Uncensored Gore

[Tony]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php ..full article


It's lucky for George W. Bush that he wasn’t born in an earlier time and somehow stumbled into America’s Constitutional Convention. A man with his views, so depreciative of democratic rule, would have certainly been quickly exiled from the freshly liberated United States by the gaggle of incensed Founders. So muses one of our most controversial social critics and prolific writers, Gore Vidal.



This guy is a wacko, but there are a few things he said which stand out as exceptionally stupid.

Questionpeaking of elections, is George W. Bush going to be re-elected next year?

AnswerNo. At least if there is a fair election, an election that is not electronic. That would be dangerous. We don’t want an election without a paper trail. The makers of the voting machines say no one can look inside of them, because they would reveal trade secrets. What secrets? Isn’t their job to count votes? Or do they get secret messages from Mars? Is the cure for cancer inside the machines? I mean, come on. And all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?

So Bush will probably win if the country is covered with these balloting machines. He can’t lose.


Tin-foil hat time.

I think of them as an alien army. They have managed to take over everything, and quite in the open. We have a deranged president. We have despotism. We have no due process.



I think you're the detranged one Mr. Vidal. I see you're heavy on the platitudes, but light on the evidence.

think we will go down the tubes right with it [Iraq]. With each action Bush ever more enrages the Muslims. And there are a billion of them. And sooner or later they will have a Saladin who will pull them together, and they will come after us. And it won’t be pretty.

Where were you on Sept. 11th dumba$s? Probably at a party celebrating the glorious event. The islamists are already coming after us.

[Tricky]

Any particular reason why you chose your thread topic to suggest Al Gore rather than Gore Vidal? Vidal is an outspoken liberal who is quite controversial. Al Gore, by contrast is pretty moderate and is only controversial because Republicans hate him.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that when you say "Gore" we would think "Vidal". This sort of misdirection is disingenious, to say the least. I expect more honesty of you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
Any particular reason why you chose your thread topic to suggest Al Gore rather than Gore Vidal? Vidal is an outspoken liberal who is quite controversial. Al Gore, by contrast is pretty moderate and is only controversial because Republicans hate him.

This sort of misdirection is disingenious, to say the least. I expect more honesty of you.

Dude!! Click on the link and look at the title of the article. I expect an apology.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

Dude!! Look click on the link and look at the title of the article. I expect an apology.
I know what you meant as soon as I read the thread. I am talking about your thread title. Nobody calls Gore Vidal "Gore". You deliberately intended this to be a slam against Al Gore. It was a cheap trick, not worthy of you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I know what you meant as soon as I read the thread. I am talking about your thread title. Nobody calls Gore Vidal "Gore". You deliberately intended this to be a slam against Al Gore. It was a cheap trick, not worthy of you.

There is no trick, I chose the title of the thread because it is the title of the article. That's all, there was no evil plan.


And I wouldnt' exactly call Vidal liberal. Like most "liberals", he is a left-wing authoritarian.

[a_unique_person]

Gore Vidal is a very intelligent and knowledgable man. He knows more than you ever will about the world and it's history. You have not the faintest clue about him, have you?

I would suggest you get one, or more, of his novels and read it/them. They are works of genius, for the most part. You might learn a thing or two.

I work in the computing industry. The election machines are very scary. I know how easy it is to have security breaches and bugs. These guys propose to have such a system, without any 'audit trail'. Not tin foil hat time, but common sense time.

The lack of due process for the war in Iraq has been noted by many. The process that has been followed is one with no regard for law. It is common knowledge that the war was going to happen either way, either with or without UN backing. And look where it got him.

[Cain]

Oh my...

And I wouldnt' exactly call Vidal liberal. Like most "liberals", he is a left-wing authoritarian.

What do you base that on? Or did you solicit his opinion on toilet bowls?

Here's something worth repeating:
Gore Vidal is a very intelligent and knowledgable man. He knows more than you ever will about the world and it's history. You have not the faintest clue about him, have you?

By the way, I think Vidal is a second or third cousin of Al Gore. He also left America to live in Italy (before Sept. 11).

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain
Oh my...

What do you base that on? Or did you solicit his opinion on toilet bowls?




People of his (and your) ilk fit this classification much more than "liberal.” Feel free to prove me wrong, what are his positions on taxes, gun rights, free speech, government intrusion, and individual rights?

Is he like most so-called "liberals" who tend to condemn the tyrants they disagree with while ignoring the ones with which they agree?

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I would suggest you get one, or more, of his novels and read it/them. They are works of genius, for the most part. You might learn a thing or two.


I just might, what books has he written?

I work in the computing industry. The election machines are very scary.

I agree, but I doubt Vidal would be condemning these machines this much is someone he liked was in office.

The lack of due process for the war in Iraq has been noted by many. The process that has been followed is one with no regard for law. It is common knowledge that the war was going to happen either way, either with or without UN backing.

