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

[KingNothing]

 

[KingNothing]

Am I the only one who can tell that that is not Palin?

I assumed that eveyrone noticed, but then maybe i gave people too much credit.

 

[KingNothing]

 

[cajuncocoa]

Uh... you are correct- that is NOT Palin.

Didn't watch it because I am no Palin fan, until I read your post.

LOL...same here.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Am I the only one who can tell that that is not Palin?

There are sites out there that acknowledge or indicate she made the video.

Most treat it as if it were common knowledge with satire.

 

[DisneyFan]

Even if one is not good with faces, surely the voice must make it obvious to all that it is not Palin.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Too bad many of these people are literal psychopaths and would likely beat the test.....

In fact it just might make it so only psychos get in.

Also, sociopaths/psychopaths are extremely overrepresented in elective office. Assuming for the sake of argument that a psychopath is 2% of the population, it is likely 35-40% of elected persons.

This would in fact increase the psychos in government, because 1) voters really do not like truth-tellers, and 2) only psychopaths could get past the polygraph.

Implement this plan and you will go from a 30% sociopathic government to a 90% sociopathic government.

Interestingly, the video about restoring "honesty" is trying to pass off a lie about interviewing Sarah Palin. Integrity starts at home.

 

[kahless]

I am amazed this garbage made 3 pages of comments rather than disappear into oblivion.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Even if one is not good with faces, surely the voice must make it obvious to all that it is not Palin.

You'd actually have to watch it to hear the voice. I didn't watch it...Sarah Palin's name on it meant I wasn't interested. Now I'm amused.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

You'd actually have to watch it to hear the voice. I didn't watch it...Sarah Palin's name on it meant I wasn't interested. Now I'm amused.

I compared her voice and linguistic tendencies which are unique, to a speech it's her. She's just not as stressed as a live speech and has a Teleprompter with a script she's written herself.

It's her.

All those posted otherwise are defending an agenda to keep truth out of politics.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Why, yes. Yes, I do...

Lie detectors are an enormous, gigantic, mountain-sized pile of steaming, stinking bullshit!



Yes. They do. But they don't use them to detect lies - because lie detectors do not detect lies.

They use them as tools for the interrogation and/or initmidation of interview subjects - or as hocus-pocus to impress gullible rubes ...

The problems arise when they are used within complex social structures. Again, it's all in the questions.

The CIA had good luck with them when they kept it simple. Then they tried refining the application and problems developed. Here's a piece written by a 31 year examiner with the CIA.

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

If questions were kept strictly to campaign promises or specific official acts that are publicaly known, those problems will be minimal.

I clearly see an agenda here that is anti Palin and fearful of what could happen if new, honest candidates used the polygraph to advance their careers.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Not that it wasn't fairly obvious before, but at least it's fully apparent now that Christopher Brown is a troll.

Let's try the covert manipulator test on you.

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

 

[jllundqu]

Am I the only one who can tell that that is not Palin?

Dood.... my first thought exactly... Why post these crap vids?

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Dood.... my first thought exactly... Why post these crap vids?

Duh, American politics needs to change, that's why. We need courageous Americans to come forwards and run for office with a polygraph behind their campaign platform. Gotta' get rid of the current batch of good ol' boys and gotta be sure the next batch is better.

I mean we have cognitive infiltrators like Feeding the Abscess who refuse to answer a simple question rooted in traditional Americana. Principles that harken from 1776 and they ignore them hoping other Americans will be confused be their evasion.

 

[Ender]

Duh, American politics needs to change, that's why. We need courageous Americans to come forwards and run for office with a polygraph behind their campaign platform. Gotta' get rid of the current batch of good ol' boys and gotta be sure the next batch is better.

I mean we have cognitive infiltrators like Feeding the Abscess who refuse to answer a simple question rooted in traditional Americana. Principles that harken from 1776 and they ignore them hoping other Americans will be confused be their evasion.

So then, don't post Sarah Palin vids that aren't Sarah Palin.

Simple.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

So then, don't post Sarah Palin vids that aren't Sarah Palin.

Simple.

Nonsense. Prove it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The problems arise when they are used within complex social structures. Again, it's all in the questions.

The CIA had good luck with them when they kept it simple. Then they tried refining the application and problems developed. Here's a piece written by a 31 year examiner with the CIA.

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

If questions were kept strictly to campaign promises or specific official acts that are publicaly known, those problems will be minimal.

The problems arise when gullible fools who believe far too much of what they see (from things like tee-vee cop shows) imagine that lie detectors actually detect lies. They do not do any such thing.

The only thing lie detectors are good for is putting interviewees on the defensive - something that could be achieved just as easily (though rather more crudely) by using rubber hoses. A expert interrogator who knows his tools and is able to assess the person he's interrogating will know when to use a polygraph to get what he wants, and when to break out the rubber hose. Neither item, however, has anything to do with "detecting lies" ...

For the third time: lie detectors (qua lie detectors) are bullshit.

I clearly see an agenda here that is anti Palin and fearful of what could happen if new, honest candidates used the polygraph to advance their careers.

The only "agenda" I see here is your desire to make it even easier for intelligent "high-functioning" sociopaths (many of whom would have no problem passing your precious "lie detector" test with flying colors) to "advance their careers" in politics.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

The problems arise when gullible fools who believe far too much of what they see (from things like tee-vee cop shows) imagine that lie detectors actually detect lies. They do not do any such thing.

I actually came up with a link that addresses the shortcomings, AND the function of lie detectors. You posted text. Simply stated, when the questioning gets complex, the problems arise.

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

The only thing lie detectors are good for is putting interviewees on the defensive - something that could be achieved just as easily (though rather more crudely) by using rubber hoses. A expert interrogator who knows his tools and is able to assess the person he's interrogating will know when to use a polygraph to get what he wants, and when to break out the rubber hose. Neither item, however, has anything to do with "detecting lies" ...

For the third time: lie detectors (qua lie detectors) are bullshit.

The only "agenda" I see here is your desire to make it even easier for intelligent "high-functioning" sociopaths (many of whom would have no problem passing your precious "lie detector" test with flying colors) to "advance their careers" in politics.

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

 

[Henry Rogue]

Am I the only one who can tell that that is not Palin?

Lol. Insincere video.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Not that it wasn't fairly obvious before, but at least it's fully apparent now that Christopher Brown is a troll.

Let's try the covert manipulator test on you.

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

Dood.... my first thought exactly... Why post these crap vids?

I do see and hear peoples issues about it not being Palin.

The point is, the video is not about Palin, it's about creating honest government.

It's fairly obvious that everyone posting against Palin or lie detectors likes government the way it is. Complaining and failing to work for change are inconsistent behavior for sincere American adults. Whining children and covert infiltrators logically behave like that.

This group cannot honestly stand for honest government when they do not address the issue of political change. Because either they are here for change, or to stop change. Otherwise, they do not matter.

Certainly Feeding the Abscess cannot. It basically likes things just the way they are. It cannot address the issue of American unity defending unalienable rights. Gunny won't, banana won't.

How about you?

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