Posted on 12/07/2007 2:39:57 AM PST by gpapa
Although the questions are pretty good, I don’t think that they are the ones that voters want answers to. A more important question is “do you prefer diamonds or pearls”?
Easiest way to beat a polygraph is to mentally ask yourself a question where the truthful answer is the false answer for the question asked by the person giving the polygraph. You're truthfully answering the question you posed to yourself.
Good Point. Many years ago, I beat a polygraph (required for employment) by convincing myself that I had not actually stolen from my previous employer.
I disagree completely. She is an accomplished lawyer and liar and can play the "it depends on what the definition of is, is" game indefinitely. However...
She has a temper that she doesn't control very well. Hillary! is at her most genuine when her eyes flash with hatred, or she gives the death stare, the shrill Hitler cadence, or the paint-peeling cackle. If you want an 'honest' response from her, throw her off-balance and ask an emotionally charged question - like one about Juanita. Hillary! didn't have to be present at the rape to have 1) formed an opinion about whether rape is consistent with her hubby's patterns of behavior or 2) formed an opinion of Juanita's testimony to the press.
I prefer to ask it like this ... "Do you think all those women who accused your husband of sexual harassment or rape are lying??"
(Consider the fact that not everyone knows who Juanita Breakkrick is)
Plus, the way my question ends, if Hillary answered 'No' she would be admitting her husband is a rapist smarmy perjury monger.
If she answered 'Yes" -- she would look like an even bigger doof as it is nearly impossible for all those women to be lying, and everyone knows it.
If some sharp reporter asked her THIS question, I can just imagine the looong pregnant pause as sHrillary brain would be swelling up with rage and hate... like volcano Mt. Aetna did before it blew its stack on Pompeii.
How about "Was Vince Foster murdered?"
And of course the followups...
"Do you know why Vince Foster was murdered?"
"Did you, your husband, or anyone in your administration have knowledge that he was going to be murdered?"
I couldn't fool a lie detector if my life depended on it. In fact, virtually no one could. And that's the point. The secret to administering these is the length, intensity and questions posed. These tests should last up to two hours. There should be a lot of tricky questions, some pertinent and most otherwise. The questions require some analytical thought to even understand and then answer.
The point is, a moderator has to be able to actually make the situation stressful for it to work. This is surprisingly easy to do for most, especially when they are guilty. But even the innocent or honest folks are supposed to be stressed, by design. Just trying to analyze and answer honest questions gets to be stressful after two hours. You get worn down. When suddenly the important questions are asked, you are either relieved to be able to answer them or sweating whether or not the machine will call you a liar. The administrator will interpret the readouts based on reactions to other questions and responses.
I have always suggested that anyone wanting to get an inconclusive reading should first pop a bunch of oxycottin and then drink about 5 cups of coffee 30 minutes before the test. Your heart will race, while blood pressure fluctuates and you cease to sweat while shaking uncontrollably. :o)
If your real lucky, they'll shorten the test and get you some medical attention.
But most Dem voters are blindingly ignorant of or just don't care about what the Clintons did in the past. All they care about is Hillary (like all the Dem candidates) will go to that big mountain of pre-existing wealth that all the rich people took for themselves and give them something for nothing.
Follow that link and you'll see why The Hildabeaste would pass this test with flying colors. The link also supplies many more reasons why The Hildabeaste is the worst possible choice for POTUS.
Hillary, do you tape you rpenis to your right leg or to your left?
"Remember, Jerry... It's not a lie if YOU believe it." George Costanza to Jerry Seinfeld on how to beat a lie detector machine.
What did you remove from Vince Foster’s office as soon as you learned he was deceased?
Here’s the answer to all ten questions: “I don’t recall”
At first glance, I thought the title read “... after I hooked her up to ELECTRODES.” I wish.
She bought Jewish votes with amnesty from Bill.
AQYX88A@prodigy.com (Randy Michaels) presentsML/NJ
Subject: Bozell-Ask these of HRC
>Questions We Wish the Media Would Ask Mrs. Clinton
>Media Research Center By: L. Brent Bozell, Chairman
>Bringing political balance to the media
>
>As the First Lady stops in your cities this week to promote
>her new book we would be remise if we didn't convey our
>mystification as to why the national media here in
>Washington refuse to ask Mrs. Clinton certain questions
>regarding Whitewater and Travelgate. Our hope is that local
>media would not emulate the national media in giving Mrs.