Pull your head out of your a$s; "due process" and the UN's inept policies were the status quo for 12 years. Due process was followed, you just ignore it.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony
People of his (and your) ilk fit this classification much more than "liberal.” Feel free to prove me wrong, what are his positions on taxes, gun rights, free speech, government intrusion, and individual rights?

Don't you know??? After all, you're the one calling him an "authoritarian."

Is he like most so-called "liberals" who tend to condemn the tyrants they disagree with while ignoring the ones with which they agree?

Again, you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. Just stop.

[Frank Newgent]

Thanks for the link, Tony. Have always enjoyed reading a little Gore Vidal.

We are talking about despotism. I have read not only the first PATRIOT Act but also the second one, which has not yet been totally made public nor approved by Congress and to which there is already great resistance. An American citizen can be fingered as a terrorist, and with what proof? No proof. All you need is the word of the attorney general or maybe the president himself. You can then be locked up without access to a lawyer, and then tried by military tribunal and even executed. Or, in a brand-new wrinkle, you can be exiled, stripped of your citizenship and packed off to another place not even organized as a country — like Tierra del Fuego or some rock in the Pacific. All of this is in the USA PATRIOT Act. The Founding Fathers would have found this to be despotism in spades. And they would have hanged anybody who tried to get this through the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Hanged.
Hanged. Easier than a well-placed gunshot at the height of rush hour...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tricky

Nobody calls Gore Vidal "Gore".

The writer of the linked article did.

Uncensored Gore
The take-no-prisoners social critic skewers Bush, Ashcroft and the whole damn lot of us for letting despots rule.
by Marc Cooper

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


Don't you know??? After all, you're the one calling him an "authoritarian."



Again, you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. Just stop.


Do you know what this------> ? is?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony

I work in the computing industry. The election machines are very scary.

I agree, but I doubt Vidal would be condemning these machines this much is someone he liked was in office.


Problems with voting machines:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60713,00.html

"Officials leave voting machines at polling stations days before the election. The machines contain memory cards with ballots already loaded on them. This means before the election, someone could alter the ballot file in such a way that voters would cast votes for the wrong candidate without knowing it.

The memory card rests behind a locked door on the side of the voting machine. But supervisors receive a key to the compartment the weekend before the election. The same key fits every machine at a polling station.

Poll supervisors are selected with no background checks and are given keys to buildings where they can access the machines several days before the election.

The machines, worth around $3,000 each, are locked on a trolley at polling stations with only a bicycle lock. The combination, which anyone could crack in a couple of tries, is the same for every polling station in the county and is given to poll supervisors during their training.

Although the machines have two blue tamper-resistant ties threaded through holes in their carrying cases, the ties can easily be purchased on the Internet. Supervisors open at least one case the night before the election to charge the machine inside, which means the case remains unsealed overnight."

And that's before you get to the software etc.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Thanks for the link, Tony. Have always enjoyed reading a little Gore Vidal.

"We are talking about despotism. I have read not only the first PATRIOT Act but also the second one, which has not yet been totally made public nor approved by Congress and to which there is already great resistance. An American citizen can be fingered as a terrorist, and with what proof? No proof. All you need is the word of the attorney general or maybe the president himself. You can then be locked up without access to a lawyer, and then tried by military tribunal and even executed. Or, in a brand-new wrinkle, you can be exiled, stripped of your citizenship and packed off to another place not even organized as a country — like Tierra del Fuego or some rock in the Pacific. All of this is in the USA PATRIOT Act. The Founding Fathers would have found this to be despotism in spades. And they would have hanged anybody who tried to get this through the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Hanged."


Hanged. Easier than a well-placed gunshot at the height of rush hour...

I'll wait and see what this sooper-secret-nobody-knows-about-it-but-me USA PATRIORT act says for myself before I jump to any conclusions about hanging anyone, thanks Gore.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Tony

Feel free to prove me wrong, what are his positions on taxes, gun rights, free speech, government intrusion, and individual rights?
Think whatever you do, Tony. I don't care. But reading a link (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/33/features-cooper.php) from the interview you posted (to an interview last year with Gore Vidal) I found this.

But the American people, yes, they instinctively know when the government goes off the rails like it did at Waco and Ruby Ridge. No one has been elected president in the last 50 years unless he ran against the federal government. So, the government should get through its head that it is hated not only by foreigners whose countries we have wrecked, but also by Americans whose lives have been wrecked.
Not that this has anything to do with your question, but I thought you'd probably like the first sentence here, at least...

And the liberals, of course, are the slowest and the stupidest, because they do not understand their interests. The right wing are the bad guys, but they know what they want -- everybody else's money. And they know they don't like blacks and they don't like minorities. And they like to screw everyone along the way.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Think whatever you do, Tony. I don't care. But reading a link (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/33/features-cooper.php) from the interview you posted (to an interview last year with Gore Vidal) I found this.


Not that this has anything to do with your question, but I thought you'd probably like the first sentence here, at least...




Thanks Frank, I found this especially interesting.


