|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1 2
The Truth About George Bush . . .
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Yumaddar
What I'm saying is that a person who is drinking in driving is not necessarely a bad person. There is no 'selfish and cold' in drunk driving, rather plain idiocy.
People who commit adultery are bad people. That's what I'm saying.
Posted by: redwench
not selfish and cold? most drunk drivers know full well they are over the legal limit. and quite a number of them have revoked licenses. they would rather take a chance of killing/maiming themselves or other s rather than spend $20 and call a cab. its a far more evil thing to do than to have sex with someone other than your spouse.
Posted by: laborat
I'm with RED on this one.
Posted by: Yumaddar
That's assuming a lot, Red. That's a worse case senario.
Posted by: redwench
but it can happen. and everyone knows it can happen. adultery doesnt "hurt" anyone if no one ever finds out about it. does that change whether its right or wrong, or the cold/selfish bit?
ive never been pulled over for drunk driving. ill give you 3 guesses why. ill even tell you that i do drink alcohol, and that i do drive a car regularly.
Posted by: AOTY2KB
Isn't Adultery a Crime in the States? or amI talking outta my ear?
WTF I'm tired.
Posted by: Yumaddar
Hmmm...could it be that you've never mixed the two?
Either your not getting something, or I'm not. The morality of an issue is not based on consequence. If someone does find out about adultery, someone can get shot, and I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't blame the shooter. But that's a worse case scenario. It 'can' happen, but I'm not assuming that it did.
Now I personally am more prone to trust someone that I know has been charged with drunk driving than I am with someone who has committed adultery.
People get 'hurt' no matter where you go. People get 'hurt' every day, that doesn't make the person who has done the hurting a bad person.
Someone who has been drinking and driving has committed a crime. That person should be punished according to law. However, after it's all over, the person who got pulled over paid for his crimes. He may not be a changed man, and yet, he may be. That's not the point. He may not ave learned a damn thing, but that doesn't mean he deserved to be mis-trusted. On a similar note, alcoholics seem to be treated like dirt in almost ever case that I've ever heard of when an alcoholic was involved. There's just something about being an alcoholic that's appalling. But that person doesn't really deserve it. Being an Alcoholic is a disease.
On the other note, people don't need to be told not to commit adultery. There is no way to be doing it without knowing it, and the person involved WILL know the consequences that will come along with getting caught. That person does not care. I can't think of a case where a person involved in adultery did care, and was not actually just being a bitch about a relationship, but you are free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: redwench
no, adultery isnt a crime, hasnt been for decades.
ah, so youd rather be hit by a drunk driver than have a spouse that got some nookie? interesting.
um, every drunk driver knows the consequences of getting caught, and doesnt give a ****. the moral difference between the two is that a drunk driver is knowingly risking other peoples lives (dont really care about their own) while committing a crime, while an adulter is knowingly risking another person's feelings.
shooting is not an outcome of adultery, its an outcome of a lunatic bent on murder. and yes, i would blame the shooter. it is an irrational, and illegal response to hurt feelings, not a case of self-defense.
Posted by: Yumaddar
Erm, red, people who drink and drive don't really 'think'. It's not that they don't care, it's that the idea that they might acctually kill someone does not enter their mind.
And if I was married, and my wife was playing around, I just might get a gun. I don't think of myself as a very violent person, nore do I think of myself as someone who would readily kill anyone, but adultery is more than just 'hurting someones feelings' as you put it. Don't think I can explain it better than that, though.
Posted by: SpecOpsHoov
Adultery is more or less hurting one's feelings as well as a broken bond of trust.
However, the way one reacts to such a situation varies. Just because you grab a gun does not mean the person next to you will, or the next 10, 20, 30 people.
It can't compare to a drunken driver. Drunk drivers know what they're doing. They think they can drive, they tell themselves they can drive, so they do it, and they turn their car into one dangerous 2000lb+- battering ram.
A woman I know lost her husband and young daughter when a drunk driver in an F150 hit their car and exploded into flames. There's 2 dead, in addition to about 4 more this past couple of months where I live due to being under the influence while driving.
I have not heard of any "crimes of passion" stemming from cheating husbands or wives in quite a while.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
are you not missing the point, most of you. adultery is a act commited privately, and there is normally a lot more going on in that relationship then just the sex, there are problems between the two that stem beyond it. drunk driving on the other hand exsposes all of us to your stupidity, that is not forgivible. don't endanger me because of your moronic actions. if my sister or father..etc. cheats on there significant other i would be dissapointed but it is none of your business, to be dissapointed or not. my morality is between me and whoever i choose to include, IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. and for those who chose to poke there noses in it because of there twisted religious morality remember jugde not lest thee be jugded. leave it up to whatever god you believe in, stay out of it.
Posted by: Yumaddar
Spec, I would assume that would be because nobody cares 'really' cares anymore? :/ I don't know, I've seen a few cases of adultery close at hand, and from what I've seen, marriage doesn't acctually have to be all that deep. In that case, the people shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.
To elhior, when did I put religion into it, as I believe that your religeous statement was directed to me. I dislike adultery for more than some religous beleif. I'm no fifteenth century pope, here.
You are right, though. It is none of my business, but if I know someone has commited adultery, I don't know about you, but, that automatically changes my opinion of that person.
In any case, I guess it all has to deal with experiance. I don't really know of any bad drunk driving cases around here. I've encountered quite a few stupid drivers...But I'm still alive. *shrug*
Posted by: elhior_manwe
no i wasn't really directing that religious statement at you...it was my anger coming out about our religious society feeling that everything is fair game and anything they feel is a sin agaisnt there god is there business. obviously i don't know you or how deep your religions goes or what you do with your religion.
Posted by: Xoncide
 Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
Hypocrisy
|
Posted by: elhior_manwe
what xon?
Posted by: Bix VT
Let me say in advance that I am a religious guy.
I'd also have to say this: Adultery can ruin a marriage, it's a very, very bad thing. However, killing someone is worse.
Yes, someone may go insane with jealousy because of adultery and kill someone, but there's a much higher probability of killing someone while driving drunk.
Yumaddar: I agree with everything else you have said here. But I can't say that driving while drunk is equal or better than adultery...
