Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Michael Tee

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 841
31
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 05:21:33 PM »
OK so it's three.  Three women in one company with the same story, one who didn't want to come out fully when the other two launched claims, now deciding to come forward when Herm the Perv starts slagging the first two.   

I don't think there's going to be a real woman in the country (apart from Coulter-type columnists, politicians and GOP functionaries) who are going to be fooled by Cain - - and that's just plain common sense.  They'll look at the women complaining, look at Cain's 4-lies-in-3-days performance, look at the 80K settlement that Cain wasn't even left long enough in office to approve and put all the pieces together.  Good luck, horn-dog - -  let's see now if you've got that Clinton Teflon or not.

32
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 04:52:16 PM »
XO's quite right, three is more than enough to hang the guy.  It's hard enough to get one woman to come forward (witness the hatchet job on Sharon Bialek) two would seal the deal and three is icing on the cake.

We know there were four because Bialek said she was coming forth for the first time, whereas the third accuser came forward at the same time as the two who settled but decided not to make any claim, undoubtedly out of fear of being treated by the press the same way as Bialek.  It's very daunting to be subjected to shit-smearing attacks featuring anonymous "friends" and their quotes plus your whole personal financial history laid out for inspection.  Disgusting is the word for it, but not surprising coming from that sleazeball perv.

Four witnesses or three, a pack of lies coming out of the Hermster and an 80K settlement, plus Cain's ass out the door in under three months.

Common sense alone tells you his chances of being innocent are down under one per cent, which is where the  "Hail Mary" quackery of a gratuitous VSA comes in.  At this point, what's the dumb schmuck got to lose?

33
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 03:57:35 PM »
<<A woman who has been hit on as Bialek was would probably not go along with the "innocent until proven horndog" bit. There are more of these than you suspect.>>

Any attractive woman (and my take on Bialek is that she was more likely than not a real looker back in the day) has been hit on multiple times in her life by horndogs just like Cain and knows the score.  Even semi-attractive women get hit on.  She knows that two women got about 80K in settlement after the Perv was gone, she knows that four accusers all launched at him from the same company where he was CEO.  She knows he lied four times in two days before lawyering up.  She knows some quack junk scientist professed to distinguish truth from lies by studying videotaped speech and she knows that 's bullshit.

I'm with XO on how most women will vote on this Perv.  Everything BUT the VSA shows him to be guilty, nobody is going to allow some bullshit quackery to throw them off that easily.

Why didn't he get nailed at his other job locations?  Was he CEO?  Was he just feeling his way into power?  Maybe he only started his career as a perv when he felt more secure in his position.  Maybe the women he harassed in his other jobs didn't have the courage to come forward.  Just look at the hatchet job the Tribune did on Bialek if you want to know why women don't come forward.  Half of it was pure bullshit (the anonymous quotes from a "friend,"the ludicrous claims that she was poor, harried by creditors and forced twice into bankruptcy.  Welcome to the club, only most people aren't lucky enough to see their fortunes splashed across the front pages of the nation AND the blogosphere.

He's scum, and I think most women are savvy enough from their everyday experiences to realize that.

34
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 12:24:43 PM »
<<But as I told him, I'll ask the police officers, in my ride along, if finding the truth is not a part, if not an integral part, of what the Police do, and I'll report back on the answer>>

Your question as phrased is totally worthless, as I previously informed you, and on the GIGO principle, any answer to that question will be equally worthless.

I presented you with a clear set of questions that would shed some light on this from a police officer's perspective, at least if the officer knows enough about the subject to provide meaningful answers and I hope those are the questions you will ask.

35
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 11:58:08 AM »
<<It is illegal for police to submit a person to a DA as a material witness who they know is lying>>

They do it every fucking day.  However, you're correct.  Not only is it illegal for the police to present such a person to the DA, it's illegal for the DA to present such a witness in court if the DA thinks he or she is lying.  It's also illegal for defence counsel to present a witness to the court if defence counsel knows that that witness will commit perjury on the stand.