But the American people, yes, they instinctively know when the government goes off the rails like it did at Waco and Ruby Ridge. No one has been elected president in the last 50 years unless he ran against the federal government. So, the government should get through its head that it is hated not only by foreigners whose countries we have wrecked, but also by Americans whose lives have been wrecked.


I’m sorry if I pre-judged this guy, but I am extremely skeptical of any political loudmouth. Most have turned out to be hypocrites.


However, I think this is an over simplification.

And the liberals, of course, are the slowest and the stupidest, because they do not understand their interests. The right wing are the bad guys, but they know what they want -- everybody else's money. And they know they don't like blacks and they don't like minorities. And they like to screw everyone along the way.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I would suggest you get one, or more, of his novels and read it/them. They are works of genius, for the most part. You might learn a thing or two.Originally posted by Tony
I just might, what books has he written? Oh my.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


I just might, what books has he written?



Washington, D.C. Burr, Lincoln, Creation, 1876, Messiah. He has written numerous books, but I found his 'history' of the US to be enthralling, and so mainly stuck to that. Washington DC is relatively small, but very readable. It is his take on the Kennedy Clan.



I work in the computing industry. The election machines are very scary.

I agree, but I doubt Vidal would be condemning these machines this much is someone he liked was in office.



He is no fan of the Democrats, either.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony



Do you know what this------> ? is?

You're rather slow, aren't you?

Check this out: "And I wouldnt' exactly call Vidal liberal. Like most "liberals", he is a left-wing authoritarian."

And yet, you have no idea of his positions. Now you're pointing to question marks. This stuff makes me apoplectic. I might as well spend this time productively arguing with post-modernists... or watching paint dry.

Edited to add: Yes, Marc Cooper refers to Gore Vidal as "Gore" in the interview. That's probably because they're friends, in spite of the fact, I suppose, that Cooper regularly grovels before power. It's a misleading title, but nothing worth arguing over to a great extent. Few people on this board should be expected to know Tony was referring to Vidal. Besides, who uses first names? If it said "Al Uncensored" there would be ambiguity between Franken and Gore (two well known names here). But since Tony knows Jack-Diddly sh*t about Vidal, it's all rather dervivative, isn't it?

[Gem]

I don't want to discuss, just want to point something:

Originally posted by Tony
Is he like most so-called "liberals" who tend to condemn the tyrants they disagree with while ignoring the ones with which they agree?

I wouldn't put everyone who is against some dictators but ignores the ones they agree with as liberal.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30593

Gem

[Malachi151]

Learn before you speak:

http://www.pitt.edu/~kloman/vidalframe.html

[BTox]

Good link. Vidal sure is a kook...

[Skeptic]

"Officials leave voting machines at polling stations days before the election. The machines contain memory cards with ballots already loaded on them. This means before the election, someone could alter the ballot file in such a way that voters would cast votes for the wrong candidate without knowing it.

True. And computerizing medical records or SS# means people could tamper with that information wihtout you knowing it. The question is, is it likely?

Poll supervisors are selected with no background checks and are given keys to buildings where they can access the machines several days before the election.

Well, there goes the conspiracy. To "rig" the elections would mean that all of these supervisors would have to be somehow secretly chosen for their republican sympathies, agree to tamper (or let tamper) with the voting machines to computer hackers of similar sympathies, and of course do the whole thing it COMPLETE secrecy, which nobody will EVER break, or else this would be the biggest scandal in US history and would be the end of the republican party, let alone the president.

In other words, one would need to executed a perfect Watergate * 10,000 or so. Is that likely?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Problems with voting machines:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60713,00.html

"Officials leave voting machines at polling stations days before the election. The machines contain memory cards with ballots already loaded on them. This means before the election, someone could alter the ballot file in such a way that voters would cast votes for the wrong candidate without knowing it.

The memory card rests behind a locked door on the side of the voting machine. But supervisors receive a key to the compartment the weekend before the election. The same key fits every machine at a polling station.

Poll supervisors are selected with no background checks and are given keys to buildings where they can access the machines several days before the election.

The machines, worth around $3,000 each, are locked on a trolley at polling stations with only a bicycle lock. The combination, which anyone could crack in a couple of tries, is the same for every polling station in the county and is given to poll supervisors during their training.

Although the machines have two blue tamper-resistant ties threaded through holes in their carrying cases, the ties can easily be purchased on the Internet. Supervisors open at least one case the night before the election to charge the machine inside, which means the case remains unsealed overnight."

And that's before you get to the software etc.


How different is all that from the current way of voting with punch cards? Do the supervisors have access to them beforehand? What stops them from voting on unused ballots at the end of the day? What stops them from removing ballots with votes they do not like?

[Skeptic]

At least if there is a fair election, an election that is not electronic. That would be dangerous. We don’t want an election without a paper trail. The makers of the voting machines say no one can look inside of them, because they would reveal trade secrets. What secrets? Isn’t their job to count votes? Or do they get secret messages from Mars? Is the cure for cancer inside the machines?

EARTH TO GORE VIDAL: they mean the technical details of the patented technology that does the counting.

Jeez!

I mean, come on. And all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?

Corruption--perhaps, conspiracy--no.

