is not a priority of mine. I think they're mentally ill and need psychological help. But to say that Bush "diverted" funds is pure nonsense. You can't say that. When funding is cut for one thing, it doesn't automatically go somewhere else, does this make sense to you?

Seek psychological help, it's never to late to turn your life around. And if you ever get arrested under provisions of the Patriot Act, your right to privacy will protect you in court, unless you're a illegal terrorist ;)

That's why it's 'charged with' and not 'convicted of' or 'guilty of'

Here is one from Maine: How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility

Each state's code is bit different, but all have a similar clauses.

And here is a note about the Ford vs. Dodge case:

Control of the company. During its first five years the Ford Motor Company produced eight different models, and by 1908 its output was 100 cars a day. The stockholders were ecstatic; Ford was dissatisfied and looked toward turning out 1,000 a day. The stockholders seriously considered court action to stop him from using profits to expand. In 1909 Ford, who owned 58 percent of the stock, announced that he was only going to make one car in the future, the Model T. The only thing the minority stockholders could do to protect their dividends from his all-consuming imagination was to take him to court, which Horace and John Dodge did in 1916.

The Dodge brothers, who formerly had supplied chassis to Ford but were now manufacturing their own car while still holding Ford stock, sued Ford for what they claimed was his reckless expansion and for reducing prices of the company's product, thereby diverting money from stockholders' dividends. The court hearings gave Ford a chance to expound his ideas about business. In December 1917 the court ruled in favour of the Dodges; Ford, as in the Selden case, appealed, but this time he lost. In 1919 the court said that, while Ford's sentiments about his employees and customers were nice, a business is for the profit of its stockholders. Ford, irate that a court and a few shareholders, whom he likened to parasites, could interfere with the management of his company, determined to buy out all the shareholders. [...]

You can read the rest here:http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/H enry_Ford.html

IANAL, but I'm not making this up... :)

I personally feal that even if the engineering were right, Diebold would still be disqualified unless they handed over all operations to someone else who'd had the chance to double-check the code (and hardware), because elections should be handled by those committed to neutrality (or, at least, a team with competing sides represented), not by someoen who is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next [sic] year.".

>"implemented cosmetic measures which allowed these crazy dictators to build up the weapons technology and arsenal's their unveiling now."

NK broke the reactor seals under Bush.

NK lauched long range missiles under Bush.

Rumors of NK's nuclear program growing in the past three years were under Bush of course.

Saddam disarmed under Bush I and Clinton. Saddam's own son-in-law told Newsweek they had no WMD anymore and the UN agreed that the "threat" Bush played up was a seriously distorting the facts. After the invasion, guess who was right?

Yeah, there is proliferation going on for two main reasons:

The Bush admin is focused on the middle east region and only cares about WMD as pro-war propaganda.

Other nations realized the lessons of the Iraq war weren't "with us or against us" it was "countries who really have WMD survive and don't get invaded." Works for Israel, it will work for everyone else.

Well, if you go back and check, you'll see that there were designated "free speech zones" back in 1996 at both the DNC and RNC national conventions. And if Bush had anything at all to do with it, why would he allow so many protestors in New York and clamp down on them so hard at the DNC? Also, remember that the reason they started coming about in the 90's was because of the violent anarchist protestors who caused serious disruption to a wide variety of major events, especially global economic summits, during that time period.

I'm just not as worried as you are about a few prisoners in Guatanamo or Iraq feeling humiliated after trying to blow up our troops, not to mention innocent Iraqis.

Overtime laws have not been revoked, just modified and simplified a bit. Before these changes, some poor schmuck making $18,000 a year could have been stuck doing unpaid overtime if the corporate powers-that-be could find a way to classify him as a managerial employee. Now the rule is simpler, and says that if you make less than a certain amount, you get overtime, regardless of your job description.

I'm not nearly as opposed to unions as many Republicans, but you do understand that there's an economic reason that many jobs are going oversees, don't you? Part of that reason is the relatively high wages in the United States compared to the rest of the world. If companies can't modify the wages here to lower costs, they will, whether you like it or not, simply ship jobs elsewhere, to a place they can pay wages which are a LOT lower.

The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France

This, of course, is just as trollish as the "Bush is Hitler" trolls...

Neither of us are going to be prevented from expressing our views.

You aren't paying attention and/or your media is being ... 'selective'. Most recently, there were the protesters in NYC who were jailed, and held even after a judge ordered their release. Or the story of reporter Ana Nogueira, who was arrested in Miami while covering a protest. Or even something as common-place and accepted as "Free-Speech Zones"...

When it comes to influencing the vote with emotions Bush and Cheney take the cake.

