Posted on 02/24/2008 3:56:19 PM PST by hotdog777
$10K merely to take a polygraph on some outlandish story about a political figure......
OK, I saw Shrillary, Huma, Mandy Grunwald, Janet Reno, and Helen Thomas all together in one big bed, In flagrante delicto as they say.....
Now where’s my $10K for submitting to a polygraph?
The basis for my assertion that they don’t work is that the courts won’t accept them because they are not sufficiently accurate in scientific tests.
Of course the people who do it for a living say that they work. If they did not, then they’d be out of a job. Sort of like the fortune teller who claims to know everything. What if the fortune teller told you in advance that he or she was just making educated guesses? Would you be willing to pay for the fortune?
In reality, polygraphs are not so different from an ouiji board. The guy conducting the test decides whether he thinks you’re guilty, and then he makes sure that the test comes out that way.
I remember when that guy Gary Condit was under suspicion for murdering Chandra Levy, he hired a nationally known expert to do a polygraph. The police refused to accept the results because it was not their expert who conducted the polygraph. That ought to tell you right there that they don’t even believe themselves that they work. If it truly is an accurate science, then it shouldn’t matter who’s expert conducts the test. The reason why it does matter is that it’s the expert’s opinion that determines the outcome of the test.
The thing to keep in mind is that when a jury hears testimony, the jurors look at the witness’s demeanor to decide whether he’s telling the truth. If he’s shaking, that might imply he’s lying. If he’s sweating, the same. If he’s a nervous wreck, that implies something.
OK, so you’re going to replace the jury with a machine that measures the heart beat, the sweat on the witness’s pinky, and one or two other statistics, and then you claim that this machine can figure out whether the witness is lying better than the jury can. Give me a break.
So why do the cops use these tests? Because some witnesses are stupid enough to take them. The lawyer tells them not to speak to the cops, but for some reason known only to God, the guy is willing to answer the same questions if it’s a polygraph examiner who’s asking. So if you’re the cop, and this is your only opportunity to question this guy, aren’t you going to take it?
Agreed. That is the Democrat line. The seriousness of an allegation trumps evidence or believability. We should hold them to the same rules.
First I thank you for your very nice narrative on the matter.
I totally disagree with you and we shall leave it at that.
For you are the Brilliant one.
Looks like a scheme to make $10,000 though that is pretty drastic work for that amount unless Sinclair is a long out of the closet homosexual.
Then they will laud him for it and the left will turn out in even higher numbers to vote for him.
That is how a savvy candidate campaigns. Reagan provided the example. None of the Republicans understood it. Hussein does. Forget the opposition. Don’t give them your airtime by attacking them or responding to their charges. Continue to push your 2 or 3 Big Issues. Be upbeat.The other rule is- in your down support your party’s candidates actively in their elections. McCain got that one right. All of them failed the others.
Michigan and Florida
FBI files and Blackmail.
The fact remains Osama is a doper.
I don't think anyone denies he was a coke head, I'm no fan of Hillary, but she hit him hard on the coke thing, it didn't stick, which was very strange since he talks about it at some campaign stops.
The SOB sometimes sounds like he was proud of it.
That said, he has stayed away from any attacks, he ignores them, Hillary has flung so much mud at him, (some true, some not true), it wouldn't be hard to find stuff to keep hitting him.
This didn't politically inoculate him from further attacks, since he still won't acknowledge it, and so far nothing has dissuaded any attacks on him, he's been teflon, and sooner or later, that teflon is going to wear off.
Reagan and his folks had no problem ripping Carter and later Mondale.
In fact, Reagans quips and jokes about the 2 of them were pretty darn funny, and hysterical at times.
He responded to attacks with humor, but Obama is pretty much trying to copy that model of ignoring the opposition, and responded only when necessary.
However, Obama's campaign staff, has a strange amateur feel to it, that to much of this is luck, and timing, I've got a feeling he is just peaking at the right time, once that peak wears off, its going to get interesting.
The other thing I'm going to look for is the "Dean effect", where your supporters become so emotionally invested, they become obnoxious, and start driving people away from your candidate.
I smell Clinton somewhere in this
“I agree 100%, how do I know? I failed one, and I was telling the absolute truth. They are worthless.”
All polygraphs detect is relative anxiety. A skilled liar/psychopath or even good actor can fool one. Thats why they are not allowed in court.
Sinclair.... a liar that sins. It’s all in the name.
Fine, you are in fact saying that your principles are no better than that of a left wing loon. I feel sorry for you.
They’re not allowed in court because some people could be telling the truth technically or they could have disorders that could affect perception, such as Schizophrenia or Autism.
Imagine an Autistic person or a Schizophrenic person answering a polygraph test. You’d wish you’d never used the polygraph.
That’s not the way the courts explain it, though. They simply say that the scientific evidence does not demonstrate sufficient reliability to warrant admission in court. All the polygraph does is take the same kinds of factors that the jury would look at, and try to use them as a nonobjective measure of truth. You know very well that looking at a person’s demeanor is not a sure method of determining whether they are telling the truth, so why would it become one just because a machine is doing it instead of a juror?
I think there might have been times in my life when I have been drunk enough to have hit her. But, I would have been too drunk that night to talk.
The next day? No FBI file or Craig Livingston could get me to admit to it.
And I might only have one arm.
You have the sense of humor of a liberal. You must be in constant indignation when you talk to conservatives.
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.