That companies that give the ruling party money tend to be rewarded with government contracts is hardly news. But to imply that this is some sort of "insider job" to create "pro-republican" machines is insane. Perhaps the CEO of the company got the contract as part of a kickback.

But can you imagine the chief technical officer of the company saying to the development team of engineers: "now look, out goal here is to create a voting machine that rigs the elections in favor of Bush. First of all, we need a program that makes every 'democrat' vote into a 'republican' vote on command from a remote control. Oh, and it's a SECRET, so DON'T TELL ANYBODY we are establishing a dictatorship here, OK?"

Gore Vidal doesn't seem to know how the real world works anymore.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


You're rather slow, aren't you?

Check this out: "And I wouldnt' exactly call Vidal liberal. Like most "liberals", he is a left-wing authoritarian."

And yet, you have no idea of his positions. Now you're pointing to question marks. This stuff makes me apoplectic. I might as well spend this time productively arguing with post-modernists... or watching paint dry.



Damn you're dense, you didnt even have a clue I asked these questions:

Feel free to prove me wrong, what are his positions on taxes, gun rights, free speech, government intrusion, and individual rights?


Is he like most so-called "liberals" who tend to condemn the tyrants they disagree with while ignoring the ones with which they agree?

I guess to you a question mark is just a swiggly line that looks cool. To the rest of us, it is used to incate a question being asked. Now, are you going to answer my questions? Im honestly interested in this guy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Gem


I wouldn't put everyone who is against some dictators but ignores the ones they agree with as liberal.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30593

Gem


That's some pretty childish "reasoning".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox
Good link. Vidal sure is a kook...

In what way is he a kook?

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Washington, D.C. Burr, Lincoln, Creation, 1876, Messiah. He has written numerous books, but I found his 'history' of the US to be enthralling, and so mainly stuck to that. Washington DC is relatively small, but very readable. It is his take on the Kennedy Clan.



Thanks, Ill check'em out.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
At least if there is a fair election, an election that is not electronic. That would be dangerous. We don’t want an election without a paper trail. The makers of the voting machines say no one can look inside of them, because they would reveal trade secrets. What secrets? Isn’t their job to count votes? Or do they get secret messages from Mars? Is the cure for cancer inside the machines?

EARTH TO GORE VIDAL: they mean the technical details of the patented technology that does the counting.

Jeez!



You want to put the patents for an invention before people's trust in democracy? I think you need to reconsider your priorities.



I mean, come on. And all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?

Corruption--perhaps, conspiracy--no.

That companies that give the ruling party money tend to be rewarded with government contracts is hardly news. But to imply that this is some sort of "insider job" to create "pro-republican" machines is insane. Perhaps the CEO of the company got the contract as part of a kickback.



"Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." Openess and transparency is an essential part of the political process. It generates trust. Without that, you don't have a democracy.





But can you imagine the chief technical officer of the company saying to the development team of engineers: "now look, out goal here is to create a voting machine that rigs the elections in favor of Bush. First of all, we need a program that makes every 'democrat' vote into a 'republican' vote on command from a remote control. Oh, and it's a SECRET, so DON'T TELL ANYBODY we are establishing a dictatorship here, OK?"

Gore Vidal doesn't seem to know how the real world works anymore.

I's say you need to reconsider it. There are plenty of examples out there of why all democratic countries, but particularly the US, Great Britain and Australia, need to reconsider just what is happening to the Democratic process in light of the recent war.

I don't care how good the machines are, without the ability to demonstrate you can trust them, they are worthless.

[Cain]

Tony, c'mon, is this a bit? Are you putting me on? You calling me dense?


Look over the sequence of your posts one more time. You called him a left-wing authoritarian before even bothering to ask those questions. So why don't you holster that sidearm, cowboy, and try to pick a target before shooting wildly.

You are picking up on the shoot first, ask questions later theme here, right? Gosh, I can only hope...

Where are you rolleyes emoticon?

:rolleyes:

^^I wuv you.^^

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


In what way is he a kook?

"His belief that America is an imperial nation run by a small group of powerful corporate and political insiders; the loss of our ideal of a democratic Republic where the people actually have some influence on their government; his assertion that "homosexual" is an adjective that describes behavior and not a noun that describes a type of person because there is "no such thing as a homosexual," the notion having been created by psychiatrists who wanted to demonize the naturalness of same-sex relations.."

Maybe you're right, woowoo might be a better term than kook.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky
Any particular reason why you chose your thread topic to suggest Al Gore rather than Gore Vidal? Vidal is an outspoken liberal who is quite controversial. Al Gore, by contrast is pretty moderate and is only controversial because Republicans hate him.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that when you say "Gore" we would think "Vidal". This sort of misdirection is disingenious, to say the least. I expect more honesty of you.

Hey now, who could get mad at the guy who invented the Internet?