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
are you not missing the point, most of you. adultery is a act commited privately, and there is normally a lot more going on in that relationship then just the sex, there are problems between the two that stem beyond it. drunk driving on the other hand exsposes all of us to your stupidity, that is not forgivible. don't endanger me because of your moronic actions. if my sister or father..etc. cheats on there significant other i would be dissapointed but it is none of your business, to be dissapointed or not. my morality is between me and whoever i choose to include, IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. and for those who chose to poke there noses in it because of there twisted religious morality remember jugde not lest thee be jugded.
|
Good point, just to bad it’s totally moot. That is very true for you, but not for a president. A president is a moral icon and representation of our country. It is perfectly legitimate to hold a president morally accountable, even though he is third party to you.
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
leave it up to whatever god you believe in, stay out of it.
|
Oh, now I get it. It’s ok to believe in something, as long as you don’t let it influence your actions or perception, that makes sense. o.O
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
no i wasn't really directing that religious statement at you...it was my anger coming out about our religious society feeling that everything is fair game and anything they feel is a sin against there god is there business..
|
It is their business if they elect a president as a moral representative, and he fails at that.
You arguments/post/logic are all following a similar line of thought: It’s ok if you are religious, as long as you act like you aren’t.
Posted by: Yumaddar
Quote:
Originally posted by Bix VT
Yumaddar: I agree with everything else you have said here. But I can't say that driving while drunk is equal or better than adultery...
|
Wow...I was getting the idea that nobody within ten miles of this forum agreed with a damn thing that I had to say. Thanks, man! 
I really think that my opinion on the subject has to do with the fact that I've seen the effects of adultery close hand. (family and such) while I've never really heard of anyone getting killed from someone drinking & drivin close to home...Around here, we laugh at people who drive odd and call them drunk.  Not really a major prob.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
Good point, just to bad it’s totally moot. That is very true for you, but not for a president. A president is a moral icon and representation of our country. It is perfectly legitimate to hold a president morally accountable, even though he is third party to you.
Oh, now I get it. It’s ok to believe in something, as long as you don’t let it influence your actions or perception, that makes sense. o.O
It is their business if they elect a president as a moral representative, and he fails at that.
You arguments/post/logic are all following a similar line of thought: It’s ok if you are religious, as long as you act like you aren’t.
|
no actually its ok you are religious as long as you don't force feed me your beliefs and or preach to me about how I shoud live my life or legislate religious morality.
clinton wasn't elected because of his fidelity or his morality...though you are correct he did fail at that, i was never arguing in defense of clinton just the blanket statement drunk driving(or killing someone while drunk driving) is not nearly as bad as adultery...i know how it got started but i waited to chime when it became a blanket statement.
i am kind of going backwards answering you, sorry. hold clinton morally acountable please, just as long as we don't lose sight of the real issues. alot of us were appalled by the reports of his conduct but it honestly wasn't anything knew, reports of his infedelity had been following him since arkansas. it was when he lied to a grand jury in the sexual harrasment case of paula jones that he became big game in the political world. certainly we should hold our leaders up to higher standards then we do ourselves but spinning morality, and that is what i believe the right did as will the left when it comes down to it, will not help any of us.
the right has just as many cheats, liars, and thiefs as the left. the media does love to focus on the spectacle....i am getting off track...
goodnight xon i don't believe i am a hypocrit
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
no actually its ok you are religious as long as you don't force feed me your beliefs and or preach to me about how I shoud live my life or legislate religious morality.
|
Hold the horses here. Anytime anyone who is religious does anything people always spout that they are “legislating religious morality.” People need to learn that it is ok for a leader to do something that is biblical, as long as his sole reason for doing it isn’t only that it’s biblical. If it wasn’t that way then murder, rape, theft would all be legal.
Also religion affects who people are. My religion affects my perspective on morals. When I vote for a leader I am voting some one that is a representative to our country, and what I stand for to all other nations of the world.
That means that I don’t want my leader out there committing adultery, period. I think Clinton was a good president if we don’t take into account his moral failures. But for me to not take into account those moral failures would be ignorant.
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
clinton wasn't elected because of his fidelity or his morality...though you are correct he did fail at that, i was never arguing in defense of clinton just the blanket statement drunk driving(or killing someone while drunk driving) is not nearly as bad as adultery...i know how it got started but i waited to chime when it became a blanket statement.
|
It depends on how you look at it really. Drunk driving is: A) a lot more common B) most often does not cause harm C) and when it doesn’t has minimal adverse affects.
Personally, I think they are about equally bad. That is my opinion though, and if you are going to tell me it’s wrong you better support it with more then extremities.
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
i am kind of going backwards answering you, sorry. hold clinton morally acountable please, just as long as we don't lose sight of the real issues. alot of us were appalled by the reports of his conduct but it honestly wasn't anything knew, reports of his infedelity had been following him since arkansas. it was when he lied to a grand jury in the sexual harrasment case of paula jones that he became big game in the political world. certainly we should hold our leaders up to higher standards then we do ourselves but spinning morality, and that is what i believe the right did as will the left when it comes down to it, will not help any of us.
|
Agreed, mostly. I don’t like the right or the left. But for you to say that, when it comes down to it pointing out failures “will not help any of us” that is ridiculous. How can we fix problems if they can not be addressed?
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
goodnight xon i don't believe i am a hypocrit
|
Good night elhior. I personally do believe you are a hypocrite (based solely on your postings, I have no clue what you are like out of this context), but no more then the average Joe, so don’t worry about it. Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree.
Posted by: Ocean
a few days back:
i think christian folk take marriage way too seriously.
Posted by: armystud0911
ok, that's your opinion, we could go back and forth on that one for weeks and not get anywhere. I don't have the time for that.
Posted by: redwench
then why on earth did you post?
most christians dont take marriage seriously enough.
Posted by: armystud0911
I posted that to keep this more "on-topic" as it were.
sadly you are quite right that most christians don't take marriage seriously, the divorce rate is slightly higher in the church than in the secular world.
Posted by: Ocean
i guess i should elaborate. but i wanted to keep it brief cause this idea was a few days stale.
they take it so seriously as if it is vital to their existance, they do it for the wrong reasons and attach the wrong principles to it, in order to just accomplish it.
and any deviation from the traditional (infidelity, two pump chump, polygomy, homosexuality, impotency) has a greater effect on the psychi than it should in the global scheme of life.
Posted by: redwench
well, what they say about marriage and what they actually do are 2 different things, group as a whole. there is no sanctity of marriage when you allow, even encourage, minors to get married in order to have "kosher" sex. or when people bounce from one marriage to another like they change abodes.