<<If it was purely up to the courts, then the police would be required to submit everyone, whether or not they know they are lying, and let the courts decide, correct? >>

In an ideal world, that's what would happen.  But in the real world, the courts aren't built to handle that kind of workload.

<<Otherwise, the police are filtering out those who they think are lying, in other words making an attempt at determining the truth.>>

Well, that's an oversimplification.  The primary task of the police is to develop a theory of the case that produces identifiable suspects and then try to build a strong case against the suspect(s) that the DA will agree to bring before the courts, with or without tweaking.  In the course of the investigation, the police may encounter various leads, which need to be evaluated as worth pursuing or not worth pursuing.  Some of these leads may come from witnesses whose motives or veracity is in doubt; one of the factors in deciding to pursue the lead or not can be whether the investigating officers believe the witness who produced the lead is lying or not, and one of the ways they decide whether the witness is telling the truth or not could be through VSA.  That might be one officer's way.  Another officer might believe he can "read faces" and still another believes in watching the hands.  As a tool in the investigation, VSA could very well lead some officers to concentrate on leads that produce a solid case.  That is not necessarily dependent on the VSA being correct in its analysis of any particular subject.  A wrong reading can send the investigators down a trail that produces good evidence in the end just as a correct reading can lead only to a dead end.

In a nutshell, the police investigation can only lead to a case to be presented to the DA, which, if prosecuted, will enable the courts to probe and finally determine the truth.

And note:  whatever the investigator's belief in the results of the VSA test, those results will never be allowed into the courtroom because they have been deemed to be unreliable.  Further:  if the police have VSA'd a witness and rejected him as a liar, that also must be disclosed to defence counsel, who has the right (unless he knows that the guy is lying, to present him in court as witness for the defence notwithstanding his VSA "failure," and it will be up to the court to determine in the end if the witness had lied or was telling the truth.

36
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 07:53:10 AM »
<< . . . witness testimony in court is under oath and carries a penalty for perjury. Witness testimony before the press is not really the same standard.>>

OBVIOUSLY, but that applies to all the evidence before us right now - - the victims' statements, The Perv's statements, and the VSA.  Even providers of legitimate scientific evidence such as DNA have to provide their evidence under oath AND satisfy the court that they are qualified experts and that their method is scientific and reliable.  A VSA operator in court is no less testifying under sanctions of penalty for perjury than is any other witness.

My point is really that VSA is such junk science and so meaningless that no court will accept it in evidence, civil or criminal.  And the cops are really not the ultimate authority on whether anything is or is not junk science.  Most people get that they are mostly enforcement officers of no great mental status and are content to leave the determination of who is lying and who is not lying to the judicial system, whatever the cops may think about the subject.  When a citizen is confronted by a criminal, he doesn't call on a Ph. D. in engineering, he needs someone big and strong enough to confront the criminal and haul his ass off to the slammer.  When someone wants a determination of the truth, he wants somewhat brainier types.  I am not anti-cop but with all respect, they've got their hands full dealing with what they already do, I don't need them to figure out who's guilty and who's not guilty. They are not the brainiest contingent of our society, and to their credit they don't claim to be.

<<   Your opinion [that Herm the Perv is a no-good, lying, Tomming, perverted piece of shit] is not logicly derived, Logic requires that you not skip over the inconvienient bits.>>

Wrong again, since the only inconvenient bits in this case are The Perv's denials and the quackery of the junk-science operator.  Logic requires that I discount these in favour of the more significant facts of the case, being, as I've said many times now, the improbability of FOUR accusers coming forward from the ranks of the same company, the $80K settlement for two of them AFTER the perp's ass was already out the door, the fact that The Perv was gone so quickly after the first claim was filed, the fact that The Perv didn't insist on the claims going to court so that he could vindicate his honour, and the fact that the lying Perv changed his story about four times in the first two days before he lawyered up.  There is a mountain of fact there, and to a logical mind, it leads to only one conclusion.  The Perv's denial, being self-serving, is obviously of little significance and the VSA analysis, being based on junk science, is of zero significance.
     
