When I voted last week on the new computer voting machine, there were no curtains. There were two wings attached at a 45º angle to the main screen, and the print on the screen was huge. No body would have had any difficulty reading my computer screen from 20 feet away. Also, the machines were set so that the voter faced the wall and the machine screen faced the center of the room. I will admit, it made me a little uneasy. I grew up with the old voting machines that had the handle that closed the curtain and recorded the vote when you opened the curtain.
I wonder if I could whip up a portable curtain unit before the general election.
I'm pretty sure that the reason for the openness is so that hackers with evildoing on their minds don't go into the curtained roomlet, whip out a portable, flexible keyboard, hack into the system, and change millions of votes in one fell swoop. I saw a piece on one of the news shows that illustrated this (or heard it on the radio, can't remember which). The portable keyboard rolls up, tucks inside a sleeve, and makes it ridiculously easy for security to be breached.
But it is a shame. I prefer privacy to my vote, as well.
We have early voting and it is much easier than waiting in line on Election Day. Usually in and out in less than 5 minutes. Last election was in a school gym and I was the only one aside from the election workers. I'll go early this year too. I do miss the excitement of voting on Election Day, but time is of the essence.
You sure don't know me very well. Thank you for the links. They were very interesting.
It reminds me of something that happened four years ago when some conservative candidate was at someplace like Harvard campaigning for the primaries and got roundly booed by the liberals, but then after that when a liberal candidate -- I think it was Gore -- was accidentally scheduled to speak at a very conservative place -- maybe a Bible college or something -- where people opposed everything the candidate stood for, they let the candidate come and were very polite to him.
I'm not argumentative -- I was just curious. I see both sides accusing the opposition of the same tactics to the point where both sides could not be true.
I never said you were a liar. I just wanted to read something from the general press to see the whole picture
Melinda, who grew up in Stroudsburg, county seat of Monroe County, and who congratulates you on your choice of newspapers, although the Pocono Record was her choice when she lived back there :)
I think you may be reading more into what I said that what I did say. I was, indeed, making a polite request. I most sincerely, humbly, and contritely apologize if you or anybody else mis-read my tone as being accusatory, because honest, I wasn't meaning to be so. And I think that people who know my public posting posting habits would probably vouch for the fact that although I don't always use the right words, my intentions are never malicious, mean, spiteful, etc.
P.S. Lest you forget who I am, I am the person who you thanked for disagreeing with you so politely (see quote below). If I was so full of venom as you might think, I would have come out with both barrels at you.
I suspect that when ( notice I don't say if) someone hacks into a computerized voting system, it will be on a much larger scale than a hacker in a voting booth.
I can see it now - a ruffled parasol with my denim pants and chambray shirt, and my hair cut to 1/2 inch. Oh, and my Birkenstocks. A senior citizen fashion plate.
The President only has 1/3 the power or 1/4 if you count the Supreme Court. That is not enough power for the President to do all the damage you claim. When you leave out info like that is seems like slander and tring to get hold of peoples feelings to get a handle on them so they don't think. What you wrote and how you wrote it sounds very manipulative. If you look at Seattle and Boeing where probably more jobs have been lost than anywhere else in the USA since 9/11 It's not Bush who is the problem it's the fear factor of getting in a jetliner that cause so many jets not to be built that would have been built, so many lay offs. Not even Bush is that stupid to want that!
You talk about Bush trying to prevent 2,000 people in FL from voteing, which I believe is questionable, but say nothing about Gore trying to prevent solders abroad from there votes being counted- and you can listen to Gore saying there vote shouldn't count. The Dictionary says that telling part of the truth and leaving out some truth is telling a lie. When people have to make a decision they need all the facts and not be cheated. It seems to me the libral media ran down France not Bush.
There are many things I don't like about Bush. But, there are more things I don't like about Kerry. How do you explain about Kerry voteing to send people to war, but voteing against those he sends to war not haveing better personal armour- would you like to be one of those solders with Kerry as President? I wouldn't! What about Kerry hideing his $800,000 yatch when voting time comes? After all, doesn't he claim to be for the poor? He is certainly not up front! If Kerry only voted on 20% of the things he was voted in to vote on- Why would you think he could make a good President? If you did 20% of your job working for a company you would be fired! It seems kind of filthy to me for him to con people to vote for him when he won't even do what they voted him in to do!