Posted by: armystud0911
there is a difference between "christians" and "followers of Christ" sad to say but christian no longer means christian anymore.
Posted by: Yumaddar
Quote:
Originally posted by armystud0911
anymore
|
There have been not-so-true christians sense Roman times. I find it hard to beleive that some of those catholic leaders who did some of the things that they did acctually truely beleived in christ, or even god for that matter. They may have at one point, but if someone has too much money, they can get 'destracted'.
And then theres the 'barberians'. I don't know if they cared either way. 
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
Hold the horses here. Anytime anyone who is religious does anything people always spout that they are “legislating religious morality.” People need to learn that it is ok for a leader to do something that is biblical, as long as his sole reason for doing it isn’t only that it’s biblical. If it wasn’t that way then murder, rape, theft would all be legal.
|
Hmmm...rape, theft, and murder are only illegal because of the bible? That is a statement that you have to know is false. How about legiaslating sexuality that is a big one. Or requiring my child to listen to yours pray they would change that if they could. Requiring me to see the ten commandments everywhere I go? How about abortion?There are many things that are done solely on a religious bases, and if you don't see there are problems with that, and think I am a hypocrite for pointing them out, I don't know what else I can say.
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
Also religion affects who people are. My religion affects my perspective on morals. When I vote for a leader I am voting some one that is a representative to our country, and what I stand for to all other nations of the world.
That means that I don’t want my leader out there committing adultery, period. I think Clinton was a good president if we don’t take into account his moral failures. But for me to not take into account those moral failures would be ignorant.
|
See that is the problem, first I don't think Clinton was a good president, everyone one knew about the lack of his morality and his infedility, BEFORE he was elected. It was no secret. Such as Kennedy's wasn't. My problem was the nastiness involved in the attacks. Remember Henry Hyde chairman of the judiciary hearings in congress he had cheated on his wife then divorced her and married his mistress. Newt Gingrich divorced his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer to marry his girlfriend. There are many examples on both sides, I just want balance.
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
It depends on how you look at it really. Drunk driving is: A) a lot more common B) most often does not cause harm C) and when it doesn’t has minimal adverse affects.
Personally, I think they are about equally bad. That is my opinion though, and if you are going to tell me it’s wrong you better support it with more then extremities.
|
I just have a hard time with anyone saying infedelity is worse then drunk driving. As I said before the argument was drunk driving is not nearly as bad as cheating on your wife.I disagree strongly with that. I am a hypocrite for pointing that out?
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
Agreed, mostly. I don’t like the right or the left. But for you to say that, when it comes down to it pointing out failures “will not help any of us” that is ridiculous. How can we fix problems if they can not be addressed?
|
I want balance, I don't want political attacks. I don't want the media to focus on one thing for a week then forget about when ratings drop off. That will not help any of us. When republicans attack the demorcrats for lacking morality or the democrats attack the republicans for being religious extremists or whatever the democrats do. It is not constructive. Clinton went through 2 years of personal and politically attacks for an the incredibly stupid thing that he did, he lost any power as president, and basically became a lame duck president for the rest of his term. Bush has been able to avoid any scandal on the drunk driving by saying he was young and stupid, he was 34. Bush is attacking Kerry on his war record, in a '89 interview(this is true) Bush said a about going to vietnam " I was not going to shoot a shotgun next to my ear to get a defferment so I joind the national gaurd". I want some balance with how we deal with our political leaders.
Posted by: Yumaddar
First, I would like to point out that if you are a religious person, there is no reason you should not make decisions based souly on your religion. That's who you are. That's what you believe is right, and you can and should do what you believe is right.
Secondly, when Xoncide told you that you where a hypocrite, I think he was referring to the fact that you seem to have some odd problem with taking their religious seriously. I personally don't see how this makes you a hypocrite, though. 0o
Thirdly, we where debating about which was worse, Drinking and driving, or Adultery. The main argument was that people who drink and drive are generally just stupid. Stupidity hurts people, but the person in question isn't morally a bad person just because he is stupid. There is no way to commit adultery in an innocent way.
At no point in time did I say that drinking and driving was ok, and yet, most of you seem to believe that I did, which is fairly frustrating. Drinking and driving is something that someone should go to jail for. But not all people who get punished are bad people. Sometimes that's not what punishment is for.
Posted by: laborat
The steps one must take to get into heaven are in no way compatible with the steps one must take to become president of the United States.
My belief in God and my views on the President, Congress, the
Supreme Court, indeed all of my views on how corrupt the system of government has become are my own.
One does not have be a Christian to see things for what they are. Anyone with common sense and a basic knowledge of high school civics or history can see that our government is flawed. (if they wish to see it)
As Christians we must repent and confess our sins, acknowledge God as our Lord, Jesus as our Savior, to be saved. The Bible illustrates and acknowledges that Mankind is laden with sin. But sins can be forgiven save one, that you deny God.
This is where I start looking askance at people who point fingers at potential or obvious sinners and judge them based on their own rigid dogmas. I ask myself if God is the final arbiter on who is saved, why do folks insist on doing it (the judgement part) for Him? It doesn't make any sense. Is it because we can't trust God to make the right choices that we believers insist on proclaiming who is not worthy of heaven? It doesn't make any sense.
Sadly, Christianity as one poster above stated is no longer Christian. It has been corrupted by those who claim to speak for God, and profit from it by manipulating the believers in God into doing unspeakable acts in God's name.
I for one, have abandoned the orthodox Church (of any kind) and have returned to the original small Church congregation who follow the teachings of Christ. I speak directly to God in my prayers because I can and don't let anyone speak to him for me.
A president who professes a belief in God is in my view merely doing what is necessary to become elected to the Presidency. While he might have an actual belief in God, there is no way a President of the United States can hold real Christian Ideals and govern. A President must be ruthless and uncaring at times for the common good. He is also prone to corruption from lobbys and supporters.
This talk of adultry and stupidity goes nowhere. The only way to truely provide an answer the President can understand of how strongly you really feel is to vote him out of office and again sadly, less than %50 care to even vote. It should be a requirement of citizenship that one must participate in the democratic process.
Posted by: Yumaddar
Amen to that, laborat.
Posted by: redwench
first, one must make the democratic process less cumbersome and more private. the use of voter registration lists for various and sundry things, such as targeted mailings and jury pools, reduces the people that wish to do it. voting records are public, which is just wrong. whether candidate x voted in an election 23 years ago or not is his business, along with the location. registration lists are available at least semi-publicly, if not for outright sale.
i vote for online voting, and all records are considered as private as your income.
Posted by: Bix VT
If all voting was online, there would be so many people that would hack the system that the polls would say there were 4 billion people living the US. I agree that voting records should be private, but I think having them online is just asking for them to be hacked.
Not to mention the fact that it isn't even a Democracy we live in, it's a Democratic Republic. If it were a real Democracy, then there would be no Electoral College, and the people would have a direct vote instead of others voting for them.
Posted by: redwench
everyone keeps claiming that hacking would be horrific. if you set up an account with secure information, like banks do, what is the likelihood a 1337 h4x0r would be able to come up with that information in order to vote in someones place? when was the last time you heard about a bank being hacked? or the irs for that matter? its really not terribly difficult, just expensive.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by Yumaddar
First, I would like to point out that if you are a religious person, there is no reason you should not make decisions based souly on your religion. That's who you are. That's what you believe is right, and you can and should do what you believe is right.
Secondly, when Xoncide told you that you where a hypocrite, I think he was referring to the fact that you seem to have some odd problem with taking their religious seriously. I personally don't see how this makes you a hypocrite, though. 0o
|
i do have a problem with taking some religious people seriously. i have a problem with anyone trying to make my morality there problem. i have a problem with bush saying that he is president because of god's will or pat robertson saying all muslims are evil and we should wipe them from the face of the earth. i would much rather live in a secular society but i don't so i get angry about it. why can't some christians leave jugdment up to god, why do they feel the need to make the judgements themselves. so much has been made about the seperation between church and state, i don't think it is that difficult a concept, i don't think there needs to be any seperation of your(as a religious person) values to be able to legislate without making me agree with your religion. i don't believe in your religion, you redemption or your belief in god. i respect your right to, but why do i need to?
Posted by: armystud0911
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
everyone keeps claiming that hacking would be horrific. if you set up an account with secure information, like banks do, what is the likelihood a 1337 h4x0r would be able to come up with that information in order to vote in someones place? when was the last time you heard about a bank being hacked? or the irs for that matter? its really not terribly difficult, just expensive.
|
Forgive of my ignorence but what do you mean that hacking the IRS isn't difficult just expensive? Is that to say Bill Gates could decide the next president if elections are done online?
Posted by: redwench
wrong way there.
Posted by: armystud0911
? I figured that, it was a shot in the dark
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
if you set up an account with secure information, like banks do, what is the likelihood a 1337 h4x0r would be able to come up with that information in order to vote in someones place?
|
But there's more to hacking than just decrypting, dear http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
Hacking also involves the knowledge & means of compromising a system...WITHOUT knowing the passwords, thus bypassing the protection instead of directly "attacking" it
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
everyone keeps claiming that hacking would be horrific. [...] when was the last time you heard about a bank being hacked? or the irs for that matter? its really not terribly difficult, just expensive.
|
Thundering typhoons, "online voting"...
...do you realize what you're suggesting? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/halalala.gif
*fetches spade, prepares to bury democracy*
No one dares hack a bank, not because it is impossible (bloody well feasible it is - NO software-based protection is 100% infallible - I hope I'm not teaching you anything new here...) but BECAUSE THEY WILL- MOST LIKELY - BE TRACED by the authorities.
And here's the crux of the problem - leaving aside the fact that even a civilian hacker could very well rig the vote without being found out (with a <0.001% probability, I concede), leaving that aside...
...what if the authorities themselves were to hack into the system - say, to keep the actual president in power, get the picture?  ...
...in that case, who would stop or punish THEM (provided they were even found out, which alone would be a miracle heh) ??? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/ohwell.gif
Posted by: armystud0911
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
...what if the authorities themselves hack into the system - say, to keep the actual president in power, get the picture? - who will stop or punish THEM (provided they are even found out, eh) ??? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/ohwell.gif
|
Do they need online voting to do that?
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by armystud0911
Do they need online voting to do that?
|
no but should it be easier to circumvent? most voting experts agree that there should be a paper trail, something to consult in case of difficulties. the only opposition are the actual voting machine companies, they have already sold many machines and have contracts to build many more.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
no but should it be easier to circumvent? most voting experts agree that there should be a paper trail, something to consult in case of difficulties.
|
Exactly 
Bytes are like spoken words, transient & ephemeral, so easily lost & erased into "cyber-oblivion" 
And as an old saying goes: "Verba volant, Scripta manent"
Posted by: redwench
huh? the authorities would hack into every municipality's system to rig the votes? that would take quite a while.
so tracing a bank haxor is easy, but doing the same for someone hacking into a voting system would be difficult? *scratches head*
if the "authorities" want to tamper with voting results, they can do it now. that people think our current systems are any more secure is living in lala land. even with an uberleet computer, and a completely automated voting program, it would take an inordinate amount of time and effort to affect anything more than local elections, and naturally, it would be easily tracible.
the common sense thing to do would be to set up a secure system, rather than wallowing in "we have to keep doing it the way we have for 100s of years because we dont want to change". its inordinately pathetic that we make people show up to a polling place in person, show your id to some idiot that doesnt look at it except to check the name, and wait in line to hand a paper ballot in. yeah, thats certainly tamper-proof.
Posted by: armystud0911
Would that palladium project MS was supposed to do be secure? I don't know anything about these secure systems.
In truth, I guess any method can be tampered with but what would be best?
Posted by: Yumaddar
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
i do have a problem with taking some religious people seriously. i have a problem with anyone trying to make my morality there problem. i have a problem with bush saying that he is president because of god's will or pat robertson saying all muslims are evil and we should wipe them from the face of the earth. i would much rather live in a secular society but i don't so i get angry about it. why can't some christians leave jugdment up to god, why do they feel the need to make the judgements themselves. so much has been made about the seperation between church and state, i don't think it is that difficult a concept, i don't think there needs to be any seperation of your(as a religious person) values to be able to legislate without making me agree with your religion. i don't believe in your religion, you redemption or your belief in god. i respect your right to, but why do i need to?
|
No one is asking you to beleive in god, or any other religion for that matter. Nobody is asking anything of you. or if they are, they have a problem.
I personally agree, and it's always been odd to me that people should try and force peoples minds to be changed.