<<There are unfortunately many who share your opinion that only Black persons who are properly obedient to the Democratic Party are worthy persons. I am certainly glad that I am not black elese my opinions would make me a U-Tom and totally unable to talk to you.>>

LOL.  plane, if you WERE a black, the odds are overwhelming that you would be an ardent Democrat and want nothing to do with the racist GOP or any Uncle Tom low enough to help them along in their racist program.

37
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 07:26:49 AM »
<<LOL...priceless.  I tell you what.....I'm getting the opportunity to take a Police ride along with local city's police department, within the next month. >>

Good.  Hopefully you will learn something.

<< I'll ask them how important it is or isn't for the police to try to acertain the truth in a crime, or from a person/suspect, vs merely compiling evidence. >>

Of course if you ask the question like that, you'll not only sound like an an insulting ass to them, but you'll be barking up the wrong tree.  Here's what you need to ask them:

1.  Who is the ultimate determiner of whether or not a witness is lying, the police or the trial
court?

2.  Do they use VSA in their work and if so, do they have their own in-house equipment and operator(s)?

3.  Can VSA be beaten?  Do they know HOW it can be beaten?

4.  HOW do they use VSA in their investigations?  Try to place the various uses in order of frequency.

5.  What would they do if they found one guy who wasn't even a suspect in the case but walked in off the street for an entirely unrelated matter and by accident was given a VSA test related to their case, and he failed the test but in all other ways they had nothing against him and he had an ironclad alibi?  Would they arrest the guy anyway and charge him with the crime, despite a lack of any other evidence and based solely on the VSA test, or would they say, fuck it the VSA gave a false result (let's even say they tested TWICE with VSA to be sure) and let him go, keeping him on a list of suspects, but pursuing the other leads?  Or investigating him AND the other leads?  What if their resources were limited, would they pursue him or the other leads they already had in mind?

6.  What would they do if they had a suspect who had motive and opportunity and they'd already found some circumstantial evidence against, and then the guy PASSES the VSA twice?  Believe the machine and let him go as a suspect, pursuing other leads and taking the main focus of the investigation off him, or keep going and trying to build the case against him, despite "win" against the VSA?

7.  Ask him how he interprets the statement that law enforcement sometimes uses the VSA as a TOOL of the investigation, and whether or not he agrees with that statement.

8.  Ask him what he makes of the fact that one VSA operator voluntarily performed VSA on a a videotape of the Herminator and on another videotape of one accuser, both speaking for public consumption and found the Herminator to be telling the truth and the accuser to be lying.  Just how significant does he consider the VSA to be in determining who's telling the truth and who's lying?

THOSE are the questions you should ask this cop and I hope you do.  Oh, and find out the rank and general duties of the cop, just to make sure that he is conversant with the procedure and its application.  And how long he's been on the force.

I'd even suggest you print this out with enough space between the paragraphs for you to note down the exact responses, or if they let you take your laptop along, do the same thing digitally on-screen.

 I'll then get back to you, and the saloon, with what they tell me.

And FYI, it's the court that attempts to determine a legal truth.  That doesn't stop the Police from attempting to determine who is or isn't telling them the truth.  But as I said, if the officer(s) I ride along with, echo your belief, I'll eat some saloon crow

38
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 02:21:14 AM »
<<IN THEIR [referring to police] INVESTIGATING, ITS NECESSARY, PRETTY MUCH MANDATORY, TO TRY AND DETEMINE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. >>

But that is exactly what you just don't seem to understand.  It is not necessary for them to find out what the truth is.  All they have to do is build a case that a prosecutor will take to court, i.e., that both they and the prosecutor feel confident has a good chance of being proven in court.  It is the Court that determines the truth of the accusations.

<< It's kind of important when they go to arrest someome.>>

You have a really skewed understanding of police work.  They don't arrest some guy because they've found out the truth and have to inflict punishment on him for his crime.  Arrest before trial is basically for the purpose of ensuring that he will appear at his trial, where his guilt or innocence will be determined.  That's why in a bail hearing, the court doesn't even want to hear the details of the case against him, they only want to know the seriousness of the crime alleged (if it's capital murder, obviously, the guy is a huge flight risk because his life's at stake) and they want to feel safe (through posting of money bail, usually) that the guy will show up for trial.

