Same here, I was agreeing.
Pretty much what I’m drawing on as well, though I’ve done some contract work at the state level. Its similar but not the same, though for this discussion they are enough alike to make no real difference. Understand I’m coming at this from the perspective of a contractor, not from the Government so I could have some details wrong. I’ve only seen things from one side of the fense.
This isn’t true…or at least its not entirely true, based on my own experience. The government sends out an RFP with their requirements detailing what they expect as an end product (as well as tons of BS boilerplate and government double talk). Companies interested send in their responses which are evaluated by the government to see if they comply with the RFP (and also to determine which is cheapest as that will probably be the one they go with 
).
The government awards the contract and a contracting officer oversee’s the project (perhaps by assigning some GS as a project manager, perhaps assigning additional personnel…it varies) to ensure that goals are met and that the project is completed to satisfaction. An evaluation is done of the final product to make sure it meets the original RFP as well as any changes requested by the government during the project (I’m glossing over a bunch here to save space as you probably realize). Once the government signs off then they have accepted the product as meeting their requirements.
Certainly they COULD go back after the fact if some serious flaw is found in the product that they didn’t catch (though the contracting officer and whatever PM they might have assigned to the project will probably have their ass in a sling over it if they do). I’ve seen it happen exactly once since I’ve been a contractor, though I’m sure it happens more than that. The point though would be…IS Ohio going back with such a motion towards Diebold? I haven’t heard that they are, or even that they are considering it. So, it seems that, flaws and all, the government got the product they actually asked for.
If you accept all that (I’m not assuming you do btw) I ask again: What would the government have gotten had they done it themselves that they didn’t get by going through Diebold (remember my post was in response to not privatizing the vote, i.e. having the government make the things themselves without contractors)? Unless you can show that Diebold didn’t follow the RFP and were in voilation of their contract, then its going to be kind of hard to show that the government would have magically done a better job, or gotten what they DIDN’T ask for.
-XT
No, I’m not aware of any ways in which political speech is limited for private citizens. We’re literally talking about spoken words here, not money spent in support of poltical speech or symbolic speech or anything else. Actual words coming out of someone’s mouth.
The only thing that comes close to this that I’m aware of is (IIRC) certain restrictions on campaigning within “X” distance of a polling station. But that doesn’t prevent anyone from saying whatever it is that person wants to say, it just limits **where **it can be said.
If I’m mistaken about that, I’ll gladly welcome some enlightenment.
A man could grow old and die waiting for leadership from the present crop of elected Democratic … leaders.
I have conceded that Dems have done dirty electoral tricks in the past. There are some allegations that Dems did some dirty tricks in this election, in fact, in Ohio. But not on the scale of the allegations about the Pubs. If you have anything more substantive than a tu quoque to toss out, toss it out. Otherwise, you got nothing.
If we could get an impartial investigation instead of the usual dog and pony show Republicans put on when they are called on to investigate their misdeeds.
MORE robust???
Who described the system as robust in the first place? :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: Not the GAO report!
So, if there’s no investigation it’s because the Pubbies are stonewalling, and if there’s an investigation that concludes no fraud was done it’s because the Pubbies sabotaged the investigation. Sounds like you’ve already made up your mind, and no reasonable investigation will satisfy you. I suppose we could have a competely Democratic investigation, but wouldn’t that kinda create its own problems of bias?
And if the Democrats don’t find anything by themselves he has an answer for that as well. “A man could grow old and die waiting for leadership from the present crop of elected Democratic … leaders.” He’s got all the bases covered so no matter what (barring someone finding Bush guilty and putting him up against the wall to pose for gunfire or shipping his ass off to stand trial for war crimes in Europe) he has an excuse. There is a term for this kind of self contained delusion that is completely immune to any kind of evidence but I can’t think of it…
-XT
No, we are the epitome of all that is good and right. Our investigation would have the strength of ten, because our hearts are pure.
Y’know, I wouldn’t mind seeing an investigation, but quite frankly, I’d much* rather see what was being discussed earlier in the thread: implementation of safeguards and audit trails, including inspection of the code by outsiders. I don’t want to see accusations of fraud coming up every two years - I want it solved and fixed.
I apologize. I missed the part where he rigged the equipment. Would you show that to me.