But you should not assume that whenever a christian, or any member of any other religion is saying that he strongly and morally agrees with something, that he is trying to bring the fires of hell upon you for disagreeing with him, which is what you seem to be saying.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by Yumaddar
No one is asking you to beleive in god, or any other religion for that matter. Nobody is asking anything of you. or if they are, they have a problem.
I personally agree, and it's always been odd to me that people should try and force peoples minds to be changed.
But you should not assume that whenever a christian, or any member of any other religion is saying that he strongly and morally agrees with something, that he is trying to bring the fires of hell upon you for disagreeing with him, which is what you seem to be saying.
|
i have you used the word "some people", i never siad all religious people, I don't think I even implied I thought the majority of religious people act like that. anyone has the right to whatever opinion they want ofcourse.
Posted by: Bix VT
redwench: tracking a bank haxor is easier because they have to put the money somewhere. All you have to do is watch the account the money was transferred to. With a voting system, even if you did trace it the person could just go use a different computer. Especially in the case of someone with money, they could simply buy a pc, use down at warehouse #7 and then let them trace it, it could be no skin off thier nose if the pc was found because they obviously wouldn't be living at warehouse #7 now would they...
However if you did the same with a bank...well you have to collect the cash sooner or later now don't you?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
huh? the authorities would hack into every municipality's system to rig the votes? that would take quite a while
|
Yes they would. And unless they proceeded one system at a time (…) I don’t think it would take “quite a while”.
Besides, in a situation where both camps were separated by a razor-thin margin (these are far from being isolated cases, IMO), hacking into a single system is all it would take to tip the scales
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
so tracing a bank haxor is easy, but doing the same for someone hacking into a voting system would be difficult? *scratches head*
|
No that’s NOT what I said *bangs head – ouch http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/av68.gif*
The authorities don’t have to hack into a bank to begin with. I think they have all the money they need, besides they can always help themselves wherever they want, even abroad as we have recently seen (hint: oil, oil, oil)
If the average “civilian” hacker were to rig the votes, yes he would probably be traced & the false votes would be rescinded, so in the end the voting procedure would not be compromised.
But unlike the average person, the authorities have the means of covering up their traces a bit more easily, don’t you think?
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
if the "authorities" want to tamper with voting results, they can do it now. that people think our current systems are any more secure is living in lala land.
[…]
its inordinately pathetic that we make people show up to a polling place in person, show your id to some idiot that doesnt look at it except to check the name, and wait in line to hand a paper ballot in. yeah, thats certainly tamper-proof.
|
NO system is tamper-proof – but some are just more vulnerable than others..
And if “lala land” is your way of referring to Earth, why yes that’s where many of us live – come down from the land of Nod & join us!
As a sidenote, remember the year 2000 elections - when it was found out than a number of ballots had been miscounted. Now the recounting was a failure, for in the end it was the Supreme court that elected the president. NEVERTHELESS, the issue was at least brought into light in the first place..
Now if the same thing were to happen during an online vote, either a s a direct result of outside tampering (hacking, virus, etc…) OR “unintentionally” (yes dear, computer CAN go astray and CAN make mistakes ) then is no need to explain what a mess it would be just to prove that the voting procedure was flawed (…)
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
even with an uberleet computer, and a completely automated voting program, it would take an inordinate amount of time and effort to affect anything more than local elections, and naturally, it would be easily tracible.
|
Again, yes it would take time and it would (most likely) be easily traceable anyways…IF the culprit were an ordinary citizen.
But even so, even if the odds of a lone hacker breaking into the system without being found out were less than 1 in a million, I don’t think the few who succeeded would tamper with just one vote
Knowing that, would you still be willing to accept the risk???
Not to mention the fact that when it comes to an online procedure, there is not just one country but an ENTIRE PLANET to take into account when considering the security risks. Imagine foreigners voting for your own president – that would almost be funny as a matter of fact…
Al-qaeda for example is supposed to have some of the most advanced technology at its disposal – courtesy of CIA, probably (…). If online voting is adopted, don’t be surprised if a “long beard & turban” takes over the White House some day hehe http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/ddr555.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
the common sense thing to do would be to set up a secure system, rather than wallowing in "we have to keep doing it the way we have for 100s of years because we dont want to change".
|
Ha! if you think all changes are necessarily for the best, think again
Following that “uncommon sense” and entrusting a democracy to a computer would be like opening the gates of Hell. Even worse, like I said no one would see the demons break loose http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/sadistyk.gif
Posted by: redwench
we currently have dead people voting in this country, and always have. votes are tampered with. any large scale tampering is very obvious. so no, im not terribly worried about a terrorist organization attempting to elect my township trustees. and in case you dont know, since youre a brit, there is no federal voting procedure, we do not elect anyone at that level. every county has its own data "clearinghouse" before it gets sent on to the appropriate state entity. the data is publicly available, so pretty easy to see if its been tampered with after its collected.
we weep and moan about our voter turnout. lets see, you need to physically go to another location not within walking distance, stand in line, vote, and get out of there. on a work day in november. im surprised anyone votes. more participation=more fraud. no way around that.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
since youre a brit
|
Now what makes you say that? You only know where I live, but I never said where I come from!?!
Are you a cyber-telepath?
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
there is no federal voting procedure, we do not elect anyone at that level
|
Yes I know - the president is not elected "directly" by the people.
Say, now THAT might be a good idea, come to think of it. Switching to a "direct election" procedure could only simplify the whole damn thing IMO. I wonder why no one thought of it before..
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
votes are tampered with. any large scale tampering is very obvious.
|
This is where I disagree when it comes to digital information - and that's the whole nub of the problem. Binary data is notoriously easy to alter without leaving a single trace - for those with the knowledge of course
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
we weep and moan about our voter turnout. lets see, you need to physically go to another location not within walking distance, stand in line, vote, and get out of there. on a work day in november. im surprised anyone votes. more participation=more fraud. no way around that.
|
You may have a point there...
...but that's a question of civic responsibility more than anything else, think you not? http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...ilies/wink2.gif
Posted by: laborat
Just a side note on voting machines... the CEO of one of the largest manufacturers of voting machines based in Ohio, was President Bushs Republican rep in that state. He was quoted as saying, "We need to do whatever we can to elect George Bush." Kinda puts the whole voting machine controversy in a new light don't it?
Posted by: elhior_manwe
When I said most voting experts would like a paper trail I was referring to electronic voting machings that spit out a ballot. I am not an expert but it seems if there are problems or accusations of hacking it would be nice to have hard paper to refer to. Though obviously there will always be people trying to circumvent the system and they will most likely succed from time to time. It just seems that we should attempt to have the most fool proof system availible, and from what I've read it doesn't seem we are even close. I repeat I am not an expert.