If Tony posted "Vidal", would you have chastised him because it's easy to confuse with Vidal Sassoon? Only your hairdresser knows for sure :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Hey now, who could get mad at the guy who invented the Internet?
Of course, Al Gore didn't say that he invented the internet (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm), but this lie has been repeated so many times that lots of people believe it is true. Are you one of them?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


"His belief that America is an imperial nation run by a small group of powerful corporate and political insiders;



There is plenty of evidence for that.


the loss of our ideal of a democratic Republic where the people actually have some influence on their government;



Most of them can't even be bothered voting any more. Does that tell you something?



his assertion that "homosexual" is an adjective that describes behavior and not a noun that describes a type of person because there is "no such thing as a homosexual,



Seems fair enough to me. He is trying to get away from the labelling process. I would find it strange if everyone assessed me first and foremost as being hetero. I am, but I don't see myself as being defined by that. Eg. Saying "Gore Vidal is one of the great Gay writers of the 20th Century" is not what he wants to be defined as.



" the notion having been created by psychiatrists who wanted to demonize the naturalness of same-sex relations.."



For him, being gay, it is entirely natural. Psychiatrists did try to treat it, and many Fundies still want to 'cure' it.



Maybe you're right, woowoo might be a better term than kook.

What 'woo-woo' is there?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

Of course, Al Gore didn't say that he invented the internet (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm), but this lie has been repeated so many times that lots of people believe it is true. Are you one of them?

From your link:

Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."


OK ... "created" ... :D

[Skeptic]

For those asking why Vidal is a "crank", the reason is that he is a conspiracy theorist which, like other paranoids, lives in a world of "terrifying significance", in Aldous Huxley's apt phrase. EVERYTHING is proof for him of the evil Bush's secret hand at work.

Voting technology is becoming--gasp!--computerized? (Can you IMAGINE? In 2003?) Can't be simply an update, must be a conspiracy.

The company that got the contract has donated money to the Bush administration? Can't be the usual "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", must be a conspiracy.

The voting machines are made by a private company which wants to protect its trademarked technology? Can't be simple economic sense, must be a conspiracy.

Well, guys... if you want a private company to design the machine, OF COURSE it would protect its own patents! No company would bother to do the research and create the technology to do so, otherwise. Your other options is to let THE GOVERNMENT design the voting machine that will decide who the next government will be... now what's wrong with THAT picture?

Of course, Vidal has not the TINIEST BIT of evidence of any conspiracy. On the contrary, his "arguments" show that he is:

1). A technological ignoramous, as his sneering assertaion that there cannot be any worthwhile technology to protect in the machine because HE cannot think of one shows.

2). Disrespectful of other people's property: give up your patents! His highness Vidal had spoken and said you are just bluffing!

3). Totally lacking in common sense: such a "conspiracy" would necessarily involve dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of people, all of whom would have to keep quiet forever, and would create the greatest scandal in US history--let alone put Bush in jail--if anybody blabbed, as they are sure to do within two weeks, at most.

This is not the attitude of somebody who is worth listening to. It is an arrogant, sneering, ignorant rant by someone who just KNOWS the "truth", evidence--and common sense--be damned; he's right, you're wrong, that's that.

This is, in other words, the classical personality of an egomaniacal crank.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
For those asking why Vidal is a "crank", the reason is that he is a conspiracy theorist which, like other paranoids, lives in a world of "terrifying significance", in Aldous Huxley's apt phrase. EVERYTHING is proof for him of the evil Bush's secret hand at work.

Voting technology is becoming--gasp!--computerized? (Can you IMAGINE? In 2003?) Can't be simply an update, must be a conspiracy.


Once again, you have to have faith in the system. Paper trail, etc. Gore has been involved in politics, he knows the dirty tricks everyone gets up to. He is being skeptical. He wants them to demonstrate that the system that is being proposed is above reproach.

It's not like dealing with a bank, say, where if you don't believe their computers work, you can just stuff your money under your mattress, or you can have a physical paper trail of all the transactions.

There is only one election, and it has to be a transparent system that can be available for all to verify. I have acted as a voting scrutiniser. I could verify that all parties concerned agreed on the votes cast. Not so with these machines.

You want to verify that these machines are technically sound. Sorry, that is a patent issue. It is more important than democracy.

[Malachi151]

EARTH TO GORE VIDAL: they mean the technical details of the patented technology that does the counting.

If something is patented then you don't have to worry about anyone "stealing" it, becuase you havea legal right of ownership to the technology.There is no need at all to "protect" anything that is patented, that IS what the patent does, it legally protects it.

The defense of the idea that the public should have full access to the inerworking of any vote counting device is beyond absurd. No one can seriously be in defense of democracy and sit there and say that the public should not have full access to the working of any device or proces that is used to count votes. That should be design consideration #1.

[Cain]

My God! who on earth would manipulate elections?? This simply has no history in American politics.

Perhaps we need the U.N. to oversee our next election.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Malachi151


If something is patented then you don't have to worry about anyone "stealing" it, becuase you havea legal right of ownership to the technology.There is no need at all to "protect" anything that is patented, that IS what the patent does, it legally protects it.

