Slashdot Mirror
Computerized Election Results With No Election
_Sharp'r_ writes "In Honduras, according to breaking Catalan newspaper reports (translations available, USA Today mention), authorities have seized 45 computers containing certified election results for a constitutional election that never happened. The election had been scheduled for June 28, but on that day the president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted. The 'certified' and detailed electronic records of the non-existent election show Zelaya's side having won overwhelmingly."
Does anyone still think pure electronic elections are even a remotely good idea anymore?
> This story is important because it crossed the line from possible, to (evidently) actual. Which has consequences.
Oh noes! Someone did something bad and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar! You're apparently the only one that didn't see that coming!
However, Barack Hussein Obama disagreed. Naturally, since Clinton works for Obama, she agreed to support Zelaya.
Do not be deceived by the pro-Zelaya statements coming out of the State Department. No one in this department supports Zelaya. He is an anti-democratic thug who has the ambitions of Hugo Chavez.
The people who ousted Zelaya in their "coup" consisted of the rest of the goverment, and were acting lawfully according to their constitution. They already had all the evidence they needed to justify his legal removal from power. This is just another example of how corrupt he was, but by no means the sole justification.
All of this is quite obvious if you actually look into what happened, unless of course you're a Chavez lackey.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
> Placing complex issues into such (non)absolute terms is what I might consider crazy.
Ok, I'll bite. The problem is you consider them 'complex issues'.
> Just because someone does something you disagree with doesn't make them evil.
Ok, let this narrow minded idiot throw out some politicians, ideas, etc. that I call evil and see how far we can both agree and where you start seeing 'complexity.'
1. Nazism, Fascism and Communism are all Evil. Right?
2. The Klan, racism and other mindless intolerance is Evil. Right?
3. Any ideology that can support putting bombs on children and exploding them amongst civilians is Evil.
Now we will probably start to diverge.
4. The people who champion the above Evil causes are themselves Evil.
5. Stalin was Evil. Lenin was Evil. Hitler was Evil. Mao was evil. Arafat was Evil. Che was Evil. Castro is Evil. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Evil. Hugo Chavez is Evil. Kim Jung Il is Evil. UBL is Evil.
6. Anyone who makes excuses for any of the above evil is either criminally stupid or themselves Evil. Anyone who knows what any of those people stand for and lends them material or moral support is Evil.
7. Thus every celebutard with enough brain cells to actually know what is what who goes to Cuba to stand with Castro is Evil.
8. Every celebutard who stands with Chavez is Evil.
9. William Ayers is, by both word and deed, a Communist (although he seems to think being a 'small c communist' makes it better) Revolutionary dedicated to the overthrow of our Republic. He has attended events with Chavez and spoken well of him. Thus by Rule 1 and 6 William Ayers is Evil.
10. Saul Alinsky was a Communist. Mr. Obama's 'Community Organizing' (more honest to say "Communist agitator") was working in the field for an Alinsky group and later as a trainer.
11. Rev. wright is at best a Socialist and probably a Communist. At any rate he associates and lends aid and comfort to them. He is also a bigot. So Rules 1, 2 and 6 condemn him as Evil.
12. President Obama has extensive ties to Alinsky's organizations, worked at high levels in Ayers biggest cash grab (the Annenburg Challenge Grant) and launched his political career in Ayers' home. He warmed a pew in Wright's church for over twenty years. So he has associated with and lent Communists aid for the entirety of his adult life.
Democrat delenda est
Sorry, could you point out specifically where he did that? I must have missed something, because that didn't come up in anything I read. He wanted to have a referendum to debate changes to the Constitution, and asked that the voice of the people be heard on the matter. That doesn't sound like "dismantling democratic rule" to me. There were ACCUSATIONS that he wanted to specifically try to change the section that would allow him to be reelected, but that reelection would still require the assent of the citizens, wouldn't it? If, during a referendum, it was clear that citizens wanted a change to term limits, who the fuck are these other people in the courts and the military to stand in the way of that and say no, and then carry it a step further and stage a coup, exile the President, and then say it was all done for the good of the people and saving the Constitution?
I call bullshit on this whole thing.
Maybe we should go down there bomb the shit out of them, and spread some more "Democracy".
Seriously, there hasn't been a non-rigged election in this country for at least 50 years.
Not to mention that the entire press is owned by 5 corporations, so even if there WAS a valid election, real honest people like Ron Paul would still lose to stuffed shirts like Obama.
It's OK, I'm sure RIGHT TO PRIVACY and WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING are copacetic. In our new Orwellian reality, privacy means something else anyway. Just ask Bertelsmann, Disney, News Corp, AOL/Time and Viacom.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
--
I remember no such thing. I do remember that a thuggish Democratic plot to steal the 2000 election was foiled by the narrowest margin, and that all of the Florida newspapers investigated it and agreed that Bush won. Only the lunatic fringe think 2004 was anything but free and fair.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Your post has way too much information for the average slashdotter to understand. Just post a half-illiterate rant about how Zelaya was a dangerous communist and the coup leaders were absolutely OK to oust him, etc. It will grant you a +5 Insightful.
We Americans should be taking notes.
A constitutional order requires national
attention. Conspiracies of rascals never
attain comfortable official recognition. Newer
authorities can only require newer.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear