On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:50:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Marshall ] on Wednesday 11 October 2006 11:57 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> The case against voting machines
>>>
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I didn't read anything yet. Just the title is enough to get me boiling
>> as I have had exposure to this topic prior.
>>
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again up front. I am PRO capitalism.
>> I do NOT have a problem with companies making money. None what-so-ever
>> as long as it is done in a legal and responsible fashion.
>>
>> This however is an area where there are numerous issues that far exceed
>> the interests of private business.
>>
>> First and foremost. There are very few issues that reside at the core of
>> our civilization. Those in no particular order are; freedom/s, order,
>> personal and public safety, cohesive family structure, working public
>> infrastructure, sovereign integrity and an absolute faith that a in a
>> democratic republic the voting process is beyond corruption and risk.
>>
>> Let me make this very clear.
>>
>> When a people lose faith/trust in the system that tally's their votes,
>> that threatens the core of our society. It fractures our foundations. it
>> eats at our hearts, it makes people lose faith that our government is BY
>> and FOR the people.
>>
>> I am not afraid of computers. I am afraid of people. To keep people
>> honest we absolutely must be able to see every single part of how an
>> electronic tabulation system works to keep public faith and trust. It is
>> simple as that.
>>
>> Until that is done I would have no problem with people taking up their
>> keyboards, pens, letters, emails, protest signs, voices and arms to
>> ensure that this is still a government BY and FOR the people. The issue
>> is that serious IMNSHO.
>
> I fully agree. In principle, at least going by my perception/belief, no
> company should benefit from the very foundations of a state. The taxpayer
> should not satisfy hunger of a businessman for wealth either.
>
> Bear in mind--whatever motivated you to openly rant in this fashion--that
> Linux embodies the rationale that software should not have ownership or
> control. At the very least, ownership and control should be transferrable,
> e.g. to the government. Linux adoption will not benefit anyone (not
> directly anyway) but its users. My contributions to COLA, moreso, are
> voluntarily. Like you, I am fed up seeing how handshakes behind the scenes
> lead to politicians and businessmen benefiting one another through
> contracts and favours (nepotism, favouritism, etc), all concealed using
> shiny pamphlets and a state of extreme secrecy. Google and Microsoft are a
> perfect example of this. some employers has begun loathing Google for its
> no-longer-hidden lobbying, as well as spontaneous flirting with employees.
> When companies get political they affect politics and become self-centric
> (the shareholders could not care less about ethics, being a secondary
> 'nice-to-have').
Here's how to crack a US voting machine, & have the results *you* want!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNYA5ggwG84
--
Trolls & replies to trolls
are filtered out, as are
googlegroup users.
|
|
