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

[Occam's Banana]

I actually came up with a link that addresses the shortcomings, AND the function of lie detectors. You posted text.

Yeah, I posted text ... and you posted a link to text ... what the hell do those things have to do with anything?

Simply stated, when the questioning gets complex, the problems arise.

http://federalnewsradio.com/federal...applicants-should-know-about-polygraph-tests/

LMAO.

Absolutely nowhere in the text you linked to is it ever claimed (or even implied) that lie detectors ever actually detect any lies (no matter how "simple" the questioning may be).

There are, however, numerous and explicit statements that just repeat and confirm what I have already said. Hell, the whole damn article is essentially nothing more than an elaboration upon what I have already said - namely, that "lie detectors" are NOTHING but a tool of interrogation used to put interviewees on the defensive in hopes of "rattling" them and shaking something actionable out of them. That is all. Nothing more. (And that's exactly the kind of thing that sociopaths would be very good at beating.)

I think not. Simple questions based on campaign promises, then follow ups on the same issues should provide consistency that is easy to see.

"Simple" questions will the easiest ones of all for sociopaths to handle.

Besides which, "simplicity" is utterly irrelevant. Lie detectors DO NOT detect lies.

(And you certainly don't need a "lie detector" to detect inconsistency, either - anyone with a functioning brain can do that ...)

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Yeah, I posted text ... and you posted a link to text ... what the hell do those things have to do with anything?

LMAO.

Laughing at the fact that I backed my point with the product of another authority only shows your contempt for facts. Covert, cognitive infiltrators logically have contempt for facts opposing their agenda. So your laughter is consistent with my assertions of your agenda.

Absolutely nowhere in the text you linked to is it ever claimed (or even implied) that lie detectors ever actually detect any lies (no matter how "simple" the questioning may be).

They exposed 5 or 6 double agents. Read again.

http://federalnewsradio.com/federal...applicants-should-know-about-polygraph-tests/

Exposing a lie is not the same as learning the truth.

There are, however, numerous and explicit statements that just repeat and confirm what I have already said.

And I stated that when I posted the link. Your selectivity just exhibited exposes you.

Besides which, "simplicity" is utterly irrelevant. Lie detectors DO NOT detect lies.

(And you certainly don't need a "lie detector" to detect inconsistency, either - anyone with a functioning brain can do that ...)

True enough because if you pretend that you care about restoration of constitutional government, it is a lie. And your responses logically prove it.

 

[acptulsa]

You have applied a label, which works to minimize the value of the truth to American politics. Shame on you. Do you not have anything more reasonable, more substantial to use to diminish the value of a tool for finding the truth.

Polygraphs measure respiration. Respiration can be controlled.

Polygraphs measure electrical resistance between adjacent fingers as a way to measure how much someone is sweating. Press them tighter to the skin, and they measure more sweat whether the sweat is there or not. Do not press them against the arm of the chair, and they think you stopped sweating. Fingers can be moved voluntarily.

And they measure heart rate. To no small degree, this can be controlled as well.

All three items measured can be consciously controlled. And that is beside the point that the respiration, heart rate and sweat of psychopaths is not affected by the fact that they are telling a lie.

Can you address this intelligently? Or can you only blather about government honesty as if the fact that there's a problem means we have to desperately try a solution that won't work, and/ or call me an cognitive infiltrator agent?

And do you have enough of a sense of humor to realize that a vid on the subject of honesty in anything, which purports to star someone it does not, is freaking hilarious?

These are rhetorical questions, by the way. But don't let that stop you from blathering.

By the way, people, a damned sight more than two percent of the population can beat a polygraph. Two percent are psychopathic enough that they don't even have to work at it, as it just comes naturally. A great many more can beat it if they're told how and work at it just a bit.

 

[anaconda]

Or this:

 

[Occam's Banana]

Laughing at the fact that I backed my point with the product of another authority only shows your contempt for facts. Covert, cognitive infiltrators logically have contempt for facts opposing their agenda. So your laughter is consistent with my assertions of your agenda.

I was not laughing at any facts.

I was laughing at YOU - because the "authority" with which you "backed" your "point" only confirmed everything (and did not refute anything) I have said.

They exposed 5 or 6 double agents. Read again.

So how did those double agents ever become agents in the first place?

After all, they would've had to have passed polygraph tests in order to have become agents.