You haven't explained one reason to vote for Kerry. Your only explaination is to vote against Bush? What if Kerry is worse? If you bring up the environment, Remember This- some people have hijacked the environmental movement; There dreams have been burned by there own stupidity- they got there rules and lost. The forrest fires of the last several years, thanks to Clinton and wacko environmentalist, have destroyed millions of acres of land killing off thousand of spotted owls, etc. Where as, the lands that were not under these wacko protections still have the spotted owls, etc. Who won? The wacko's still havn't admitted it. There such losers they can't even admit it, even to there dumb selfs. Bush has not taken away freedom of speech. Bush hasn't taken away gun rights- anybody who votes against gun rights is voting for crime. Englands crime rate sky rocketed when gun rights were taken away and taxed- higher in London than NY City, nowadays. If you believe in law enforcement to protect you - you got more rocks in your head than you deserve, no doubt law enforcement should be first reaction if can, but that is not always possible, last reaction would be a gun- how much is your life worth? If Kerry is so interested in helping the poor and helpless? How can he be taking human life in the name of abortion? Is he not suppose to be defending those people? 1,000 solders is alot lest innocent life being killed than the murder that Kerry has partaken in! I believe in capital punishment for those who choose to do terrible things to other humans, but not for the innocent, especially for those who ought to be safe inside there mothers. By the way, less people have died per year in Iraqi since America has stepped in than when Sudam was running it. I don't think we should have gone into Iraqi. When it comes to the hundreds of things to vote for and against - Bush wins my vote. When voting you need to think, not let someone else think for you! Pursue the facts, not feelings. Fact + twist = lie! Stay away from lies and vote Responsibly! Since they both lie- Good Luck!
John
"Tom Farrell" snipped-for-privacy@tomfarrell.org wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com...
There is a Republican Congress, and a Republican Senate, so ALL the power is held by one party. That is contrary to the way the Constitution was set up, and bad for the country because it doesn't truly represent the populace. This is American Government, as taught in 7th grade.
If Kerry only voted on 20% of the things he was
At least he has 25 years of service in national government; at the time of his inauguration, Bush had zip, zero, nada. In fact, he had less than a full six years as governor of Texas, which was his only public service (and almost the only job he ever had). Furthermore, John Kerry has actually been out of the US more than once in his life; Bush had been out of the US, and therefore ignorant of the rest of the world, only once or twice before he became president. And now what is HE doing to service the country? Every single day he has been campaigning, for the last year plus, and at a time when we are in a crisis. He's been in Cincinnati alone at least four times; I can only imagine how many other cities he's been to at least once. If he were really, truly concerned about the state of this country, he'd stay put and not be gallivanting around, begging for votes. If he had enough integrity, he wouldn't even have to go on a campaign. But our country is not better than it was four years ago, since he hasn't done anything but attempt to limit a woman's right to choose, and to keep gays from getting married (which I hadn't realized was such a threat). In the meantime, our health insurance, which we buy as self-employed people, has gone up 150%. We pay more in health insurance premiums per month than we pay for our mortgage. And get less for it, every year.
The forrest fires of the last several years, thanks
This is just silly. And by the way, could you, or any other neo-con, ever refer to non-Republicans with respect? Apparently not. Why is "liberal" a bad word, and why do people who aren't like-minded "wackos"?
If Kerry is so interested in helping
Has it ever occurred to you that MEN are the cause of unwanted pregnancy? And that if MEN were taking responsibility, we wouldn't have so much poverty, so many fatherless children, and so many women desparate enough to want to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Men can father a child and walk away, never to look back; a woman has to then carry the child, raise it, and support it for the next 18 years, at least. I'm not saying that I'm "for" abortion (as John Kerry is not "for" abortion, but rather for a woman's choice), but I'm totally for people--all people--taking responsibility for their actions, and to have the right to choose which course their life will take.
One of the more interesting facts about this issue is that no court in the U.S. will order anyone, man or woman, to donate bone marrow (or a kidney) to save the life of someone in need, even if they are family. If a person cannot be forced against their will to endure a medical treatment of one day, with recovery time of six weeks or less, why should a person be forced to endure nine months?
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.