Sarah Palin Video, Not Acting, Best Idea For Honest Government EVER!

[cajuncocoa]

Oh puleeese, the covert, false social group piling on approval is so obvious.

You're just jealous because you don't understand the code.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

We can't detect lies, only certain physical changes, such as the amount of sweat on your arm, blood pressure, heart rate, pupil dilation. For a skilled subject, such a test is very easy to defeat.

(You can produce these results by clenching your butt. No joke, this is an actual technique used to defeat lie detectors)

Maybe you could detect a lie by doing an MRI scan on brain patterns?

Yes, that's accurate, but skilled subjects also willing to be politicians are not all that available. It's much more likely a new group of candidates could form around using the polygraph WITH voice stress analysis. With that in the picture, the skilled subjects will not stand much chance.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yes, that's accurate, but skilled subjects also willing to be politicians are not all that available. It's much more likely a new group of candidates could form around using the polygraph WITH voice stress analysis. With that in the picture, the skilled subjects will not stand much chance.

Oh, great. First, it was polygraphs ...

Now it's polygraphs "WITH voice stress analysis" ...

What's next? Polygraphs with voice stress analysis and the Amazing Kreskin ... ?

NOTE: The above is not to be understood as any kind of slight against the Amazing Kreskin. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the vetting of politicians by the Amazing Kreskin would be FAR more reliable (not to mention entertaining) than the vetting of politicians by polygraphs (with or without "voice stress analysis") ...

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Oh, great. First, it was polygraphs ...

Now it's polygraphs "WITH voice stress analysis" ...

What's next? Polygraphs with voice stress analysis and the Amazing Kreskin ... ?

NOTE: The above is not to be understood as any kind of slight against the Amazing Kreskin. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the vetting of politicians by the Amazing Kreskin would be FAR more reliable (not to mention entertaining) than the vetting of politicians by polygraphs (with or without "voice stress analysis") ...

Apparently the notion of politicians that are willing to work with the equipment to show they are telling the truth is simply beyond you.

Or, you are only about discrediting those that seek to verify truth.

The truth is, that you have not shown from the beginning any inclination of standing for the 1787 constitution or it's principles.

When you failed to recognize that free speech had an ultimate purpose of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish, I knew that you were lying about everything you posted related to actual methods of restoring constitutional government.

Accordingly, my methods of lie detection work very well.

If a person cannot take the text of the Declaration of Independence and derive from it that the framers INTENDED for us to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights and admit it, them they cannot tell the truth about anything meaningful political.

Things without meaning, things that lead to less rights and freedom, no problem, you can tell the truth about that.

When you refuse to discuss the purpose of free speech, you expose yourself.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

You're just jealous because you don't understand the code.

Here is the code.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Show us the truth.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Your utter and complete failure to recognize that approval of the prime constitutional intent of the PURPOSE of free speech in its material law role of enabling the unity needed to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights is essentially our only route to freedom in the long term; means you really are not interested in rights and freedoms for America. Your failure renders your opinion worthless and servient to the elite powers that be.

Your effort to attribute unalienable rights to me or approval of them unique to me rejects natural law and our historical agreements which have created the best aspects of the society we have. Your action then works to degrade our potential to rebuild the best we can know.

The status quo only exists because of Americans usage of the purpose of free speech to create unity needed to defend and secure rights.

You oppose that unity and defense of rights by ignoring the need for a method of unity based in the intents if the framing documents which defends them.

Your post also has intentional cognitive flaws indicating your role within cognitive infiltration.

I recognize the purpose of the First Amendment, but I also recognize you as a blithering idiot, a complete psychopath, and a raging asshole. If saving the universe means agreeing with you in any way shape or form, then the universe will just have to die.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Apparently the notion of politicians that are willing to work with the equipment to show they are telling the truth is simply beyond you.

Or, you are only about discrediting those that seek to verify truth.

The truth is, that you have not shown from the beginning any inclination of standing for the 1787 constitution or it's principles.

When you failed to recognize that free speech had an ultimate purpose of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish, I knew that you were lying about everything you posted related to actual methods of restoring constitutional government.

Accordingly, my methods of lie detection work very well.

If a person cannot take the text of the Declaration of Independence and derive from it that the framers INTENDED for us to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights and admit it, them they cannot tell the truth about anything meaningful political.

Things without meaning, things that lead to less rights and freedom, no problem, you can tell the truth about that.

When you refuse to discuss the purpose of free speech, you expose yourself.

For my rebuttal to this ^^^^ tediously non-sequitur-ish and repetitively circular jibber-jabber, just read everything else I've posted in this thread.

And then tack on what Gunny said:

I recognize the purpose of the First Amendment, but I also recognize you as a blithering idiot, a complete psychopath, and a raging asshole. If saving the universe means agreeing with you in any way shape or form, then the universe will just have to die.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

Wait! Don't say it! Let me guess ...

Oh puleeese, the covert, false social group piling on approval is so obvious.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

I recognize the purpose of the First Amendment, but I also recognize you as a blithering idiot, a complete psychopath, and a raging asshole. If saving the universe means agreeing with you in any way shape or form, then the universe will just have to die.

I recognize a bunch of cognitive distortions and evasion when I see it.

You evaded stating whether you believe the framers intended Americans to alter of abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

And you again, diminished the purpose of free speech from enabling the unity required to alter or abolish to the deficient right to stand on the corner soap box and yell what you want.

You are not a sincere American. You have an agenda that refuses to defend constitutional intent and what it means to us.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

For my rebuttal to this ^^^^ tediously non-sequitur-ish and repetitively circular jibber-jabber, just read everything else I've posted in this thread.

But you never did agree with and accept prime constitutional intent. I will try again.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Show us you can use constitutional
Intent to protect rights and freedoms.

 

[KingNothing]

I don't honestly care what a bunch of articles say. I witnessed it first hand. A clear plurality of the elected persons I encountered completely lacked empathy of any kind.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much water. And further, you're effectively giving government a pass when you say that more or less evil people run it. The implication is that if only we elected better people, things would run more smoothly. The issue isn't who runs government, the issue is government. It must be smaller because, even with angels in office, it would still represent an assault on individual liberty.

 

[The Northbreather]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much water. And further, you're effectively giving government a pass when you say that more or less evil people run it. The implication is that if only we elected better people, things would run more smoothly. The issue isn't who runs government, the issue is government. It must be smaller because, even with angels in office, it would still represent an assault on individual liberty.

Um. Pretty sure Gunny is for smaller gov....

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much water. And further, you're effectively giving government a pass when you say that more or less evil people run it. The implication is that if only we elected better people, things would run more smoothly. The issue isn't who runs government, the issue is government. It must be smaller because, even with angels in office, it would still represent an assault on individual liberty.

How exactly does, "Psychopaths are drawn to power, and they are over represented in government, I know because I have seen them first hand" = "Giving the government a pass" and requiring a lecture as to why government needs to be smaller?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Also, in re anecdotal evidence, it depends on your sample size. Given a small enough sample, anecdotal evidence may also be called "eyewitness testimony," which is admissible in a court of law.