Posted by: Null Actor
oy vey
Posted by: Yumaddar
hm. There should be a country-wide voting system. That would fix 'em.
I mean, there should be a computer or two (in every building where people whoudl vote - and then we would have machines in the buildings that where connected to those computers.) networked to a computer in say, washington. The computer in washington would count the vote, count the person, and count the state.
The name should then go through some authentication software.
Hows that?
EDIT: AHAH! Icebreaker, we all know your location, now.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Yumaddar
hm. There should be a country-wide voting system. That would fix 'em.
I mean, there should be a computer or two (in every building where people whoudl vote - and then we would have machines in the buildings that where connected to those computers.) networked to a computer in say, washington. The computer in washington would count the vote, count the person, and count the state.
The name should then go through some authentication software.
Hows that?
|
Yes, online voting - that's basically what we were talking about, remember? http://www.mega-content.de/smilies/...chlafende/4.gif
Personally I'm against, for the aforementionned reasons..
If this system is implemented, I'll enrol for some advanced hacking courses...and vote in your place - I hope you don't mind.. http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...es/devilish.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by Yumaddar
AHAH! Icebreaker, we all know your location, now.
|
Oh? Was it supposed to be a secret? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
Posted by: Yumaddar
nonononono!
The computers wouldn't be connected to the internet, but rather, connected to just the computers in washington...I don't guess that would be possible, though. I'm not sure of a way to network several thousands of computers together accross the country without using the internet. But I guess they could have a secure server or something, I dunno.
Ehem
Location:
Unknown to mortals
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Yumaddar
nonononono!
The computers wouldn't be connected to the internet, but rather, connected to just the computers in washington...I don't guess that would be possible, though. I'm not sure of a way to network several thousands of computers together accross the country without using the internet. But I guess they could have a secure server or something, I dunno.
|
Oh, you mean a distinct network, FULLY isolated from the Internet?
Quote:
Originally posted by Yumaddar
Ehem
Location:
Unknown to mortals
|
Heh - this unknown location has been "known" for some time now, in fact ever since I first came here
Posted by: redwench
nah, as far as i know, youre in france. your phrasing, however, is that of british english. you could be indian, or an aussie for that matter i suppose, but youre not a yank
im not arguing that its not hackable, just that with proper precautions, its worth implementing. perhaps with an automated return code, like "we have temporarily recorded your vote as follows: [details]. if any of this is incorrect, press the modify key. if it is correct, type in the random number that appears below. your vote will not be officially recorded until the correct code is entered." ie, make it a pain in the ass to hack. civic responsibility is all well and good, but expecting people to take a day off work to vote is a bit much. internet voting would vastly improve voter turnout and participation, albeit with risk attached. it would also lower the cost of running elections significantly, which would be a bonus.
all conveniences have risks. you do it when you drive to the next town, or use a clothes dryer.
Posted by: Yumaddar
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
Oh, you mean a distinct network, FULLY isolated from the Internet?
|
yes! No! Yes! I don't know! 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
nah, as far as i know, youre in france. your phrasing, however, is that of british english [...] but youre not a yank
|
Is that meant as a compliment?
Just kidding of course
...so in your prev. post, that was just a wild guess...
...yes I could be of british descent. I guess you'll never know...well, for now at least..
Just a second... *takes a sip of tea*...aah that's better..
Now to get back ontopic...
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
im not arguing that its not hackable, just that with proper precautions, its worth implementing. perhaps with an automated return code, like "we have temporarily recorded your vote as follows: [details]. if any of this is incorrect, press the modify key. if it is correct, type in the random number that appears below. your vote will not be officially recorded until the correct code is entered." ie, make it a pain in the ass to hack.
|
Hehe - you mean, 'make it an extra challenge for hackers', more like 
This will only add more zest to the whole thing, and prompt even more hackers to join the fray http://www.mega-content.de/smilies/...e/lachen/14.gif
Look, I agree with you on the principle - online voting would be a good idea for the convenience of it, however as you correctly pointed out:
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
internet voting would vastly improve voter turnout and participation, albeit with risk attached
|
and
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
all conveniences have risks. you do it when you drive to the next town, or use a clothes dryer.
|
Precisely. There would be risks appended to such a procedure. And we're not talking about a simple inconvenience that could arise from a miscarriage of the system, but a genuine security risk (therefore, the "clothes-dryer" analogy is irrelevant and...illogical http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...lies/vulcan.gif).
A risk to democracy itself, ie. to the very rights & liberties of the people - imagine what would happen if, say, someone like Pat Buchanan were "elected" not because he was chosen by the people, but because the election system went awry??! Better work out on the 'Hörst Wessel' song in anticipation of this moment http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/ddr555.gif
I don't know about you, but IMNSHO democracy is not a trifle to be played with..
My point is, when it comes to elections, even the slightest degree of risk is unacceptable...
...yes, even the old ballot casting system has its flaws, as our comrade laborat duly pointed out a few posts ago. But between that & online voting, surely you'll realize that the former is the lesser of two evils http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...ilies/wink2.gif
Posted by: Bix VT
I'd agree with Yumaddar though...if the computers were simply networked and not wired through the internet the risk of fraud would be nearly eliminated...at least from outside sources. Government officials would be another matter...
Posted by: IceBreaker
Bah, Internet or not, it won't change much - even if a separate network is used, hackers will simply hack into the system...from within this network
Posted by: redwench
nah. i am of the opinion that widescale vote tampering would be noticeable. anything less wouldnt be worth the trouble. at some point, probably the same night as elections, boards of elections are going to notice that the numbers reported for their territory dont match what they sent in. all hell will break loose.
the only tampering that might pass casual inspection would be at origin, ie when the vote is cast. obviously, if everyone suddenly voted for pat buchanan, they would be combing the coding and the ip records, and most likely voiding all votes cast in that system.
clothes dryers do catch on fire, thereby burning the house and the occupants to ash. however, if you prefer, we will go with a gas furnace. most people have them if they have a gas hookup, and every year, people die from them. why? because we consider the benefits worth the risk.
would it be easier to tamper with online voting? certainly. it would also be easier to detect, which balances quite nicely. look around the world at where voter fraud and vote fixing are the most common. they dont use computers. making it easier and more convenient for people to vote doesnt "trifle with democracy", assuming we had such to begin with. having your brother in charge of a ballot recount in a close election does.