The defense of the idea that the public should have full access to the inerworking of any vote counting device is beyond absurd. No one can seriously be in defense of democracy and sit there and say that the public should not have full access to the working of any device or proces that is used to count votes. That should be design consideration #1.

That is not quite true, as plenty of people search the patents for something to steal, in the hope that they won't be caught. There is a company in Western Australia that has invented a process to produce high quality fake gemstones. They have deliberately chosen not to patent this idea, just because they know that if they did, the ideas behind the patent will be stolen. Instead, they keep their invention a closely guarded secret. (Seems you can't trust anyone these days in the corporate world).

Either way, if a process in Democracy is not open and transparent to all, then it is not a process that should be used.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain

Look over the sequence of your posts one more time. You called him a left-wing authoritarian before even bothering to ask those questions. So why don't you holster that sidearm, cowboy, and try to pick a target before shooting wildly.




Are you blind or ignorant? Did you not see where I recanted what I said about Vidal?


I’m sorry if it pre-judged this guy, but I am extremely skeptical of any political loudmouth. Most have turned out to be hypocrites.


Now, are you going to answer my questions?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain

Perhaps we need the U.N. to oversee our next election.


I never thought you would be the type to advocate genocide and/or mass murder.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony



I never thought you would be the type to advocate genocide and/or mass murder.

Huh? Projecting your own statements on others? Tony, Tony, what´s wrong with you?

[Cain]

Tony, Tony, Tony, Tony.

I did see that -- but I had no idea what you were talking about. "I'm sorry if it pre-judged the guy..." Who is it?

Before that, recall your silly question-mark.

Before that recall you equated me to this "authoritarian."

The sequence of events is, ahem, rather important.


[taken out of order]

I never thought you would be the type to advocate genocide and/or mass murder.

I'm not sure how this follows, but then, in your world, I'm not sure anything makes much sense... except for the irony factor: You recently wished to see the annihilation of Palestinians.

Are you now suggesting the UN *causes* genocide and murder, and would do so in the United States? I only ask because, well, you did call regulations on toilets a form of "tyranny," even going so far as to equate them to equally invasive (*snicker*) cameras in the restroom.

Now, are you going to answer my questions?

Which questions? You mean the sentence about taxes etc. that you asked after smearing Vidal? You can always go out and peform an honest investigation. The critical point is that you smeared him out of ignorance. In all likelihood you probably discovered the link off some kooky right-wing website that told you to get upset (what are you doing reading LA Weekly??).

___________________________

Interesting unrelated fact:

In a '68 debate on ABC, Vidal called Bill Buckley a "crypto nazi-fascist" (or something to that effect), and the usually reserved paleo-conservative went balistic and said he'd smash Gore's "goddamn queer face" in (again, I'm a paraphrasing). Vidal is a ntional treasure for that incident alone.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain
Tony, Tony, Tony, Tony.

I did see that -- but I had no idea what you were talking about. "I'm sorry if it pre-judged the guy..." Who is it?

Before that, recall your silly question-mark.

Before that recall you equated me to this "authoritarian."

The sequence of events is, ahem, rather important.


[taken out of order]



I'm not sure how this follows, but then, in your world, I'm not sure anything makes much sense... except for the irony factor: You recently wished to see the annihilation of Palestinians.

Are you now suggesting the UN *causes* genocide and murder, and would do so in the United States? I only ask because, well, you did call regulations on toilets a form of "tyranny," even going so far as to equate them to equally invasive (*snicker*) cameras in the restroom.



Which questions? You mean the sentence about taxes etc. that you asked after smearing Vidal? You can always go out and peform an honest investigation. The critical point is that you smeared him out of ignorance. In all likelihood you probably discovered the link off some kooky right-wing website that told you to get upset (what are you doing reading LA Weekly??).

___________________________

Interesting unrelated fact:

In a '68 debate on ABC, Vidal called Bill Buckley a "crypto nazi-fascist" (or something to that effect), and the usually reserved paleo-conservative went balistic and said he'd smash Gore's "goddamn queer face" in (again, I'm a paraphrasing). Vidal is a ntional treasure for that incident alone.


This is what I expected, your usual obfuscation and evasion tactics.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos


Huh? Projecting your own statements on others? Tony, Tony, what´s wrong with you?


He suggested we have the UN "oversee" the next US election. The only thing the UN is capable of "overseeing" is genocide. As evidenced by their pussyfooting in Rwanda and Iraq.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony



He suggested we have the UN "oversee" the next US election. The only thing the UN is capable of "overseeing" is genocide. As evidenced by their pussyfooting in Rwanda and Iraq.

The UN has, to my knowledge, never made things worse than they already were.

So if the UN monitors the elections, the worst thing that might happen is that Bush´s pals steal the election.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There is plenty of evidence for that (pertaining to AMerica as an imperial nation run by corporate and political insiders).

There is? I'd sure like to see it. I remind you that there is also "plenty of evidence" that homeopathy is effective. I don't buy that load of crap, either.


Originally posted by a_unique_person


Most of them can't even be bothered voting any more. Does that tell you something?

