Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

TexTushHog · 09-30-2018, 11:40 AM

Don’t for a minute think that this is payback for Merrick Garland. This isn’t even a down payment. We won’t be even for that until we steal a seat that should belong to the Republicans. We WILL get even for Merrick Garland. But when we do, it’ll make this look like a fuckin’ Sunday School picnic in comparison.

marvelousntx · 09-30-2018, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txexetoo

A. Polygraph test are not admissible in a court of law for a reason.

B. The one administered was a farce. It was a two question test derided by other polygraph examiners

Polygraph exams aren't admissible in court? What do you think it's 1970? Why don't you try and Google that and get back with your response again. As for how many questions were asked, how many questions do you think needed to be asked? Let's see, question 1. Did he sexually assault you? Question 2. are you positive he sexually assaulted you? That pretty much answers everything right there.
P.S whether polygraph exams are admissible in court is completely irrelevant in this case. This is not a criminal trial. Ours not a trial at all. Polygraph machines are now over 98% accurate. So for what reason would a person decline taking one if they weren't guilty? Especially considering the fact that the results could literally vindicate you. 98% is a pretty good indicator when it's one person's word against the other.

Muse2015 · 09-30-2018, 05:32 PM

I see a few hobbyists are debating polygraph tests. Let's just look at Kavanaugh's own opinion on polygraph tests. As a federal judge he wrote in one of his decisions that polygraph tests administered by government agencies are reliable and relevant. This is part of his public records that can be found. On Thursday when asked if he would take a polygraph he deflected by stating that polygraphs are not reliable and not admissible in court. So it seems to me that polygraphs are reliable as long as he's not the one taking it.

Let's not forget that this is a fucking job interview for a government job, not a trial in a court of law. the court of law excuse here is complete bullshit and irrelevant. Every major federal agency requires a polygraph test for employment. If polygraphs are so unreliable why is the federal government still use it for employment purposes?

theAnalyst · 09-30-2018, 08:06 PM

The me2 movement was already set back by treating their Keith Ellison and Al Franken , schneidermann and others out of the limelight with kids glove. They proved to be a tool in the hands of power brokers, like Soros. So much for abused women, it is kafkaesque how half the country falls for it and marches as ordered.

Guest050619-1 · 09-30-2018, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

….the Democrats would look very bad if they keep delays going....

The Dimms looking bad....?

So what else is new???

txexetoo · 09-30-2018, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvelousntx

Polygraph exams aren't admissible in court? What do you think it's 1970? Why don't you try and Google that and get back with your response again. As for how many questions were asked, how many questions do you think needed to be asked? Let's see, question 1. Did he sexually assault you? Question 2. are you positive he sexually assaulted you? That pretty much answers everything right there.
P.S whether polygraph exams are admissible in court is completely irrelevant in this case. This is not a criminal trial. Ours not a trial at all. Polygraph machines are now over 98% accurate. So for what reason would a person decline taking one if they weren't guilty? Especially considering the fact that the results could literally vindicate you. 98% is a pretty good indicator when it's one person's word against the other.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is...evidence-31737

Here you go genius

marvelousntx · 10-01-2018, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txexetoo

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is...evidence-31737

Here you go genius

Did u read ALL of that before u sent it? Genius.

Of course, as with most things in a courtroom, every rule has its exception. In the rare instance that both parties agree that the results of a polygraph exam should be admissible for some reason, the court could allow it as evidence. Polygraphs are also commonly used as part of the screening process for certain types of jobs, such as law enforcement and some high level security positions.

VERY VERY INTERESTING. SO TELL ME AGAIN WHY A INNOCENT PERSON WOULDN'T WANT A POLYGRAPH WHEN IT LITERALLY COULD VINDICATE THEM?

marvelousntx · 10-01-2018, 09:42 AM

I a polygraph exam is needed to get into the CIA, FBI, DEA, work for the justice department, be a Fort Worth policeman, be a Fort Worth firefighter, be a Dallas policeman, to be a Dallas firefighter, to be a Houston policeman, to be a Houston firefighter, and so on and so on and so on. Every single one of those jobs requires a polygraph exam as part of the application process.

