Quote:
/facepalm

My view has nothing to do with Fox

As usual you are assuming to much and thinking too little. It is what it is, both parties pull shady ass shit. My point is that we DONT KNOW to what degree the shady ass shit makes a difference, or how deep the shit runs.

I am not saying Obama did not win, or would not have won - I dont know. What I am saying, is there are far to many easily rigged electronic voting machines, and not nearly enough security , and too many trillions of dollars (literally) at stake for me to feel comfortable with close elections period.

Quit assuming that just because someone points out something you dont like, that you are justified for lobbing hyperbolic BS at them.


This was my post on 12/7 btw... addressing the last of your string of fallacies that had yet to be addressed.

Where you said
Quote:
We weren’t talking about electronic voting up to this point. If you want to bring electronic voting into conversation you will have to justify why it is relevant. Additionally you have to prove breakdown of continuity, that is demonstrate that electronic voting is so fundamentally different that we cannot compare it to other historical examples of similar “close” elections.


And as I said a long time ago, if you want info on the state of voting security google it your own self. While I am happy to adopt a more formal tone when you do so, I am not going back and retroactively do so. I felt no need to respond thoroughly and formally to your snide BS lobbing then, and still do not feel particularly compelled.

Good place to start is State of Ohio audits on the subject, but google will have plethora of other references from various state audits and professional security analysts.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)