Most don't vote? Hmm, in the last pres election 54.7% of the US population voted, that qualifies as most in my book. And that was a higher turnout than 1996. The 1992 election turnout was only a point or 2 lower than 1976. If you dig deeper in the demographics, you find the lowest turnout amongst the youngest voters, kids 18-24 and young adults. I'd attribute that more to laziness and preoccupation with other issues (like career formation and family) than anything else.



Originally posted by a_unique_person

Seems fair enough to me. He is trying to get away from the labelling process. I would find it strange if everyone assessed me first and foremost as being hetero. I am, but I don't see myself as being defined by that. Eg. Saying "Gore Vidal is one of the great Gay writers of the 20th Century" is not what he wants to be defined as.

I showed Vidal's statement to a gay friend I work with (also a scientist). He disagrees, and claims he was born gay (they don't like the term homosexual, btw), believes it is biochemical/brain in nature and not just a behavior.

I suppose Gore prefers to be remembered as: "Gore Vidal is one of the great crank writers of the 20th century". ;)



Originally posted by a_unique_person

For him, being gay, it is entirely natural. Psychiatrists did try to treat it, and many Fundies still want to 'cure' it.

Patently absurd notion that psychiatrists created this. There is certainly no effort to treatment this day and age.


Originally posted by a_unique_person


What 'woo-woo' is there?

Every statement I originally listed is woowoo. I happen to like his books. What's the big deal, so he's a crank. Most highly creative people are pretty wacky.

[Cain]

This is what I expected, your usual obfuscation and evasion tactics.

Can you please just stop this nonsense and tell me your three-thousand+ posts are intended as a joke?

Obfuscation and evasive tactics?

You're the one who, in an effort to evade previous claims, says something even more outrageously stupid (as evidenced by the UN comment). I mean, this stuff is just plain nutty, and frankly, almost scary.

So if the UN came oversees the next Presidential US election, the result would be genocide *because* of UN involvement? Is that what you're saying? And who would be the target of this genocide -- already oppressed white people?

[Renfield]

So Vidal's a paranoid for saying that it might be a bad idea to have electronic voting machines, especially when they're made by Bush supporters?

I think you're the one who's out of touch with reality, or at least completely unaware of what's been going on in this country for the last few years, starting with the presidential election.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Skeptic
At least if there is a fair election, an election that is not electronic. That would be dangerous. We don’t want an election without a paper trail. The makers of the voting machines say no one can look inside of them, because they would reveal trade secrets. What secrets? Isn’t their job to count votes? Or do they get secret messages from Mars? Is the cure for cancer inside the machines?

EARTH TO GORE VIDAL: they mean the technical details of the patented technology that does the counting.

Jeez!

I mean, come on. And all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?

Corruption--perhaps, conspiracy--no.

That companies that give the ruling party money tend to be rewarded with government contracts is hardly news. But to imply that this is some sort of "insider job" to create "pro-republican" machines is insane. Perhaps the CEO of the company got the contract as part of a kickback.

But can you imagine the chief technical officer of the company saying to the development team of engineers: "now look, out goal here is to create a voting machine that rigs the elections in favor of Bush. First of all, we need a program that makes every 'democrat' vote into a 'republican' vote on command from a remote control. Oh, and it's a SECRET, so DON'T TELL ANYBODY we are establishing a dictatorship here, OK?"

Gore Vidal doesn't seem to know how the real world works anymore.

So the only way tampering could occur is if it's some massive conspiricy involving the entire Republican party, everyone involved in designing the machines and every election worker in America?

That's not how these things happen. Vidal's spent his life studying us history, he's forgotten more than you'll ever know. And he knows how elections can and have been tampered with. You're the one who's out of touch.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain

You're the one who, in an effort to evade previous claims, says something even more outrageously stupid (as evidenced by the UN comment). I mean, this stuff is just plain nutty, and frankly, almost scary.

So if the UN came oversees the next Presidential US election, the result would be genocide *because* of UN involvement? Is that what you're saying? And who would be the target of this genocide -- already oppressed white people?

As usual, Cain's teenage girl mentality keeps him from addressing the issue at hand. I was trying to get your honest opinion of Vidal, yet your prideful ignorance and persecution complex hinders your ability to keep you from making an ass out of yourself.

Sorry I asked.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos


The UN has, to my knowledge, never made things worse than they already were.


You're knowledge must be rather limited. Since 1991, the conditions in Iraq under the UN sanctions got a lot worse.

[Cain]

As usual, Cain's teenage girl mentality keeps him from addressing the issue at hand. I was trying to get your honest opinion of Vidal, yet your prideful ignorance and persecution complex hinders your ability to keep you from making an ass out of yourself.

Sorry I asked.

Ah, yes, you openly and honestly solicit opinions by asking people of "his (and your ilk)".

Here's my "teenage girl mentality" in response:

Like, whatever. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


Ah, yes, you openly and honestly solicit opinions by asking people of "his (and your ilk)".