And what about all the double-agents who have NOT been exposed?

You know - the ones who are routinely able to pass polygraph tests because lie detectors are bullshit.

And if double agents can pass polygraph tests, what on earth makes you imagine that politicians can't?

There are, however, numerous and explicit statements that just repeat and confirm what I have already said.

And I stated that when I posted the link. Your selectivity just exhibited exposes you.

No you didn't. You just babbled about the CIA's "good luck" and made a vague, hand-waving allusion to "problems aris[ing]" when questions are not "simple" (whatever that means).

But now that you have admitted that what I said was correct, are you going to persist in arguing with me about it?

True enough because if you pretend that you care about restoration of constitutional government, it is a lie. And your responses logically prove it.

LOL. Well, then, there you go! We do not need "lie detectors." QED.

Thank you for admitting that I am right - again.

 

[Ender]

Nonsense. Prove it.

Voice isn't the same; accent's different.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

I was not laughing at any facts.

I was laughing at YOU - because the "authority" with which you "backed" your "point" only confirmed everything (and did not refute anything) I have said.



So how did those double agents ever become agents in the first place?

After all, they would've had to have passed polygraph tests in order to have become agents.

And what about all the double-agents who have NOT been exposed?

You know - the ones who are routinely able to pass polygraph tests because lie detectors are bullshit.

And if double agents can pass polygraph tests, what on earth makes you imagine that politicians can't?



No you didn't. You just babbled about the CIA's "good luck" and made a vague, hand-waving allusion to "problems aris[ing]" when questions are not "simple" (whatever that means).

But now that you have admitted that what I said was correct, are going to persist in arguing with me about it?



LOL. Well, then, there you go! We do not need "lie detectors." QED.

Thank you for admitting that I am right - again.

It was the Korean War and the lie detector was just put into use. The agents had returned and were tested only after the war.

In the draft paper by the 31 year CIA examiner there is a referral to "RIP" which delineates questioning that is more simplistic and relative to mission than anything else.

The CIA attempted their own training program which complicated things and results, for whatever reason or kind were not satisfactory.

The point is, which you have not addressed, is that new politicians can voluntarily administer tests upon platform promises, then follow up.

It is not an interrogational environment. It is a verification environment.

Your efforts to overly complicate what the video presents, voluntary submission, and what I promote, indicate ulterior motive supporting deceptive politicians rather than truthful accountable ones.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Voice isn't the same; accent's different.

I agree, after listening to a number of other Palin videos. Seems there is a subtle east coast accent she works to suppress.

It could be she's working in a completely different psychological environment however, which changes inflections significantly. Speech rate is also significantly different.

But the thread is not about Palin really. It's about the notion of a new breed of politicians that elect to use polygraphs to verify what they say compared to what they do in order to quell competition and criticism arbitrarily or improperly applied from other less honest politicians.

I personally prefer making the American people "the masters of the congress and the courts" by virtue of their agreement upon definition of constitutional intent. But after a year plus, I find them unable, or too badly infiltrated to be able to grasp prime constitutional intent.

Accordingly, posters here opposing lie detectors who also have NOT agreed and accepted that the PURPOSE of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish ARE cognitive infiltrators, OR, so thoroughly conditioned by them they might as well be.

They clearly will not support any functional strategy for change that the people can implement.

 

[Occam's Banana]

But now that you have admitted that what I said was correct, are you going to persist in arguing with me about it?

I guess you are ...

The point is, which you have not addressed, is that new politicians can voluntarily administer tests upon platform promises, then follow up.

I have repeatedly addressed it. Polygraph tests as "lie detectors" are bullshit.

It is not an interrogational environment. It is a verification environment.

Interrogation environments are the ONLY contexts in which polygraph tests are of any use. Polygraph tests do not and cannot "verify" anything.

We do not need polygraph tests to tell us that politicians are liars. The idea of using such tests to do so is completely idiotic.

Honest politicians (as rare as those may be) would be destroyed by the "false positive" results so frequently produced by polygraphs. (Such "false positives" - which are used to "rattle" interviewees and put them on the defensive - are the only things that make polygraphs a useful interrogation tool in the first place.)

But glib, unflappable sociopaths, on the other hand, will not be nonplussed by "false positives" (and/or will have no problem producing "false negatives") and will be able to pass your tests with ease (much more so than sincere & earnest testees) ...

