Odumbo's CIA Director John Brennan Voted for the Communist Party of the USA

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by papadee

I've taken a polygraph. "Beating it", "passing/failing" isn't how it works. There's a reason they're not admissible in courts. They aren't accurate.

This wasn't a courtroom. It was a CIA employment interview. And yes, he wanted to pass it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WhiteGentleman

Brennan cast this vote in 1976 when he was 21. Mulligan.

Yeah, no biggie. Just a youthful indiscretion. Fuck it. He's a patriot with unfailingly sound judgment. Let's put him in charge of our nation's intelligence-gathering. Better yet, let him run investigations into possible "collusion" by others with those commies he voted for as a 21 year old.

[Munchmasterman]

It was a straight forward statement. I said I corrected you. Which I did.
If you could prove me wrong, the punk-ass-bitch in you would make you respond. Since you can't prove me wrong, the punk-ass-bitch in you makes you play the "I won't dignify your statement with a response" card.
So take your cocksucking ass out of here.
I look forward to kicking you where guys keep their balls.
If you spread your cheeks wide maybe the other douche-bag,ll,
will loan you your one ball back.
Personally, I would pass. You don't know where it's been.

Originally Posted by lustylad

I don't refute cocksuckers like you, I refudiate them. And you argue like a little bitch. Nancy Pelosi trained you well.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I said I corrected you. Which I did... the punk-ass-bitch in you makes you play the "I won't dignify your statement with a response" card...

Don't be so butt hurt, munchie drunk. I did respond. I even created a Nancy P. meme in your honor. Now go to bed. You don't want to wake up feeling like Peter Fallow's head, do you?

“The telephone blasted Peter Fallow awake inside an egg with the shell peeled away and only the membranous sac holding it intact. Ah! The membranous sac was his head, and the right side of his head was on the pillow, and the yolk was as heavy as mercury, and it rolled like mercury, and it was pressing down on his right temple... If he tried to get up to answer the telephone, the yolk, the mercury, the poisoned mass, would shift and roll and rupture the sac, and his brains would fall out.”

[papadee]

Originally Posted by lustylad

This wasn't a courtroom. It was a CIA employment interview. And yes, he wanted to pass it.

And they're still not accurate.

[bigwill832]

That is odd that he could serve in that capacity. When I was in the Army I was stationed in DC. I had to get a certain level security clearance to do my job. I had to answer a lot of questions about any and all types of connections or even encounters with Communists ideas or party members. I had to document any travel to communist countries. I had to track any of that, if any, over the previous 15 years of my life. I was only 19 at the time. I even had to sit down with FBI agents to go over my written answers. I was told that had any of that if I had answered in the positive to any of that, that I would not have acquired my security clearance. Hell, we even went through classes that told us to avoid the Eastern Bloc and Russian women because the Russians (then Soviets) would send these young ladies out to seduce the young soldiers to see who had info. If any types of contact or ties would keep a 19 year old soldier from doing an enlisted man's job, then why wouldn't similar things keep a person from becoming the head of our secret squirrel world?

[papadee]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yeah, no biggie. Just a youthful indiscretion. Fuck it. He's a patriot with unfailingly sound judgment. Let's put him in charge of our nation's intelligence-gathering. Better yet, let him run investigations into possible "collusion" by others with those commies he voted for as a 21 year old.

Thanks Lusty, I now see the light. Brennan's the Manchurian Candidate. His parents were commies too. Took him to the Soviet Union as a newborn, indoctrinated him in communism and brought him back at the age of 2 months. What I thought was a youthful protest vote (he could have voted the Nazi Party, but then he'd be the son of Hitler), was instead a critical slip up that you uncovered to expose this nefarious plot. Thanks for saving the U.S. democracy!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by papadee

And they're still not accurate.

Doesn't matter. They only have to be 100% accurate to be admissible in a court of law. They can be less than 100% accurate and still be useful for other purposes such as (in this case) hiring decisions.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by papadee

Thanks Lusty, I now see the light. Brennan's the Manchurian Candidate. His parents were commies too. Took him to the Soviet Union as a newborn, indoctrinated him in communism and brought him back at the age of 2 months. What I thought was a youthful protest vote (he could have voted the Nazi Party, but then he'd be the son of Hitler), was instead a critical slip up that you uncovered to expose this nefarious plot. Thanks for saving the U.S. democracy!

Hahaha... now you're starting to get it. How many lefties have been blowing up any shred of evidence they can find that Trumpy or someone in his campaign shook hands with a Russian to call him treasonous and Putin's puppet and the Manchurian candidate? Are their shrieks and howls any less absurd than calling John Brennan the Manchurian CIA director based on the fact he once voted communist?

I wouldn't be pushing this thread if the other side wasn't so ridiculously lacking in perspective (historical and otherwise) and so eager to resurrect and fan Cold War fears for partisan gain while they hush up the fact that odumbo's foreign policy for 8 years accommodated Putin far more than anything Trump is doing.

Again, the irony here is just too striking - how did a guy who admits he once voted for the Kremlin-backed candidate wind up in charge of our premier spook agency investigating whether another candidate "colluded" with the Kremlin? Gee, shouldn't that be a little bit disqualifying? You can't make this shit up.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Doesn't matter. They only have to be 100% accurate to be admissible in a court of law. They can be less than 100% accurate and still be useful for other purposes such as (in this case) hiring decisions.