Posted by: Null Actor
One time pads, generated by the government, and your secure key sent to you through mail or other government means, with the key linked to your name or SIN (or whatever ID numbers the government gives you for services down there), would be pretty much unfakeable. You vote, your information is then encrypted with your unique key, and cannot be decrypted except for the government's copy of your key.
Of course, this will only work if you assume the government themselves won't tamper with the results...
Posted by: redwench
which they can pretty much do at any time now, no difference there
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
nah. i am of the opinion that widescale vote tampering would be noticeable. anything less wouldnt be worth the trouble.
[...]
would it be easier to tamper with online voting? certainly. it would also be easier to detect
|
http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/hum.gif You're kidding, right?
IMO bytes on a HDD are a tad more fickle than ink on paper, don't you think?? That's the very reason why I opposed online voting in the first place. If the traditional ballot method can be corrupted (as in the examples you cited) then I dare not imagine what would happen if the online method were to be implemented - heaven, we'd soon get entangled in our own world wide "web"!
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
clothes dryers do catch on fire, thereby burning the house and the occupants to ash. however, if you prefer, we will go with a gas furnace. most people have them if they have a gas hookup, and every year, people die from them. why? because we consider the benefits worth the risk.
|
People can risk their own lives if they wish to - that's the concept of free will, after all...and yes, they can also risk their democracy & freedom if they wish to, by endorsing online voting http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbimages/smilies/grin.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by Null Actor
Of course, this will only work if you assume the government themselves won't tamper with the results...
|
Precisely - the DEADLIEST threat also happens to be the hardest to avert...
...leaving aside "ordinary" hackers (again, I repeat that there is no such thing as null risk when it comes to software-based protections - passwords can be stolen, decrypted or bypassed)
And no Redwench, like I said digital information is far easier to falsify without getting caught - whether you're a rogue government official or a private person for that matter. But I guess your opinion on this issue is set in stone, and unlikely to change
Posted by: redwench
i disagree. easier to falsify? depends. easier to get caught, definitely, at least on a large scale. i assume we agree that no government is going to bother fiddling with a few votes here or there. so whos going to be doing this manipulation? votes are collected and sent on at several different levels, and obviously a discrepancy will be noticed, as they are posted publicly.
so, we are back to the casting as the only reasonable place for tampering. now, how is the federal government going to tamper with 50+ states election software? not a single one of them will be identical to the other, even if they use the same vendor. whether the counties' would be further different, who knows.
so, were now at 50 or so different hacking programs, minimal. and it has to be significant enough to change the outcome, yet subtle enough that no one will notice any odd patterns. thats aside from the normal security checks that would occur. you can figure that any one of them being discovered would lead to them all being found shortly. now, this is quite a trick, considering that we manage to link presidents to crimes that they have no obvious, if any, connection to. not being caught is the tough part
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
i assume we agree that no government is going to bother fiddling with a few votes here or there.
|
Obviously...
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
how is the federal government going to tamper with 50+ states election software?
|
Oh but they can; they have long arms; no need to be part of a central government - especially that of the Dominant Nation - to have a general idea on what it's capable of..
..besides, the federal government should not be considered the only threat
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
votes are collected and sent on at several different levels, and obviously a discrepancy will be noticed, as they are posted publicly.
|
Wait...are we still talking about online voting here? Are you suggesting online votes would also be handled at multiple levels??
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
so, were now at 50 or so different hacking programs, minimal. and it has to be significant enough to change the outcome, yet subtle enough that no one will notice any odd patterns.
|
In the event fo a tight match between the 2 camps (which seems to be the trend nowadays), that shouldn't be too difficult...
...sometimes, it only takes a feather to tip the scales
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
easier to get caught, definitely
|
No I still fail to see how it can be harder to wipe one's trail clean after having cheated with an online procedure, compared with the traditional system......
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
Wait...are we still talking about online voting here? Are you suggesting online votes would also be handled at multiple levels??
|
our elections are all directed from the state level, and managed at the county level. other than setting a handful of guidelines regarding presidential elections, the federal government isnt even involved except at the electoral college. everything from township secretary to the president is voted on at the same time, and tabulated by the counties. results are posted publicly, and the relevant totals sent on to the state, so yes, i dont see the counties being bypassed, as that would be a helluva convoluted data flow.
Quote:
|
In the event fo a tight match between the 2 camps (which as I said seems to be the trend nowadays), that shouldn't be too difficult - a feather to tip the scale
|
and you saw how the florida tight match was watched? no one on the elections board could sneeze without it being on the front page.
Quote:
|
No I still fail to see how it can be harder to wipe one's trail clean after having cheated with an online procedure, compared with the traditional system......
|
lets see, there would only be a handful of people that could screw with the programming of a states system temporarily. permanently would be a larger number of course. and youd have to not only keep it hidden from coworkers and security logs from the getgo, youd have to remove it somehow without causing any odd tracks. this is assuming that the program can be modified at all. so, youd need a perfectly programmed hack and dehack, a relevant employee accomplice, and no security procedures to prevent it. thats in each state. once is unlikely, 50x is bordering on the impossible, human nature being what it is.
traditional, thats easy. paper ballots (of all types) arent signed. you have no idea once a ballot is in the box who it came from. anyone with access to the box can dump a few in, or presumably switch some, although thats harder. you can also get people to come in and vote under false names, its done frequently. they never know who it is. the same dead people keep showing up on the lists 
Posted by: AOTY2KB
As much as I want to see online voting, I don't think the technology is quite developed yet. Maybe 5-6 years from now, when I'm well outta high school I wouldn't blink when it comes to voting online, but not now. The logistics of the program have not been correctly sorted out. Redwench, to my best knowledge only 40% of America votes. What's to say we have a overzealous crowd one year, ie. 50% comes out to vote, all someone would have to do is make it look like a close race, say a loss by a mere 24-5000 votes, it would be enough to secure a victory and not enough to call a recount. After thought: In this close race, one could boost both candidates numbers to make it look more realistic.
PS What's IMO
PPS Just wondering, how did you get the name red girl servant, redwench?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
and you saw how the florida tight match was watched? no one on the elections board could sneeze without it being on the front page.
|
Maybe;
but how to tell between a genuine & an affected “sneeze”?