<<I realize the need to try and find some form of (ir)rationalization to limit the damage these facts are causing your side of the argument, but good gravy, this is pathetic.  You make the Police to look like a bunch of mind numb robots, sweeping up anything and everything, then just hand it over to the DA and say "here...you figure it out".  It's a wonder not a majority of your country is under investigation, if not incarcerated   >>

That's not at all what I said.  The police aren't robots and they don't hand over a mass of random facts and tell the DA to figure it all out.  If I could, just for a moment, get back to the real world, which you obviously have no connection with, it looks something like this:

First of all, the police do not investigate every crime, not even every murder.  A guy can be poisoned, die a "natural death" and go to his grave with no one the wiser (except the perp) as to what really happened.  Studies of policing have indicated cases where victims were murdered by ice-pick or small-caliber bullet fired into the brain through the back of the neck and no murder detected if external bleeding had been minimal or cleaned up.

Assuming signs of foul play are detected, police will investigate and try to build a theory of the case - - what happened.  They will develop lists of suspects and try to eliminate the least likely, but the lists are preserved regardless of who is eliminated.  They try to narrow it down to a single suspect or small group of suspects, and then try to build a case against each suspect.  When they have finished building their cases, they bring them to the DA, who examines each case to determine if it's worth pursuing.  The issue for the DA is, is there a reasonable prospect of winning this case, or is it more likely to get thrown out of court?  The police don't simply  throw a bunch of unorganized facts at the DA and say "Here, you figure it all out."  That is just patently absurd.

Incidentally, if anyone wants a rough idea of how the DA's office determines if a case is good enough to take to court, I strongly recommend the TV show, Law and Order.  It's a very well-thought-out show which is particularly good at showing the working relationship between police and prosecutors.  The DA, "Aaron" is modeled on a real-life DA, Robert Morgenthau, and while the discussions between he and his staff, particularly "Jack" and his babealicious assistants are somewhat dramatized, the issues and the considerations that they argue over (sometimes with their police liaisons too) are IMHO highly realistic.

Polygraph or VSA analyses are never the subject of argument when a case is considered ready for court or not ready for court.  Everyone understands that these things are meaningless and won't even be considered in evidence.

Obviously, there may be cases in which police feel strongly that they have a good case and the DAs or Crowns feel otherwise.  It would be a very rare occurrence for the police to base their feelings on lie detector or VSA test results, but nothing is impossible.  It would be akin to basing the same feeling on tea-leaf readings.  Anyone with half a brain knows that the results depend on the operator, and on his observation and interpretation of measurable phenomena which could be related to stress, stress due to lying, stress due to embarrassment or fear, or stress of unknown origin.  Or they could be related to factors other than stress but not yet identified.  So, whatever the officer's feelings are about the case, if they are based on the test results of junk science, they are meaningless.

<<[Dontcha just hate them pesky facts that] . . . both the Judicial System, AND law enforcment, across this country, using this "junk science", in order to attempt to ascertain who's telling the truth, and who isn't.  Damn those facts, your attempted marginalizing aside. >>

Well that's just not true.  Those aren't "pesky facts," in fact, they're not even facts.  By "the judicial system," you mean no courts at all in the USA, Canada, Australia, Israel and Europe, except for the courts of New Mexico.  By "law enforcement" you mean some unidentified uncounted number of police organizations, and even there, the police have chosen, wisely or not, to use them as TOOLS of investigation, a distinction which you seem apparently unable to grasp.  They do not use them to ascertain who is telling the truth, except in peripheral issues of lesser importance to the investigation.  If the only thing in the whole investigation that points to a suspect's guilt is that he "failed" a VSA test, then there is no case to present and the police themselves understand that better than anyone.

<<Completely torpedos the notion that this is all junk science, akin to tarot car readings and psychics>>

It is BECAUSE it is junk science like tarot card readings and psychics that the courts will not accept it.  End of story.



   


39
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 14, 2011, 01:14:47 AM »
<<Obviously not so, none of these charges have been prosicuted in court at all.>>

lol

OK, in any court except in NM, if the cases were to be, or had been, prosecuted, the accusers' statements and The Perv's denials WOULD have been admissible and the VSA evidence would NOT have been admissible.

There are STILL different classes of evidence, even in the absence of a trial:  what WOULD have been admissible and what WOULD NOT have been admissible.

Evidence is evidence whether or not a trial is ever held; it doesn't suddenly BECOME evidence just because a trial starts.  The murder weapon is evidence of a crime, whether it's found or not, whether a trial is held or not.  A court obviously has the right to determine what KIND of evidence it will admit or not, but the evidence doesn't cease to be evidence just because a court won't accept it or because nobody is ever put on trial.

If the evidence happens to be the opinion of a junk scientist that Sharon is lying or The Perv is truthful, it's still evidence of something (maybe just evidence of the beliefs of the junk scientist) but it's evidence that the court just won't admit because it's of no value in aiding the search for truth.  The REASON why no court will admit this evidence is that it is UNRELIABLE, which means that unlike real scientific evidence, such as solidly based fingerprint or DNA evidence, which has a high likelihood of being reliable, the VSA evidence is based on junk science and thus its conclusions have no such reliability.

If the evidence is the evidence of an eye-witness, such as the four accusers, then as long as they are willing to so testify under oath in court, it becomes evidence before the court.  Similarly whatever Herm the Perv may have to say in his defence, if sworn, will become evidence before the court.  The court can't refuse to accept eye-witness evidence just because it doesn't like the eye-witness.  The court can and does reject VSA evidence every time someone seeks to offer it to the court (except in NM) and the reason, of course, is that it's unreliable junk science.

So that is why there is a difference, even when no trial is going to be held, between junk evidence and real evidence, based on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence.

Similarly my opinion that Herm the Perv is a no-good, lying, Tomming, perverted piece of shit would never be admitted in any court of law, since (although solidly based on a purely logical evaluation of the available evidence) it would be considered irrelevant in  trying to determine if The Perv sexually harassed or assaulted the four complainants.  Because the VSA operator's opinion of The Perv's truthfulness and Sharon's dishonesty is based purely on junk science, his opinion too is irrelevant.










40
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 13, 2011, 09:34:08 PM »
<< If evidence must have a minimal quality for it to be considered by the public, what are we talking about?

  << None of these evidences have met the> admissable in court < standard.>>

You are quite clearly wrong.  Here's how the evidence to date breaks down.

1.  Testimony of all four accusers (if of sound mind):  ADMISSIBLE in every court in the English-speaking world.
2.  Testimony of Herm the Perv (if of sound mind):    ADMISSIBLE in every court in the English-speaking world.
3.  Results of VSA tests done on The Perv and Sharon:  INADMISSIBLE  everywhere except Courts of New Mexico;
                                                                                   admissible in 19 state courts ONLY IF BOTH SIDES AGREE

Clearly an overwhelming majority of authorities have found ONE TYPE of evidence (VSA) one helluva lot LESS admissible than the accusations against The Perv and his denials.

41
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 13, 2011, 07:18:11 PM »
<<Yea, because the Police are never in the business of tring to determine the truth in a crime  >>

They investigate, they lay out all the facts they find before the DA or the Crown.  The DA or the Crown, if he or she believes there's a case to be made, make the case for the prosecution.  The defence counsel makes the case for the defence.  The court tries to find the truth.  That's how it works.

If it was up to the cops to find the truth, what are the courts for?           

<<Dont you just hate them pesky facts?? >>

What pesky facts?  That every single court in the US except NM rejects these machines, as does every single court in Canada, the courts of Australia, the courts of Europe (where the COPS don't even use them) and the courts of Israel?  And that the REASON that none of these courts will accept them is that they are JUNK SCIENCE?  Or perhaps you were referring to the pesky facts of all the scientific investigations like the National Research Council's 2002 study and 398-page report that investigated these contraptions and found them to be totally useless?