Your efforts to overly complicate what the video presents, voluntary submission, and what I promote, indicate ulterior motive supporting deceptive politicians rather than truthful accountable ones.

Politicians can already voluntarily submit to polygraph tests. Guess what? They don't.

And you are an even bigger fool than I thought if you really think they are ever going to.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Now I'm even more amused.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

We do not need polygraph tests to tell us that politicians are liars. The idea of using such tests to do so is completely idiotic.

The preceding is a useless clot of cognitive distortions of; all or nothing thinking, over generalization, labeling and minimizing.

There is such a thing as simple verification without interrogation. But a covert agent seeking to cognitively foul the thinking of the public would never admit it in this discussion.

An agent would seek to extend the status quo as you are doing and try to do so with social support lacking all reasonable comment, because such is not possible without redundant distortion which becomes too obvious.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Now I'm even more amused.

You've also exposed yourself as a moron or covert agent in a supporting role.

 

[acptulsa]

You've also exposed yourself as a moron or covert agent in a supporting role.

There is someone in this thread dumb enough to be tricked into serving the covert forces while thinking himself fighting them all the while

Fortunately for the world, he's not bright, erudite or patient enough to be of any use to them at all. So they probably won't bother.

And you still sound like this guy:

[VIDEO=youtube;cpPABLW6F_A]http://www.youtube.com/cpPABLW6F_A[/VIDEO]

 

[Cissy]

This is an amazing set of interviews. I think it shows exactly what kind of stuff Plain is made of.

Like taking her drunk family to another person's birthday party and blaming other people for a fight (which her children partially instigated)?

Or putting her own daughter on a national TV show (because, it's all about boosting Mama's public image).

Or thinking it's cute when a child stand's on a dog's back (never mind that dog's are not step stools and most people who see their kids doing it yell at their kids to stop climbing on the dog).

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is an amazing set of interviews. I think it shows exactly what kind of stuff Plain is made of.

Like taking her drunk family to another person's birthday party and blaming other people for a fight (which her children partially instigated)?

Or putting her own daughter on a national TV show (because, it's all about boosting Mama's public image).

Or thinking it's cute when a child stand's on a dog's back (never mind that dog's are not step stools and most people who see their kids doing it yell at their kids to stop climbing on the dog).

Not to mention the fact that it isn't even Sarah Palin to begin with.

 

[Occam's Banana]

<---- LOOK!! It's official! I'm a Covert Cog-Infil Agent!

There is such a thing as simple verification without interrogation

No there isn't. "Lie detectors" do not "verify" anything - with the possible exception of the interviewer's biases ...

... or the gullibility of fools who think that they do.

And you weren't even able to suss out that it wasn't really Sarah Palin in those videos - so what the hell would you know about "simple verification" anyway?

Moving on ... I'm gonna repost your entire reply, just because it's so damn funny ...

The preceding is a useless clot of cognitive distortions of; all or nothing thinking, over generalization, labeling and minimizing.

There is such a thing as simple verification without interrogation. But a covert agent seeking to cognitively foul the thinking of the public would never admit it in this discussion.

An agent would seek to extend the status quo as you are doing and try to do so with social support lacking all reasonable comment, because such is not possible without redundant distortion which becomes too obvious.

Curses!! Foiled again!! rolleyes

♩♩ ... Oh, be careful what you say, or you'll give yourself away ... ♬

 

[Occam's Banana]

Now I'm even more amused.

You've also exposed yourself as a moron or covert agent in a supporting role.

You've also earned yourself a neg-rep for that.

(Couldn't you at least have wrapped it up in a bunch of entertaining gibberish, like you did for me?)

Now I'm even more amused.

+rep and congratulations on your 2015 Best Covert Agent in a Supporting Role nomination! (I'll be rooting for you at the awards show!)

 

[cajuncocoa]

You've also exposed yourself as a moron or covert agent in a supporting role.

Oh, damn. You caught me.

 

[cajuncocoa]

+rep and congratulations on your 2015 Best Covert Agent in a Supporting Role nomination! (I'll be rooting for you at the awards show!)

Thank you! I'll owe you another rep for this...I'll give you a covert shout-out in my acceptance speech!

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'll give you a covert shout-out in my acceptance speech!

Be sure to use hand signals and code words only! We're supposed to be covert (

) agents, after all ...