Chung Tran · 10-01-2018, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muse2015

On Thursday when asked if he would take a polygraph he deflected by stating that polygraphs are not reliable and not admissible in court. So it seems to me that polygraphs are reliable as long as he's not the one taking it.

not only deflected, but was as nervous as a cat looking for a place to piss on a frozen pond, while responding to the question.

Crock · 10-01-2018, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvelousntx

Polygraph machines are now over 98% accurate. So for what reason would a person decline taking one if they weren't guilty? Especially considering the fact that the results could literally vindicate you. 98% is a pretty good indicator when it's one person's word against the other.

Bullshit.

Polygraphs are a voodoo scam that has turned into an industry legitimized by dumb cops that think it's a good way to screen applicants. Ask any polygrapher if they are able to influence the results of an examination and they'll tell you that it can go however they want it to go. The only value of a polygraph is as an interrogation tool to encourage truthful answers. In no way is it a lie detector like so many ignorant people seem to think.

Anyone who has anything to lose from taking a polygraph should absolutely refuse.

That said, I think Kavanaugh is a damn liar. Regardless of whether he assaulted that woman (if he did, then he should go to jail), I think the lies that he spun in that hearing should be enough to make it obvious that he's not fit to be a federal judge much less a Supreme Court Justice.

rexdutchman · 10-01-2018, 01:10 PM

YES , When you come forward after 36+ years with no proof just in time to obstruct Yeah your not believable

grean · 10-01-2018, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Don’t for a minute think that this is payback for Merrick Garland. This isn’t even a down payment. We won’t be even for that until we steal a seat that should belong to the Republicans. We WILL get even for Merrick Garland. But when we do, it’ll make this look like a fuckin’ Sunday School picnic in comparison.

How do we get back to compromising? When 49% of people think one way and 51% think another, the 49% still matters and still have rights. Republicans stop an Obama nominee, now Democrats are trying their hardest to block Republicans. If Democrats stop this one, the Republicans will feel just as TTH. How do we stop the vicious circle ?

At what point do we say enough is enough?

marvelousntx · 10-01-2018, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crock

Bullshit.

Polygraphs are a voodoo scam that has turned into an industry legitimized by dumb cops that think it's a good way to screen applicants. Ask any polygrapher if they are able to influence the results of an examination and they'll tell you that it can go however they want it to go. The only value of a polygraph is as an interrogation tool to encourage truthful answers. In no way is it a lie detector like so many ignorant people seem to think.

Anyone who has anything to lose from taking a polygraph should absolutely refuse.

That said, I think Kavanaugh is a damn liar. Regardless of whether he assaulted that woman (if he did, then he should go to jail), I think the lies that he spun in that hearing should be enough to make it obvious that he's not fit to be a federal judge much less a Supreme Court Justice.

I just asked a guy who administers polygraph tests for the city of Fort Worth. He says no they can't be manipulated. And if you try, like you said they know.

Guest083119 · 10-01-2018, 02:23 PM

Of course they can be manipulated. People take drugs that affect their pulse rate, etc. He means the older evasion tactics like tacks in your shoes are known and don’t work. Sociopaths pass all the time. People who believe their own lies also pass. People with certain medical conditions (like me) can’t be tested accurately.

If I was asked to take one, I would say no because I would not want my medical condition on the record. One reason they are said to be so accurate is because a good examiner will not administer one to someone who falls into a category that is bound to yield unreliable results. The statistic are skewed because of this.

So, actually, both sides are correct. A willingly taken polygraph test under proper circumstances is usually accurate. But enough people, if compelled, would also incorrectly fail to make it right,y inadmissible in court.

lipsandhipster · 10-01-2018, 02:42 PM

We need to make it comfortable and easy for women who are abused or sexually inappropriately used to come forward without fear of retaliation or exposure. To come forward with anything 37 years old with no evidence, no proof, no details, is a travesty of its own. And the burden of proof, whether at work or at large or criminal should always be there or it is a butt hurt she said, he said, they said.