They can be used for anything outside the court of law. But if it isn't accurate, it isn't accurate and has no purpose. Either a person is telling the truth or not, 50/50. If the test isn't accurate, someone got away with a lie or someone is inaccurately called a liar.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hahaha... now you're starting to get it. How many lefties have been blowing up any shred of evidence they can find that Trumpy or someone in his campaign shook hands with a Russian to call him treasonous and Putin's puppet and the Manchurian candidate? Are their shrieks and howls any less absurd than calling John Brennan the Manchurian CIA director based on the fact he once voted communist?

I wouldn't be pushing this thread if the other side wasn't so ridiculously lacking in perspective (historical and otherwise) and so eager to resurrect and fan Cold War fears for partisan gain while they hush up the fact that odumbo's foreign policy for 8 years accommodated Putin far more than anything Trump is doing.

Again, the irony here is just too striking - how did a guy who admits he once voted for the Kremlin-backed candidate wind up in charge of our premier spook agency investigating whether another candidate "colluded" with the Kremlin? Gee, shouldn't that be a little bit disqualifying? You can't make this shit up.

I guess this may be the difference. You speak of today's Kremlin as a pre-Reagan, Soviet-era communist state. The collusion fans see the Kremlin as a Putin led kleptocracy, no communist ideology, just stealing power & wealth. Some see Trump in the same vein, and see the collusion as two like minds colluding together to make sure they prosper.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by papadee

They can be used for anything outside the court of law. But if it isn't accurate, it isn't accurate and has no purpose. Either a person is telling the truth or not, 50/50. If the test isn't accurate, someone got away with a lie or someone is inaccurately called a liar.

The accuracy rate is not 50/50. That would be no better than flipping a coin. It's higher than 50% but less than 100%. Just because a polygraph test is fallible doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool, combined with other tools, outside the courtroom. It can point to areas where further inquiry is needed. The CIA and others who use it understand this.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The accuracy rate is not 50/50. That would be no better than flipping a coin. It's higher than 50% but less than 100%. Just because a polygraph test is fallible doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool, combined with other tools, outside the courtroom. It can point to areas where further inquiry is needed. The CIA and others who use it understand this.

TThe answer is yes or no, that's 50/50. Even if you guess a coin flip correctly 70% of the time, it's still a 50/50 flip. The CIA uses torture too. Those who use it use it for THEIR purpose/advantage. The American Psychological Assoc. claims the science behind it is controversial.
Legal professionals seem to agree that this is a common problem with lie detector tests. The American Psychological Association has even claimed that the science behind polygraphs can be "controversial." Innocent people can sometimes respond like guilty people, depending on how they react under stress and the types of questions asked. Likewise, it is supposedly possible to "beat" lie detector tests if you know how to control your answers and reactions.


More:
"Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it's about 70 percent accurate," said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association. "Many people refer to polygraph tests as lie detector tests, and that's a bit of a misnomer.
"There is no test that can detect lies. … The process in which the questions are asked and the sequence of the questions may affect how a person reacts," Horvath said. "Since the process is not perfect, that could lead to the possibility of error, and that's why there's problems when trying to get them in the courts."
Polygraph literally means "many writings" and it refers to ways in which several physiological activities are simultaneously recorded during a test. During a standard polygraph test, examiners monitor at least three bodily reactions to determine whether a person is truthfully answering questions: respiratory rate, sweat gland activity, and cardiovascular activity.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by papadee

I guess this may be the difference. You speak of today's Kremlin as a pre-Reagan, Soviet-era communist state. The collusion fans see the Kremlin as a Putin led kleptocracy, no communist ideology, just stealing power & wealth. Some see Trump in the same vein, and see the collusion as two like minds colluding together to make sure they prosper.

Nonsense, I am well aware of the Kremlin’s political transformation since 1991. Odumbo assured us during his 2012 debate with Mitt Romney that the Russians were no longer our “number one geo-political foe” – don’t you remember? Then on his way out the door, he was suddenly shocked, shocked to discover they often don’t share our national interests or play by our global rules. Or was he really just shocked, shocked to find out they didn’t share his zeal to see hildebeest elected? Either way it was an amazing flip-flop. While I don’t condone anything the Russians may have done to meddle in our 2016 election, it’s bullshit to hype and exaggerate it when Hillary Clinton lost despite receiving the endorsement of 98% of all US newspapers and outspending Trump by a 2:1 margin.

The suggestion that Trump would “steal power & wealth” in collusion with Putin is absurd and offensive. As if one party always earns power & wealth, but the other party steals it. This is sheer left-wing propaganda intended to overturn the election results or, failing that, to discredit and taint Trump’s ability to govern as POTUS. The fact that in Peter Strzok’s words “there is no there, there” is now coming back to haunt Mueller’s team and their shockingly complicit co-conspirators in the mainstream media.

If you are interested in a detailed explanation of how we got to where we are today, read this excellent tour de force:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/15/...helped-create/

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by papadee

The answer is yes or no, that's 50/50. Even if you guess a coin flip correctly 70% of the time, it's still a 50/50 flip...

"Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it's about 70 percent accurate," said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association.

You are contradicting yourself. If a polygraph is 50/50, then its long-term accuracy rate would only be 50%. But you quote an expert as saying it is accurate between 70% and 90% of the time.

Another way of looking at it - if you can guess a coin flip correctly 70% of the time, then it's clearly not a 50/50 flip, it's a loaded coin. A fair or random coin will always revert to the mean of 50% heads and 50% tails over hundreds of flips.

If you don't understand that, there's really no point in going down this rabbit hole any further. An accuracy rate of between 70% and 90% clearly makes a polygraph test useful for many purposes, even knowing it isn't infallible.