Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Report: 2004 Election Corrupted

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
Homer J View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 for drug related images

Joined: 22 March 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Homer J Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 April 2005 at 4:18am
Wal-Mart Man for President 2008.

If I'm faced with a choice for president that sucks, and another choice that also sucks, I'll seriously write in Wal-Mart Man. I have no faith in the two-party system.

Edited by Homer J
Back to Top
goodsmitty View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Childish Insults 3/3

Joined: 13 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote goodsmitty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 April 2005 at 4:07pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

 
 
I am talking much more nitty-gritty.  I can absolutely promise you that the board of directors at Halliburton did not have a discussion about rigging any elections. 
 
I agree 100%-it would be held behind closed doors, or at a golf course, with no "official" ties to the the company.
 
Quote
So, without board approval, there is no corporate authorization, as such an illegal act is clearly outside of the authority of any officer or employee of the corporation.  The corporation, therefore, had no intentional part in any fraud.
 
You are splitting hairs. An agent acting on behalf of the company is culpable.
 
Quote
Now, could an enterprising senior officer at Halliburton have done this on his own?  Much less unlikely.  But again - why?  If it is for personal political goals, that makes some sense (but again takes it out of the corporate arena).  But otherwise?  To benefit the shareholders of the corporation?  That seems a bit too altruistic.  To get a promotion?  Unlikely, since he could never ever tell anybody about it. 
 
This is the reason middle level executives and managers exist. They want to get to the top, and supply plausible deniability for those that are calling the shots. The people who know about their clandestine work reward them handsomely, not publicly.
 
Quote
Now, much more likely, IMO, is a sole programmer tweaking the code for giggles or political preference.  Such a thing could easily happen, and might even impact an election.  Hardly the same as this big conspiracy.
 
I can agree with that.
 
You know that we are taking, essentially, each other's position from the ID debate. I'm saying that the proof justifies the existence, and you are saying that it is too complex to happen. I must go to work now, so I will try to post my next argument in the next couple days.
 
"Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status."
-Zesty

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 April 2005 at 9:24am
Originally posted by goodsmitty goodsmitty wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

I am talking much more nitty-gritty.  I can absolutely promise you that the board of directors at Halliburton did not have a discussion about rigging any elections. 
 
I agree 100%-it would be held behind closed doors, or at a golf course, with no "official" ties to the the company.
 
Proof that you have never played golf with CEOs...    :)
 
Seriously, though, while there certainly may a criminal or two in high corporate office, this type of thing just doesn't happen in America's business world.  This type of conversation just doesn't happen.  The corporate leaders of America just aren't a bunch of criminals.  That idea is just false.
 
Aggressive accounting?  Yes.  Questionable payments to foreign governments?  Yes.  The occasional price-fixing?  VERY rarely, but yes.  A little inside information shared among friends?  Yes, but only among the stupid.  But rigging an election?  It's just the wrong kind of crime.  This is not what American corporate leaders do.  Yes, it is possible that a board member would do such a thing, but it is no more likely than a random other person doing such a thing - probably, IMO, much less so.
 
Quote
You are splitting hairs. An agent acting on behalf of the company is culpable.
 
The agent, yes, the company, no - because the employee was NOT acting on behalf of the company.  It is just an individual who happens to be associated with a company.  If you commit a murder that happens to benefit your boss, is your employer somehow liable?  Even if you did it to impress your boss?  Of course not - that just makes you a regular murderer.
 
Not splitting hairs at all.  People today are very happy to casually blame "the corporations", which is essentially a meaningless phrase.  There is always a person at the end.  If that person acted as if the corporation was backing him, then the corporation may be culpable - but if an individual rigs an election without the knowledge of anybody else - how then is the employer liable?
 
Quote
This is the reason middle level executives and managers exist. They want to get to the top, and supply plausible deniability for those that are calling the shots. The people who know about their clandestine work reward them handsomely, not publicly.
 
Again, you are just wrong about corporate culture.  This comment simply makes no sense in the American business world.  This just isn't how it works.
 
Quote
You know that we are taking, essentially, each other's position from the ID debate. I'm saying that the proof justifies the existence, and you are saying that it is too complex to happen. I must go to work now, so I will try to post my next argument in the next couple days.
 
Actually, the opposite is true.
 
In the evolution discussion, my point was that when choosing between two options, both of which are a priori improbable, one should choose the one that is LESS improbable.
 
I am making a similar point here, except that we have one explanation that is a priori improbable (cheating), and another explanation which is not improbable at all (that Bush was simply elected).
 
When choosing between a probable explanation and an improbable explanation (for which there is absolutely no evidence), we should choose the probable explanation.
 
Is it possible that the Ohio machines were rigged?  Sure - but we have no actual reason to believe so.  Most of the "evidence" relies on silly conspiracy theories straight out of Fahrenheit 9/11, such as what you posted, and these theories, frankly, show a complete ignorance of the daily functionings of corporate America.
 
Heck, I'm just trying to imagine pushing through the reimbursement request for "$500,000 cash to bribe programmer to fix Ohio voting machines".    
 
:)
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.