Oh, I see --  you were referring to the fact <<that law enforcement and the judicial system>> USE this so called "junk science", in this Country . . . >>  Well, I guess if "the judicial system in this Country" is restricted to the courts of the State of New Mexico and certain undefined "law enforcement" agencies, yes.  The law enforcement agencies, whoever they might be, use them as TOOLS in an investigation, and the courts of the State of NM actually admit them as evidence to determine (subject to challenge by the other side) if a witness is lying or telling the truth.

So let's take a look at your faith in these gizmos - - on your side, one court out of fifty in the US, no other courts anywhere else in English-speaking  or French-speaking North America, no European Courts , no Australian courts and no Israeli courts.  Also on your side, some unnamed police agencies and on the other side, the National Research Council's exhaustive study and 398-page report saying they're junk.

You know what sirs?  If this were a naval battle for the truth, your side would be sunk with the first salvo.

<<Here's my suggestion....avoid traveling or touristing those states, Tee.  You might just have to answer to said science. 

<<Actually, now that I think about it.....you should consider committing a crime in exactly those juridsictions.  Think of the lawsuits you could file with all the others folks wrongly investigated with such outlandish science tactics>>

Well, since none of the junk science results would ever be heard in a court of law (unless I happened to be visiting New Mexico) I don't think I'd have anything much to worry about, sirs, nor do I think I'd ever be able to find anyone wrongfully convicted by junk science findings.   And even if all this happened in New Mexico, I don't think I'd have any trouble finding a capable New Mexican defence counsel who'd find it pretty easy to impeach both the machine and its quack operator in front of any New Mexican judge or jury.  But nice try. 


42
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 13, 2011, 06:06:49 PM »
<<You must have missed the other memo, that law enforcement across this country, not to mention some courts even, use this so called "junk science" to help ascertain truth vs not. >>

No, that is dead wrong, actually, it is the courts who ascertain the truth and not the police.  The police merely conduct an investigation.  If they are doing their job properly, they gather all the facts that bear on the case.   When they think they have a case against someone, they take it to the D.A. or the Crown Attorney.  The Crown Attorney's or D.A.'s job is to try to assemble a case, based on evidence, that can be taken to the Court, so that the Court (and not the police) can finally determine if the allegations against the accused are proven beyond any reasonable doubt or not.

If in fact, in the course of their investigation, they find that one witness is or is not telling the truth according to a VSA, this may affect how they conduct their investigation, either focusing on the guy if they think he's lying or focusing on more promising leads if they think he's telling the truth. But in NO CASE (except maybe in New Mexico) can they or the D.A. or Crown have the RESULTS of the test introduced into evidence, to persuade the Court that the guy is lying.  The Court won't even hear such evidence and the reason for that is that the test is unreliable and has been proven to be unreliable junk science in every credible test of its performance.  Were it otherwise, of course the Courts would accept it, just as they accept fingerprint and DNA evidence, where the science is in fact quite reliable. 

But from what I understand of how the police use the machines, it's not so much to determine if the guy is lying or not, but more to (a) trick the guy into revealing the significance of other facts in the case or (b) finding out what he really knows about the case or (c) less legitimately, to bluff a suspect into confessing, although there are some real ethical concerns about that.  It's a tool of the investigation, not a truth finder or "lie detector."

<<So, until you can demonstrate that these same agencies use such things as psychic readings, outside of hollywood of course, your continued "meaningless" tactic is pure meritless>>

If SOME agencies choose to use tools which have been proven to be unreliable, this can in no way prove the reliability of the machines, unless you trust the judgment of some cop as superior to that of, say, the National Research Council.  If some cop were to tell you that some herbal remedy makes his brain sharper or cures his colds faster than any other remedy, and the National Institutes of Health were to tell you that there is no evidence at all that the product in question works at all, and in fact was quite unreliable in providing any kind of benefit whatsoever, who are you going to believe?  The dumb cop who persists in using the stuff because HE thinks it works, or the qualified scientific researchers who have tested it throroughly and reported their results?