...that's the whole point;
so AFAIS the problem still persists…
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
our elections are all directed from the state level, and managed at the county level. other than setting a handful of guidelines regarding presidential elections, the federal government isnt even involved except at the electoral college. everything from township secretary to the president is voted on at the same time, and tabulated by the counties. results are posted publicly, and the relevant totals sent on to the state, so yes, i dont see the counties being bypassed, as that would be a helluva convoluted data flow.
|
Splitting the system into several layers will compound the difficulty in hacking the system, at best. And in case of close scores, it wouldn’t take much to change the outcome – targeting the “strategic points” should suffice;
see it as a twisted form of “campaign management” if you prefer (...)
Besides, here’s a possible workaround – those wishing to compromise the procedure will simply attack…at the source http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...ilies/wink2.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
lets see, there would only be a handful of people that could screw with the programming temporarily
|
Heh – but a SINGLE hacker is all it could take to change as many votes as he wishes
And what do you mean by "screwing up temporarily" anyways?  Either you hack into a system, or you don't...
I suppose there are different levels of clearance you can obtain depending on how thoroughly you work your way into the system, but I still don't see what you meant by "temporary" or "permanent" hacking - unless by "permanent" you meant placing a trojan into the system that would grant you permanent access...
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
and youd have to not only keep it hidden from coworkers and security logs from the getgo […] so, youd need […] a relevant employee accomplice
|
But the coworkers and accomplices also work for the State
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
youd have to remove it somehow without causing any odd tracks. this is assuming that the program can be modified at all. so, youd need a perfectly programmed hack and dehack […] and no security procedures to prevent it. thats in each state. once is unlikely, 50x is bordering on the impossible, human nature being what it is.
|
1, 50, 50000… come to think of it, I don’t even see where the numbers would come into play. Since the states’ systems are independent, if one system can be hacked, why not several of them? Take computer virii & worms for example – is it more difficult for a worm to infect a million computers than to infect just a single one? Or does it even take that much longer to infect several PCs??
And again, NO software-based system is infallible. No matter how elaborate, no matter how many layers of protection code it is encased in, IMO it is safe to assume that hacking into it will be well within the scope of – at least – a malevolent governmental agency…or a shadow government http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/whistle.gif
And the end justifies the means - democracy is no trifle, remember?
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
traditional, thats easy. paper ballots (of all types) arent signed. you have no idea once a ballot is in the box who it came from. anyone with access to the box can dump a few in, or presumably switch some, although thats harder. you can also get people to come in and vote under false names, its done frequently. they never know who it is. the same dead people keep showing up on the lists
|
If the system were that prone to security risks, surely there would be a nation-wide scandal about it – and very few would vote in the first place. Aren’t there any checks & balances of some sort to prevent such fraud? To start with, are the ballots placed in specially-sealed containers, so one can tell if any have been opened?
Oh, and on a lighter note I wouldn’t mind if spirits could vote Many have given their lives for the sake of democracy, so in some cases the council of the dead could be useful. I wonder who the Holy Spirit would vote for btw …
I would suggest that a dead vote be counted as 1/4 that of a “live” vote, save for the Holy Spirit (12 live votes )
EDIT:
AOTY2KB>
copy this page and consider it a "bible" for future reference (...)
Posted by: laborat
I get the feeling that the Supreme Court will decide the Presidency from now on...Seems fair and they did trump the electoral college.
Maybe when our ship comes in, to some enlightened future age, we will have some Liberal Justices on the bench with different views of our Constitution and the laws.
it's just a gut feeling that whichever way we go, considering who we have to deal with now, it won't be taking votes and tallying them the way they were cast that elects a President.
The problem with online voting is the same with offline voting who controls the machines or people who count the votes??? I am sure the system itself with whatever method would be easy to use. It's those people who control the system who I suspect would tinker with the results.
Posted by: Yumaddar
Sorry for the off topic post, but is it just me, or do we need something new to talk about? As much as I love to debate, I've been debating about nothing but politics non stop for quite a few months now. Is there anything else interesting going on? 0o
Posted by: Ocean
this thread is becoming the ultimate political potpourri thread. if you dont wanna talk politics start another thread about something else. and uh, dont discourage our right to free speech like a republican.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Yumaddar
Sorry for the off topic post, but is it just me, or do we need something new to talk about? As much as I love to debate, I've been debating about nothing but politics non stop for quite a few months now. Is there anything else interesting going on? 0o
|
HIJACKER DETECTED http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
But the coworkers and accomplices also work for the State
|
http://www.darkintellect.com/redwench/Emot23.gif
civil servants.........cooperating.......*gasp*.......HAHAHAHAHA
*falls to the floor with a thud*
Posted by: armystud0911
That was great red
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Hypothetical: 2008 presidential election. close race ohio, pennslyvania, florida are all very close, the swing states as it were. canidate A wins by a small margin in all three and takes the election. then it is discovered someone hacked into the system and manipulated the outcome. what happens next? we wouldn't want to hold a new election on a system which flaws were just pointed out dramatically. and it wouldn't be so simple as to parade some tech guy in front of cameras to say the system is fixed and this will not happen again.
my point is why take the risk? we have the ability to make a system that is almost infalible, we have not yet.
redwench you point out most people will not take a day off to go vote, it does not take the entire day to vote, and I believe employers are required by law to give you the time to vote and/or your voting site is open late. just because americans are lazy shouldn't be a reason to change the system.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Oh? Well I don't know what goes on exactly behind the scenes...
...but if you say so... http://forum.presence-pc.com/images.../spamafotev.gif
...can I laugh along?
http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/lol2.gif http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/laule2.gif http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/ddt.gif
Posted by: IceBreaker
oh and elhior>
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
redwench you point out most people will not take a day off to go vote, it does not take the entire day to vote [...] just because americans are lazy shouldn't be a reason to change the system.
|
Yes but then again a person may find it more convenient if the entire system could adapt...to him (or her).
Come on, that's understandable (...) http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/whistle.gif
Posted by: elhior_manwe
going to a polling place is very simple...everyone has heard the stories of people walking 20-30 miles to vote. though if we could make the voting system easier go ahead i have not seen anything to suggest that voting over the internet would be safe.
and most of you already have but just go google e-voting hacking and read some of the news reports about the unbelievable mess in california and the concerns of many voting experts. read about the how voting machine companies won't allow experts to see there code citing that it is there technology....or just go read it for yourselves.
Posted by: NyGulkuk
E-voting is just another | |