>Clinton a virtual free pass on these matter (e.g. Barbara
>Walter's interview on ABC's 20/20 last Friday.)
>
>Toward that end we have put together a list of questions the
>national media refuse to ask the First Lady. These questions
>are respectful of the office of the First Lady, but they are
>also fair and direct, and thus deserving of fair and direct >answers.
I was able to pose these questions to the Commodities Scam Queen
herself. As a service to the Newsgroup I am transcribing
the answers she gave.
>Former Travel Office Director Billy Dale says a former White
>House aid personally told him that President Clinton, your
>husband, was directly involved in the firing of all the
>Travel Office workers. You maintain that you expressed
>concerns about the Travel Office. Did the President express
>concerns as well, and did he have any role at all in the
>decision to fire the workers?
CSQ: Well, you know I know that the President was concerned
about the mismanagement at the TO. But I can't really tell
you what he might have said to David Watkins that might have
caused Mr. Watkins to take the action he did. The President
was very busy at the beginning of his term forcing Gays upon
the military, and vaporizing young children. He didn't have
too much time to attend to instituting the efficiency
changes that he also promised the voters and delegated much of this
work to the VP, DW, and others. You remember that he said
he would cut the WH staff by 25% and we kept that promise.
>Why do you continue to say that there was mismanagement in
>the White House Travel Office when a jury completely cleared
>Travel Office director Billy Dale of all charges --within
>just two hours? Haven't you put him, his family and his
>colleagues through enough?
CSQ: We didn't do anything to Mr. Dale and his family. Mr.
Dale was indicted by a Grand Jury. I was not a witness before
the GJ, and you know their proceedings are secret so I don't
know why they indicted Mr. Dale. But you know Mr. Dale isn't
the first person to be indicted and subsequently acquitted.
>Why did the White House and the Justice Department prosecute
>Mr. Dale for two years, costing him his entire life savings
>in legal fees, and what do you have to say to him and his
>family after the ordeal your administration has put them
>through, for no real reason at all?
CSQ: Again, it's the job of the JD to prosecute cases of wrongdoing.
I've been told that much of the reason for the long prosecution
was due to delays requested by Mr. Dale's attorney. I'm am very
sorry that his family went through the ordeal as you call it,
but I'm also proud of our system that is able to get to the
true facts and not just rubber stamp a GJ indictment..
>David Watkins has now testified, under oath, before a
>congressional committee that what his memo says is true:
>that you wanted the White House Travel Office workers fired
>and replaced with "our people," and that he acted under
>pressure from you believing he would be fired if he did not
>terminate the Travel Office workers. You continue to deny
>that you "had a hand in making the decision." In your
>denials are you not insinuating that Mr. Watkins -- in
>directly contradicting you -- has now lied under oath to
>Congress and should be prosecuted for perjury?
CSQ: There's no contradiction. No one committed perjury. DW is
a very honourable men, so too are we all honourable me--
people. I certainly did want people suspected of mismanagement
dismissed. Sometimes I can't understand my critics. What
should I have done when I found out that Mr. Dale was running
other people's money through his own checking account? Not
care? I asked DW to look into it. It wasn't a big deal.
Once DW decided to dismiss the TO7, we did need to replace
them, and it was natural for us to look to people whom we
knew who were qualified. No one made a big deal when President
Reagan appointed his friend Ed Meese. It's just natural to
go with a qualified person instead of some unknown.
>Why did you feel Catherine Cornelius, a 25 year old cousin
>of your husband's, could do a better job handling the duties
>of the Travel Office than the career employees who had been
>working there - some of them since the Kennedy
>Administration?
CSQ: You know I knew that CC was some distant relative of the
President's. You know you have to remember that in a place like
Arkansas there's a lot of in-breeding and everyone's related to
everyone else. She wasn't a first cousin or anything like that.
I don't even think Bill ever slept with her. I have heard, though,
that CC is a bright young woman with experience running a large
travel agency in Little Rock.
>You served on the special committee that investigated
>Watergate, which involved the White House misusing the
>Justice Department. Why did the Clinton White House force
>the FBI to issue a press release and then conduct an
>investigation to justify the Travel Office firings, when the
>administration knew there were no basis for them? Your
>administration is just as guilty of misusing the Justice
>Department as Nixon was, isn't it?
CSQ: You know I don't know anything about forcing the FBI to do
anything. I just don't think that's been done since the
Nixon Administration. And so you see that's the difference.
Every Administration exercises power, but the Nixon
Administration abused that power. That was a dark time for
our country and I'm proud to have played a small role in
returning government to the people.
