Cannabidraake
wrote in
news:pq8cd4tfvl5or83n455ujb5glahdv7bd5n@4ax.com:
> In news:alt.drugs.pot, fanghorn posted on Fri, 19
> Sep 2008 22:41:20 +0000 (UTC):
>
>> Cannabidraake
wrote in
>> news:pf34d4t0rtnnbejtc0s50ogsc0u44klu66@4ax.com:
>>>>> There is a way to vote over the internet with biometrics. You get
>>> one vote for your biometric readout. If there's any question about
>>> your vote, they just call you up and ask. The only thing you have to
>>> do is have your biometric records on file with the government.
>>
>> Oo, now *there's* a Idea to get George Orwell rolling.
>
> Well, for as long as people continue to disagree so much about who
> they're going to have as a leader as to require elections to figure it
> out, then biometric voting systems might become the only way to keep
> people honest.
>
Huh? sorry, but sence making sentence that not me done. Biometric means
computers. Computers imply internet to transfer data. Computers on the
internet get broken into. *Any* voting system involving anything other
than pencils and paper is prone to error and manipulation. Remeber Florida
in 2000? Punched cards that have been around since the 1800's were the
problem (aside from the governor I insist).
> Besides, George Orwell was a writer. He was a writer from some time
> ago, back closer to the time when people believed in demons and devils
> luring women into witchcraft. Not *in* that time, but closer to that
> time than we are now.
>
The book was written in 1948, hence the title 1984. Right after WWII and
just as Stalin (Joseph Steel is what his name meant by the way, hence Max
Power for Homer Simpson) was starting to do his nasty stuff. *Very*
relevant. History repeats itself.
> I don't think we're nearly as monitored as we think we are.
Not everybody, but without someone saying "sorry, you can't spy on him,
that's not allowed period" and being obeyed, *anything* can and does
happen. There's plenty of people in jail in the US (and US teritories) for
stupid reasons. More people are jailed in the US than any other country
per capita.
> I don't
> believe in Echelon sifting e-mails, but with conspiracy theorists
> stirring up the fear in people, the government doesn't have to create
> propaganda,
Sure it does. *any* govt. does. That's what the press secretary does. Not
to the extent that the Natzis did in WWII, but it's still part of the job
description. Listen carefully what she says the next time she's on TV.
> nor does it have to deny anything that's said about it
> that's not specifically asked about. That they deny some conspiracy
> theories might be an example of the truth coming about about something
> they chose to not address voluntarily since holding their peace only
> worked in their own favor. Just keep the suspicion up and that gives
> them more breathing room as the public asks questions and has
> discussions.
>
Well, anything that's been found out about the Bush regime has shown that
the limit in terms of what rules he and Cheney will break has yet to be
found. There is a basic disregard for principles and the rule of law being
applied to the administrative branch which is the worst kind of tyranny
just waiting to happen.