A good article on this same subject is Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain by Thom Hartmann.

It of course applies to all candidates but is very harmful when even mentioning 9/11. Remember when Mike Tyson took a chunk out of Holyfield's ear? Well, later Tyson said that the head-butting and bad calls made him remember another time that it had happened and he snapped. It's called an "Amygdala Hijacking", a phrase I believe coined by Daniel Goleman.

You develop emotional responses by experience. Now that we've all gone through 9/11 every time it's mentioned we become overwhelmed with the same emotions that we experienced at that time. That is why it was mentioned during the Republican National Convention so much (*).

Good articles on the subject:

How the neuroscience revolution can change your practice.
and...
Emotional Intelligence - Stop Amygdala Hijackings

(*) Notice "Osama" was not mentioned once.

Better than what Bush spent the war doing. Drinking it up and bragging about it to people.

The only road CNN is in the middle of is the left had side of a four lane highway. They are the single most libral news station I have ever seen.

Don't get out much, do ya?
check these out

I watch Fox, there people may not be unbiased but atleast they don't have a problem admitting it.

Fair and Balanced. We Report You Decide. No Spin Zone.
No problems with admitting bias there...

Halliburton

All you ever wanted to know about how to take custody of someone else's child

Seems like AP is running with the setback story

Diebold.

Abu Ghirab

Every last one of these is fairly common knowledge to anyone who has opened a paper in the past 3 years (at least if you're in Texas, for that Texas Senator thing). While I'm at it shall I prove that 1=1 and 1+1=2 so that you can start using math?

BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast is one person who originally turned up the bogus use of military absentee ballots in Florida in the 2000 election.

You'd think they would have straightened it out, but as this story reports the absentee process in Florida if anything has gotten worse!

Now, four years later and the process is not fixed, and is arguably worse than ever. Accidental or planned?

After all, if you want a low rate, why not prove it?

Imagine a world where a corporate CEO is required to wear a black box-like device. One that records their movements. Add mandatory tapping capabilities for their auditory system, vocal system, visual system, etc. The potential for a reduction of commonly unprosecuted crime and fraud is very attractive!

Rates would go down for more than simple insurance, 99% of the planet would enjoy a greatly improved life.

The incredible unlikelyhood of such a world is truly sad.

As for Comcast, I don't expect much from them, based on past experience. I'm just trying to point out that corporations don't have our best interests at heart. They seek only profit at any and all costs. They are psychopaths, plain and simple.

"Sorry to interrupt you, Alex, but the contestant was actually correct!"

In all seriousness, though, your very cropped quote is quite disingenuous, given the important omission of the following:

Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers.

Furthermore, I see no political slander anywhere, neither in the grandparent post nor in the article itself. I assume what you must be talking about would be this:

Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California agreed.

"This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent," she said.

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

If we as a nation truly have nothing to hide, this will be a nice vindication of our way of doing things. On the other hand, if there are real issues, best to find them and deal with them.

Mr. Bush told the US people to unify; not to divide ... well, when about 280 K people more were voting for the other guy you better work on that. Result? The flag wavers united; and the rest hates Bush and the GOP. (and yes - it would have been the job of Mr. Bush to improve this situation).

Mr. Bush told the US people to leave no child behind. Result? The number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by 4.3 million to 35.9 million - 12.9 million of them children. (from http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0901-12.htm

Mr. Bush told the US people that they would be safer under his watch. Result? With Bush your chances of loosing your job, loosing your health insurance, ... is just growing and growing and growing. And btw if you care: the number of people in other countries that started to really really hate the US skyrocks with every action of this great, wise leader.

Well, you are right. If you check out what the GOP is really up to; for example when you hear about the stuff Newt Gingrich is telling the folks at the "republican grassroot" meetings and compare that to reality; well, then you are right. They want to transform the US into their vision - and let me tell you, they made much progress during the last years. Unfortunately that is nothing you will hear about in the official speeches written up for nationwide TV.

If only an enterprising hacker would change the voting results on Nov 2 so drastically that the results cannot stand. In this manner, the public is alerted to the dangers of voting without a paper trail, and it prevents actual (i.e., surreptitious) tampering by oh, say, Walden O'Dell. Relying on such a patently unsecure system is not an acceptable option.

To every Sec of State that decided voting without a paper trail was acceptable (much less preferable): you are fired.

Wouldn't many be afraid of voting against their commander in chief to avoid being reassigned somewhere dangerous, especially if they do something he doesn't like?

Don't forget the time Tom DeLay used the Department of Homeland Security to track Democrats blocking a quorom for a measure vote redistricting.