>You continue to say that there is nothing at the bottom of
>Whitewater. But since the first allegations were made:
>*Three White House Counsels - including Bernie Nussbaum -
>have resigned
>*The Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Roger Altman has resigned
>*The Treasury Department's Chief of Staff, Josh Steiner, has
>resigned
>*The Treasury Department General Counsel, Jean Hanson, has >resigned
>*The Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann has resigned
>(basically because he was embarrassed to work in your
>administration and went back to teach law at Harvard)
>*Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker -- as well as several
>others back in Arkansas -- have either been indicted or have
>pleaded guilty to charges in connection with Whitewater.
>If there's nothing there then why has all of this happened
>to so many people?
CSQ: This is the way it is in Washington. I believe our turnover
rate is just about the same as the average of the last three
administrations. Usually some of the people who sign on
find that Washington is not for them, or they're not making
the same money they made in the private sector and they're
not willing to sacrifice for their country. Phil Heymann is
just such a person. I don't believe he said anything about
being embarrassed by our Administration, so I'm not going
to pretend and respond as if he did. As for Tucker, that's
an Arkansas matter and we haven't been in Arkansas for over
three years. I hope he's not guilty of the things he's
been charged with but if he is, he should be punished.
>Vince Foster had Whitewater files in his office when his job
>was government work -- Associate White House Counsel -- and
>not personal legal work for you. Also, your original Rose
>Law Firm billing records are still missing and copies of
>those records were just found in the White House personal
>residence after a two year search. Why was Vince Foster
>doing personal legal work for you while employed by American
>taxpayers and while working on government time? Why have
>Whitewater files gone form the Rose Law Firm to Webster
>Hubbell's basement to Vince Foster's office -- and in the
>case of the billing record copies -- into the personal White
>House residence? Either this is a cover-up or it's the
>worst case of total incompetence by a White House staff in
>American history, is it not?
CSQ: You've asked a lot of questions without letting me answer.
You know that Vince was very dear to us and it's still hard to
believe he's gone. He was working on our investment because
the President is supposed to place his assets in a blind trust.
The Counsel's office is supposed to do the legal work that is
required by the President and the Blind Trust is one of those
things. I don't know how Vince got the Rose files. I think
he probably just asked for them because he thought they might
be related to the Blind Trust. Some of them were, I'm sure.
We didn't really know what was in those files because that's
the intent of a Blind Trust. Counsel Nussbaum asked that the
papers be removed so their contents wouldn't be inadvertently
revealed to the President and myself which would have been a
violation of the Trust. I didn't even know what Counsel Nussbaum
did with the papers. Which is what he intended. Rather than
incompetence, I suggest that our Administration has demonstrated
great integrity, perhaps more-so than any Administration in recent memory.
I'm so good at this.
>What did Vince Foster mean when he wrote in his personal
>notes before he died that Whitewater was a "can of worms
>that you shouldn't open?" Why would he write that?
CSQ: I don't really know. It's too bad that Vince isn't here to
tell us what he meant. Whitewater was an insignificant land
deal where we were passive investors. In fact we were so
passive that we never put up any money. But we still lost
more than $40,000 which might be what he meant by a can of
worms. He knew how screwed up McDougal was, I guess.
Vince probably didn't want to include the $40,000 loss in the Blind
Trust, but since it's blind and we iced him there's no way I could know.
>The record of the four Rose Law Firm partners who came to
>Washington to serve in your husband's administration has
>been devastating:
>*former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell is
>serving time in a federal prison
>*former Associate White House Counsel William Kennedy
>resigned in disgrace
>*former Associate White House Counsel Vince Foster killed
>himself
>*you have a growing ethical cloud over your head.
CSQ: Well, I didn't know about Webb's billing practices. I'm
saddened that he's in the hoosegow but if he committed a
crime he's got to do the time. As for myself, the cloud
you see is a figment of my enemies' imaginations. Your
statements about Bill Kennedy and Vince are just wrong.
>How much responsibility do you accept for this shameful
>record, and what actions should you take in accepting
>responsibility?
CSQ: Why do you call it shameful. The only thing I'm ashamed
of is letting that windbag Limbaugh beat us out of our
glorious health care reform. I'm a bit pissed too that he
conned the American people into tossing out patriots like
Dan Rostenkowski. My responsibility is only that I cannot
counter all the lies and distortions myself.
CSQ: Is that all?
Yes. Thank you.
CSQ: Up yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.