The courts are in the position of the researchers.  They hear all the evidence why VSA should be admitted in evidence and all the arguments against.    Presumably with both sides producing the results of tests and studies.  Then they hear from experts on both sides, including an analysis of the tests that support the machines and the tests that trash them.  Then they hear arguments for and against, based on all the evidence (including expert opinion evidence) before the court.  Then they decide.  And in every court in the U.S. and Canada (except New Mexico) the decision after all of that evidence, opinion and argument is always the same:  the stuff is JUNK, the science is JUNK SCIENCE, and the results of the "tests" don't prove a God-damn thing.  Every court.  Every time.  Everywhere.

Now sirs (and plane) THAT should tell you SOMETHING about how "reliable" such machines are.  If it doesn't, if you still want to think, "Well they must be reliable if cops use them," then I give up.  It's just not worth my beating my head any longer against this particular wall.  We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

<<And Clinton is merely a reference to demonstrating the transparent hypocrisy on display by folks like yourself, as he's given a pass for acts far worse than your "uncle tomming perv", Cain is "accused" of.  Your efforts to paint it as a distraction would indicate that the hilighting of that hypocrisy is hitting home>>

Clinton, in the context of Herm the Perv's fitness to serve, is clearly a distraction and if I read you correctly, even you are admitting that the only reason to bring Clinton into the thread is to back up allegations against ME and other liberals, of "hypocrisy" and "double standards."

OK, fair enough.  It IS legitimate, IMHO, to ask a liberal who condemns Herm the Perv why the double standard?  Not to take the spotlight off The Perv's qualifications and fitnes for office, but as a kind of side issue - - is it really fair to give Clinton a pass for the same thing that The Perv is now being crucified for?

From what I can recall of Clinton, the major affairs that got the most publicity were all about consensual sex, from Gennifer Flowers (who wrote about it in Penthouse where she confided that "The President eats pussy like a champ,") to Monica, who showed the poor guy her thong and pursued him till he relented and allowed her to give him a BJ in the Oval Office.  And others.   Paula Jones was the only one I take seriously, the other two (Brodrrik and Kathleen something, both had holes in their stories you could drive a Mack truck through.)

So why didn't I get all upset over Paula Jones?  Because I still don't believe her.  The trooper said she told him, coming out of the room, that she'd like to be Bill's girlfriend.  As for whatever happened IN the room, it's all HSSS.  Who the fuck will ever know?

With Cain, it's game over from the first day the story broke.  FOUR separate accusers from the same company, two claims settled after his ass was kicked out the door, a third accuser coming forth 12 years later from the same company?  A fourth accuser back in the day, who just didn't bother to file a claim, also on the same company payroll?  GIMME A FUCKING BREAK.  If you want to allege "conspiracy" in a case like that, you'd better have some fucking evidence that goes beyond wishful thinking and pure speculation.  Also since when does an honest man change his story four times in a couple of days?  He's a fucking liar and everything about the case says that loud and clear.

43
3DHS / Re: The Rise of the New Global Elite
« on: November 13, 2011, 04:31:10 PM »
<<What seems to be lost in all this redistribution theft is like the article  said, most of the super rich are self made, or they took a much smaller inheritance and made it bloom.>>

That wasn't the impression I got from the article.  In the author's analysis of Forbes' 2110 list, she kind of fudged over the inheritances, for instance, FOUR of the folks on the list were inheritors of Sam Walton, two more (the Koch brothers) inherited an oil company, and the inheritances of two others are (probably deliberately) obscured, one having inherited a diner and the other a Philadelphia retail business.

I was also struck by the worshipful reverence accorded to the guy who put $100,000,000 into the Newark School system.  For as long as I can remember, conservative commentators have bemoaned government's "wrong-headed" policy of "throwing money" at the "broken" public school systems and decrying the "stupidity" of "throwing money" at public schools, which any idiot could see "wasn't working."  However it now appears that it makes a huge difference  WHO is doing the "throwing."  Money "thrown" by capitalists at the school system is apparently part of the solution.  Who knew?

So why not just take more money from the rich through increased taxation so that there's $100,000,000 to throw at every troubled school system and then . . .   uh-oh?  what's that?  WON'T WORK.  Because once it's government money thrown at the schools, the whole thing turns to shit.  Uh-huh.  I see.  Thanks.