No. Partisan hacks and the tin foil crowd routinely suggest all kinds of possibilities, and it does not trouble me at all.
Without evidence to suggest that wrongdoing occured the suggesters are taking wild-ass-speculative-guesses, and it troubles me no more than the dingy old guy with the placard screaming about the end times in the Port athority.
[
To me, it means that Caesar was an asshole who’d had numerous affairs of his own and who finally found a convenient excuse to get rid of his aging wife so he could indulge himself without guilt.
I seriously think it’s totally bullshit. Appearances mean nothing, and the quote serves no purpose than to give the appearance of weight to circumstantial slanders, bad arguments, and logical leaps.
There you guys go again … excluding the middle. The bipartisan 911 Commission investigation did an excellent job of covering the 911 events and didn’t make any wild accusations that I know of. Or you could assign the job to an independent investigator not notably beholden to either party, someone like, oh, Patrick Fitzgerald. Personally, I think the job needs someone more like Mike Hammer … someone who’s not afraid to beat the truth out of a bureaucrat or gut shoot a broad if that’s what the job calls for.
Republicanism is the term you’re looking for, my good man. And you too are excluding the middle. But thanks for playing.
Actually I was thinking ‘conspiricy theorist’, but that YOU for playing.
-XT
I just think Diebold gave us really, really, really bad gear that we can’t trust. Which is deeply wrong, considering the position it is in.
Assuming this is true for a moment, its up to the state to decide that (they are the ‘customer’ after all) and bite the bullet and take the steps necessary to either correct it or bring in a new system. If they can prove that Diebold gave them bad gear that was not what the RFP asked for, or that they even defrauded the state, then the state should take steps to sue Diebold. If this is the case then I’m all for the state doing whatever it deems necessary. Problem I have is I don’t think the state is doing any of these things…which leads me to think that the state got exactly what it asked for (and signed off on).
Reguardless its a long leap from Diebold’s devices (perhaps) being ‘really, really bad gear’ to ‘Bush stole the election and the GAO report upholds this’ (I know you didn’t say any of this, just making a point). Its even a long stretch from saying Diebolds devices are bad to Diebold defrauded or gave substandard devices that didn’t meet the state requirements…even THAT hasn’t been shown yet afaict. That would probably be the best place to start though by looking at the cites Unclebeer provided reguarding the actual RFP vs what was delivered. I skimmed it and it looks to me like the state got essentially what they asked for (its hard to tell though as you really need to dig into an RFP to figure out what the hell they are asking for).
-XT
Both parties have a history of vote fraud, so what’s your point? It’s kind of neat to be a democrat, though, you can still vote after you’re dead.
In a way I’m happy that this issue has come up, in as much as I hope it offers an incentive to reverse the decisions to vote in this manner. Or at the very least discourage other states from adopting the system.
I think that voting by computer without a paper-trail is exactly the wrong direction we should have taking the voting process in. Optical scanned votes have a paper trail, aren’t intimidating to people who are unfamiliar with or distrustful of technology, they’re cheaper, and a whole lot harder to tamper with, so why didn’t states with out-dated machinery make a move to them instead? Yeah, a networked system that any half-decent hacker could get into is just what we needed to add more integrity to the voting results. :rolleyes:
You have no prima facie reason to question the results - you have already admitted that you have no evidence, and are merely making accusations which you would not make if the political parties were reversed.
And yet you are questioning - hell, directly accusing - Republicans of dirty tricks.
It is not possible to have an election that is beyond question, if questions are motivated simply by losing. Kerry lost Ohio, which is the reason you are questioning the results in Ohio, as opposed to Cook County or another of the states Kerry won.
Best you can do, eh? Typical.
Regards,
Shodan
Been over that already. It isn’t my fault you refuse to see it.
I have admitted nothing of the sort. Please stop lying.
Nope, just questioning. Where do you see a direct accusation? Again, please stop lying.
I’ve made my motivations clear as well - love of country and respect for democracy. It isn’t my fault you refuse to see that, either, or perhaps cannot. Again, please stop lying.
And please stop lying about that, too. :rolleyes:
Is this really the best light you can present your “case” in? Do you really think you’re convincing anyone else here?