Cain passes lie detector test

[sirs]

And I'll go ahead and flip that for the more rationally minded, that there's probably going to be very few "real" voters (doncha like that...unless you believe Cain's accuser, you're not a "real woman".  Gotta love hat group think, that Bt was highlighting earlier) in the country, outside of the lunatic left, who are going to be fooled by Allred and these "accusations".  And that's just plain logic

Looking forward to asking the Brea Police officers their position on ascertaining the turth, and reporting back to the saloon

[Michael Tee]

<<So, I will ask them.....is it or is it not necessary for the Police to find out what the truth is, and who is or isn't telling them the truth.  Your claim is that it is not.  I'll find out directly from the source, if you are right, or the rest of the rational world is>>

Of course they are going to tell you they try to find the truth.  Stupid question.  Ask them who goes deeper in looking for the truth, police or the courts?  Ask them if they believe that VSA is a tool in the investigation and what that means.  Otherwise you're just wasting their time, your time and our time.

[Plane]

Why would Democratic women judge men as a group and not Republican women?

  Greater intelligence.

[Plane]

Cain might lose for reason other than being a horndog. There is rather a lot to dislike about him.

     Not for a Republican.

      Democrats are just starting to understand that Reagan vibe.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What "Reagan vibe"? Cain does not resemble Reagan in any way.

[Plane]

.................whose 999 plan would raise my taxes and those of all save the wealthiest.

   I am not convinced you are right about this.

    How do you do the math?

     I wonder if you are estimating your present taxation as high as it is , and whether you are counting all three nines when only two are likely to bite you.

[Plane]

Gimme a break! All I ever here in here is "you Liberals" this and "you Liberals" that.

That is a legitamate complaint.

[Plane]

So there are three or four.

It really makes no difference, since there will be no trial.

Let the primary voters decide.

This matter is getting boring.

   Are you sure that the evidence is less than the quality that could go to trial?

     I have been having trouble contending this point with someone elese.

      If he really did as described there could indeed be a trial , but there would have to be a bit of evidence that a prosicutor felt useible.

[sirs]

<<So, I will ask them.....is it or is it not necessary for the Police to find out what the truth is, and who is or isn't telling them the truth.  Your claim is that it is not.  I'll find out directly from the source, if you are right, or the rest of the rational world is>>

Of course they are going to tell you they try to find the truth. 

But YOU said they don't, that's not their function.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways

Stupid question. 

No, stupid statement..........."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.".  So, now you're backpedaling on the notion that the Police don't look for the truth in a crime and in who they're investigating?? 

So, the appropriate follow-up question to the Police would then be, is it or is it not "necessary for them to find out what the truth is"?  We're not looking for "levels".  We're looking at who does and who doesn't.

[Plane]

What "Reagan vibe"? Cain does not resemble Reagan in any way.

   What did I tell you?

    I don't think you get the Reagan vibe , and you can't tell even what I am talking about.
    Affirmation !

[Plane]

<<So, I will ask them.....is it or is it not necessary for the Police to find out what the truth is, and who is or isn't telling them the truth.  Your claim is that it is not.  I'll find out directly from the source, if you are right, or the rest of the rational world is>>

Of course they are going to tell you they try to find the truth. 

But YOU said they don't, that's not their function.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways

Stupid question. 

No, stupid statement..........."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.".  So, now you're backpedaling on the notion that the Police don't look for the truth in a crime and in who they're investigating?? 

So, the appropriate follow-up question to the Police would then be, is it or is it not "necessary for them to find out what the truth is"?  We're not looking for "levels".  We're looking at who does and who doesn't.

     Police training includes training in spotting lies and behaviors that accompany lies, just as reliable as poligraphs are experienced interviewers who have had plenty of time to learn their craft in classroom and in the field.

     Don't get preoccupied in asking clever questions, just listen well and interact.

   

[sirs]

.................whose 999 plan would raise my taxes and those of all save the wealthiest.

   I am not convinced you are right about this.

    How do you do the math?

     I wonder if you are estimating your present taxation as high as it is , and whether you are counting all three nines when only two are likely to bite you.

Yea, I remember you asking this question before Plane, and with no response.  My wife and I, definately NOT members of the 1%, who are maybe upper middle class, if not middle class, save my wife and I quite a bit in taxes

[Michael Tee]

<< If he really did as described there could indeed be a trial , but there would have to be a bit of evidence that a prosicutor felt useible.>>

The settlement is probably useless because it would have a clause denying liability on Cain's part.  The records of the corporate investigation would be available,unless the NRA destroyed them in the ordinary course of business, which they probably did.  It's basically a he said-she-said case but with three female employees testifying, a pattern of conduct could be established rather easily.  You're really looking at a situation where just one of the women has to be more believable than Cain, and I think all three of them are - - if it's a civil suit, the margin of believability can be as low as 51 to 49.  I don't think any one of those women is less believable than Cain and the odds of all three being liars, in the absence of any real evidence of conspiracy are slim indeed.

[Plane]

It's basically a he said-she-said case but with three female employees testifying, a pattern of conduct could be established rather easily.  You're really looking at a situation where just one of the women has to be more believable than Cain, and I think all three of them are - -

    Certainly you do.
    Even though you only know what one of them is saying.

     But Cain is dark skinned ,one of his accusers is blond.

      What more need you know?

[Michael Tee]

<<No, stupid statement..........."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.".  So, now you're backpedaling on the notion that the Police don't look for the truth in a crime and in who they're investigating??  >>

I did not say they don't LOOK for the truth - - those are your words.  I said, it is NOT NECESSARY for them to FIND the truth. 

Nobody trusts them to find the truth.  All they have to do is assemble what looks to them like a good case to take to the DA, who then decides whether to bring it before the court.  Naturally they do their best in presenting the case to make it as close to the truth as they can, particularly as regards the identity of the perp, but they are not expected to come up with THE TRUTH.  The truth is for the court to determine, not the cops.  If they put together the best case they could with what facts and logic they had, and the court throws out the charges, this is not (except in cases of egregious error or malfeasance) the fault of the cops, whose job was not to find the truth but to put together the likeliest case, so the court would have a good shot at finding the truth based on the evidence assembled.