Is There Anything to the Diebold/United Tech Story?

I don't get it honestly. And I'm pretty biz savvy.

United Technologies, a US-based multi-national conglomerate has offered to buy Diebold, maker of ATMs and election-stealing electronic voting machines for US$2.63B.

As a conglomerate, United Technologies states the acquisition fits into its fire and security systems division. Apparently the offer was made when earlier negotiations with the board broke down.

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but that doesn't mean I'm too trusting when it comes to one of the beneficiaries of more than $5B in military contracts. Take a poll.

I don't see the Diebold product lines fitting with a fire and security division.

If we're simply talking more diversification, then say so.

But I don't trust a company that has access to billions of financial transactions worldwide, through its network of ATMs and has unequivocally stolen more than one election to be under the control of United Technologies, a large DOD contractor that has recently demonstrated its prowess in crowd control.

In 2004, United Technologies made 64 percent of its $789,561 political contributions to republicans. In 2006, 53 percent its contributions went to republicans.

With its DOD connections, what sorts of contracts could United Technologies get with a worldwide network of ATMs?