Posted on 04/10/2008 11:23:07 AM PDT by pissant
You know I can't stand Obama. Just like Sinclair, you are pretending I have to defend myself against allegations you can't prove.
You have a serious personality problem, piss. You dive headlong into movements that give you an adrenaline rush and have trouble letting go when things don't go as planned. You lash out angrily at people when they tell you the truth.
You couldn't handle the truth when people told you that Duncan Hunter didn't have a snowball's chance of getting the GOP nomination, and got your razzberries suspended by Jim Robinson. Now, you're hip deep in what has all the signs of a smear campaign orchestrated by some scumbag who probably attempted to extort the Obama campaign.
About the Lie Detector test. He WAS sandbagged. I found this on Larry Sinclair’s blog, a post from Victor:
“You cite the Gordon Barland report as though it is equivalent of physical proof or logical certainty.
What does the report consist of? Most of it is rudimentary observation of the physical arrangements for the test and the behaviour of those involved. Nobody would need any training whatsoever to make observations about which way the chair were facing and who came in and out of the room etc
When he actually gets to the meat - the measurement of Larry’s physical responses to questions put to him - the report is laughably non-nonsensical.
He says that the computer, which was the only one in the room not subjectively involved, signified that according to Larry’s physical response to questions put to him he passed the test with flying colours. He told the truth.
But Barland, following his buddy, scored the response differently.
This divergence between computer and humanoid was relatively uncommon, he said.
So how did the humanoid resolve it? Why he said that the humanoid’s interpretation takes precedent over the computer’s? Why? Because he and his mates say so - if they didn’t they would be out of business.
So what was the point of using a computer to measure Larry’s physical response?
Well because that’s how they sell their services to the gullible. They say the computer is objective once the test is set up properly. And they are experts at setting it up properly.
But he agreed that the test was set up properly so why did he not accept the computer reading?
Because he didn’t want to.
The whole polygraph thing stinks from start to finish.
The only two facts worth salvaging are (1) Larry offered to take one because he knew he was telling the truth (2) he passed.”
This is also from Larry Sinclair’s blog about the lie detector test, posted by Profiler:
“Obama and his Chief cronies are not stupid by any stretch of the word. If in fact the Obama camp was operating and orchestrating behind the scenes in order to “Contract” whitehouse.com to do Larry’s polygraph test. They would have first and foremost gotten any and all dirt they could have on whitehouse.com long before they set up the polygraph debacle to begin with.
This quite simply, is how any such individuals can control and manipulate the outcome of any information which would be released or generated in such a process. This information retrieval and control strategy leaves only desired and predictable outcomes; those being, the predetermined results set forth by the controller, not the controlled. (Field Manual of Psychological Warfare)
Therefore there is a much greater statistical probability whitehouse.com were the victims of extortion and blackmail by the Obama Camp, rather than just simply being paid off. Should the rumors of a payoff turn out to be true, it really would be nothing more than a diversion created in order to make Obama’s Camp look like it was doing a legitimate business transaction. Likewise, this would in turn also give the Obama Camp plausible deniability in any and all claims of engaging in blackmail, extortion, fraud and/or wrongdoing.”
It's approaching crunch time when it comes to the Democrats deciding who they really want. Your boy's running out of time to drop his bombshell evidence that will prove Obama -- and not him -- to be the liar.
Still feeling confident that Larry Sinclair won't be the Bobbie Ann Williams of the 21st century?
L.N. Smithee -
You wrote: “Your boy’s running out of time to drop his bombshell evidence that will prove Obama — and not him — to be the liar.”
Yeah, the time is coming. Maybe tomorrow, maybe the day after. Maybe a double whammy. That’s the word anyway.
A woman who was co-owner and chef of an upscale restaurant in Chicago at the time Obama was a senator said that at last ten people told her that he was on the down low. It was asked that she contact Sinclair’s attorney. I fervently hope that she has done that. Maybe a lot more people will come forward.
I don’t know all the info Larry Sinclair has about Obama. I think the other political candidates have been doing a lot of research about Obama for a long time and are sitting on a lot of information. For one thing, they probably have information from the Internet that they got before whoever has been doing it removed virtually all information about Donald Young’s murder and that of two others.
I’ve read new, astounding revelations about Rev. Wright. I’ll wait to see if I read more about that.
But, as far as time running out for Larry Sinclair and his case, as far as I’m concerned, it isn’t. I’m voting for John McCain and the general election isn’t until November. That gives half a year more of revelations about Obama should he win the Democratic nomination. If he does, the Democrats will rue the day that happened.
Good news! The restaurateur I mentioned HAS contacted Larry Sinclair’s attorney to relate her story.
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.