44
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 13, 2011, 04:06:28 PM »
<< Herman just passed a voice stress analisis that he was not even aware he was taking.
<<And his accusers failed just the same .>>

You must be the one who didn't get the memo.  First of all, the "test" that he passed has been adjudged by those who have tested it as totally unreliable.  So unreliable that not a single court in the U.S.A. has yet accepted it in evidence.  (New Mexico has accepted polygraph evidence, but not, so far as I am aware, VSA, which is the "test" that Cain "passed")  Canada doesn't accept it.  European courts don't accept it.  Australia doesn't accept it.

So, the "test" that Cain "passed" (and that one accuser "failed") is a meaningless test.  It's like his "aura" was read by a psychic and the psychic says that the "aura" is truthful.

Yes, the test is read by police.  Does anyone here think that the police should be left to decide who is telling the truth and who is lying?  NEWSFLASH!!!  That is what we have COURTS for.  Anyone here ever hear of a court of law?  The police use the polygraph (and maybe VSA as well, who knows?) as a TOOL of investigation.  Some suspects can be cleared through its use, but I would be amazed if a suspect against whom other evidence existed, or even a strong circumstantial case, would be off the hook as a suspect simply for passing a VSA test.  That would be absolutely ridiculous.  There is NO evidence to support that criminals against whom there is evidence of guilt are let out of the investigation only because they could beat a VSA.

<<So the evidence that was against him but never made the court worthy quality . . . >>

Huh?  Who ever said that the word of an accuser is not "court worthy quality?"  That is just plain nonsense.

<< . . . is cancelled by the Junk science which is of course equally nonadmissable in court.>>

Junk science is nonadmissible.  Eye-witness evidence such as Bialek's and Kraushaar's is plainly admissible.  Where do you get this "equally non-admissible" nonsense from?  It is clearly wrong.

    << He still doesn't have half as many accusers as Bill Clinton , who was elected , reelected and tried in congress in the meantime.>>

Clinton isn't running any more.  Wake up!!  The issue is Cain, not Clinton.  Let's agree - - Clinton is a worse horn-dog than Cain.  But people loved Bill.  WHY?  Personally, I put it all down to personality.  Clinton is not the Hermster.  He's a good-lookin, smooth-talkin, laid-back babe magnet and the Herminator is not.  Is it fair?  No, but it's life.  Everybody knows some charming con artist who gets away with a lot of shit that other people with a lot less charm get called out onto the carpet for.

But the Clinton issue is essentially nothing more than pure distraction.  Maybe it IS unfair that Clinton's escapades were swept under the rug, while the Herminator tries to sweep it all under the rug but just can't get away with it.  Too fucking bad.  He is what he is, and he is now running for office, not Clinton.  Is it any defence for this bull-shitting Uncle Tom pervert to claim that "Oh, Clinton did worse?"  Why stop at Clinton?  Why not "JFK did worse?"  Where does it all stop?  There are millions of individuals worse than Herman Cain, but that doesn't take away one bit from the fact that he's still a creep and a pervert, a louse and a liar.  If THAT'S the people's choice, so be it.  It's the choice they'll deserve.

45
3DHS / Re: Cain passes lie detector test
« on: November 12, 2011, 11:04:11 PM »
<< Finding a false accusation converts the issue that was shure to "toast" his canadacy into heat in his afterburners.>>

Not a single one of the accusations against him was false.  Two of them settled for $80K total AFTER the pervert's ass was already out the corporate door, when there was no need to hush up anything.  The odds of THREE unrelated accusers, all on the same payroll, surfacing about the same time, each with a false accusation, one of them not even bothering to file a claim (the usual  motivation for false accusations, after all) are about a gazillion to one.  And then a FOURTH accuser surfaces about a dozen years later, also from the same corporation, with yet another tale to tell on the same guy.

Factor in also the number of times The Perv changed his story in the first few days.

FALSE accusations?  Please, plane, you are really going against all odds here.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 841