Did I hurt your poor wittle feelings? Is that the cause of your incessant crying? I got news for you little girl, dont dish it out if you cant take it.

[Skeptic]

So the only way tampering could occur is if it's some massive conspiricy involving the entire Republican party, everyone involved in designing the machines and every election worker in America?

Nope, but let's see who will have to be involved for a minute:

1). The president
2). Some "in-between" guy to pass the secret messages
3). The "brass" in the three corporations making the machines
4). All of the designers of the machine
5). At least a significant portion of the elections workers supervising the machine so that "tampering" will be allowed.

...and if even ONE of these guys talks--especially in echelons (4) and (5)--all hell will break loose and Bush will go to jail, let alone destroy the party, just like Nixon.

And this super-secrecy is supposed to come from the same government with the $400 hammers and the "paperwork reduction act".

Hmmmmmmmm...... what's wrong with THAT picture?

That's not how these things happen.

It sure isn't! In the last two times a president or a candidate tries to rig elections (Tilden in the 1870s, Nixon in the 1970s) they were both caught and their political career destroyed, narrowly avoiding jail--using far, far fewer people (and therefore far less likely to be discovered) than this conspiracy must do.

In ALL cases--literally--in history where elections WERE rigged succesfully, it wasn't by some sort of "secret conspiracy". It was by using obvious force, the one-party system, intimidation, etc.

Vidal's spent his life studying us history, he's forgotten more than you'll ever know.

Ad hominem abusive.

And he knows how elections can and have been tampered with.

So he should have heard of Tilden and Nixon and not make such silly statements.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


In ALL cases--literally--in history where elections WERE rigged succesfully, it wasn't by some sort of "secret conspiracy". It was by using obvious force, the one-party system, intimidation, etc.



ALL, that's a big claim. I think you really need to re-examine it.

I have been one of the people handing out how to vote cards. There are numerous examples of, not outright 'fraud', but very dodgy and misleading practices in elections. The votes themselves may not have been tampered with, but the influence of voters is not at all honest.

You haven't heard of coloureds being intimidated against voting and registering?



Vidal's spent his life studying us history, he's forgotten more than you'll ever know.

Ad hominem abusive.

And he knows how elections can and have been tampered with.

So he should have heard of Tilden and Nixon and not make such silly statements.

If Nixon hadn't been caught, due to sheer coincidence, it wouldn't have come out.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You haven't heard of coloureds being intimidated against voting and registering?


Coloureds? Where (or what decade of the mid 20th century) are you from? Voter fraud in the U.S. pretty much evens out, the dems are as good at it (if not better) than the republicans. How many dead people voted for JFK in IL?

[Skeptic]

You haven't heard of coloureds being intimidated against voting and registering?

Of course I have; if you were a black man in the south who tried to vote, you might be visited at night by robed men.

But that was hardly a SECRET conspiracy, now was it? Everybody knew this was going on-- that's the whole point of intimidation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


Coloureds? Where (or what decade of the mid 20th century) are you from? Voter fraud in the U.S. pretty much evens out, the dems are as good at it (if not better) than the republicans. How many dead people voted for JFK in IL?

I was referring to the term used when it was an open practice, I believe. The Democrats are also famous for their manipulation of the system. The point is, it happens, and both sides indulge in it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You haven't heard of coloureds being intimidated against voting and registering?

Of course I have; if you were a black man in the south who tried to vote, you might be visited at night by robed men.

But that was hardly a SECRET conspiracy, now was it? Everybody knew this was going on-- that's the whole point of intimidation.

So, the point that if Nixon had not been accidentally caught, no one would have found out about Watergate, still stands.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I was referring to the term used when it was an open practice, I believe. The Democrats are also famous for their manipulation of the system. The point is, it happens, and both sides indulge in it.

Who says it doesn't happen? It happens everywhere on the planet that has free elections. Certainly doesn't help your case in trying to prove Vidal not a kook.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


Who says it doesn't happen? It happens everywhere on the planet that has free elections. Certainly doesn't help your case in trying to prove Vidal not a kook.

He was close to the Kennedy clan, IIRC, and was not at all pleased with what he saw. He is no more respect for the Democrats, I believe, than he has for the Republicans.

There was a recent scandal here in Australia, in which shares were bought in a printing company that mysteriously burnt down after it had been insured for $34 million, when the plant was only worth $4 million. The shareholders and those involved spanned all political parties. This is his real gripe. The power cliques that form.

[Cain]

Did I hurt your poor wittle feelings? Is that the cause of your incessant crying? I got news for you little girl, dont dish it out if you cant take it.

Where did I say or imply that you hurt my feelings? God, you're dumb. So many dumb people on this board wasting my time with this kind of nonsense.

Tony, look: When you reply in a hostile tone, asking what Vidal and his ilk think, that's not really an open question. You cannot later say, "oh, but I asked you."

This should not be difficult to understand... but then, I guess some people are just slow. Unfortunately, the slow people here can't stopped from running their mouth (or fingers).

http://www.fumento.com/hate/18/monkey.gif

:rolleyes: