Roy Moore

[TxHoops]

9 hours ago, Reagan said:

Accuser worked for Clinton and Biden campaigns!!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Smells even worse.  IF the accusations are false, goes beyond even Moore’s reputation.  Tends to devalue those who actually have been the victim of abuse.  I say strap them both up to a polygraph and see what’s what.  

[Englebert]

3 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Smells even worse.  IF the accusations are false, goes beyond even Moore’s reputation.  Tends to devalue those who actually have been the victim of abuse.  I say strap them both up to a polygraph and see what’s what.  

What is a polygraph going to determine...who is the better liar?

[Reagan]

ABC affiliate can't find one person who believes the story about Roy Moore.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

What is a polygraph going to determine...who is the better liar?

Sorry but I’m a believer in them if the operator is competent and there are plenty who are.  And would tell a lot if one is being deceptive and the other is not.  I realize it’s a concept that would never happen but I’d love to see it.  

 

[Englebert]

23 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Sorry but I’m a believer in them if the operator is competent and there are plenty who are.  And would tell a lot if one is being deceptive and the other is not.  I realize it’s a concept that would never happen but I’d love to see it.  

 

Wow, you really need to read up on the vast research material on polygraphs. The overwhelming and irrefutable evidence is that they do not work. Not only do they not work, they very often render the opposite results. That is, really good liars can be shown to be telling the truth, while innocent victims can be shown to be telling lies. If you would like me to demonstrate the reliability of these machines, I would be happy to do so...and you could do it too. Write down a single-digit number on a piece of paper. Then let the operator ask you any questions he wants, but has to ask if you wrote down number _ (each single digit number from 0-9). You answer no to each number, therefore, telling a lie at least one time. If the machine can actually tell when you are lying, the operator will be able to decipher which number you wrote down. I bet he can't. And this is just a silly little test to illustrate the capabilities of a machine that cannot do what it purports to do. But don't take my word for it. Please, please do some research. The material is readily available and overwhelmingly irrefutable.

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Wow, you really need to read up on the vast research material on polygraphs. The overwhelming and irrefutable evidence is that they do not work. Not only do they not work, they very often render the opposite results. That is, really good liars can be shown to be telling the truth, and innocent people can be shown to be telling lies. If you would like me to demonstrate the reliability of these machines, I would be happy to do so...and you could do it too. Write down a single-digit number on a piece of paper. Then let the operator ask you any questions he wants, but has to ask if you wrote down number _ (each single digit number from 0-9). You answer no to each number, therefore, telling a lie at least one time. If the machine can actually tell when you are lying, the operator will be able to decipher which number you wrote down. I bet he can't. And this is just a silly little test to illustrate the capabilities of a machine that cannot do what it purports to do. But don't take my word for it. Please, please do some research. The material is readily available and overwhelmingly irrefutable.

I have much more experience with them than most.  Not reading articles about them.   Actual experience.  They are not foolproof.   And obviously aren’t admissible in court, for good reason.  But they are right more often than not.  And OFTEN used as a tool by law enforcement. 

[TxHoops]

To be clear, I’m not saying I haven’t done my fair share of reading on the subject.  I would guess more than you and most folks who don’t administer them for a living.  Maybe not, but I would bet so.  

We can agree to disagree and I respect and always enjoy reading your opinion.  And I like that you think outside the box.  Even when it’s wayyy outside the box like the environment.  (Sorry buddy, couldn’t resist  ) 

[Englebert]

12 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I have much more experience with them than most.  Not reading articles about them.   Actual experience.  They are not foolproof.   And obviously aren’t admissible in court, for good reason.  But they are right more often than not.  And OFTEN used as a tool by law enforcement. 

They are not right more often than not. And they should never be used by law enforcement, or for any other use. I've read the research. I wrote a whole paper on them in college after doing extensive research. And I know for a fact they do not work. You can flip a coin and get just as good results. If you don't believe, read up a little on the subject. If you would like entertainment value with your research, Penn & Teller did a pretty good piece on them in their HBO series of shows called "Bullshit".

[Englebert]

7 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

To be clear, I’m not saying I haven’t done my fair share of reading on the subject.  I would guess more than you and most folks who don’t administer them for a living.  Maybe not, but I would bet so.  

We can agree to disagree and I respect and always enjoy reading your opinion.  And I like that you think outside the box.  Even when it’s wayyy outside the box like the environment.  (Sorry buddy, couldn’t resist  ) 

My "thinking outside the box" regarding the environment is simply following standard scientific practices. Failure to follows these practices is what the Man-Made Global Warming nazis practice.

And you would get just as good results practicing Phrenology. 

[TxHoops]

5 minutes ago, Englebert said:

My "thinking outside the box" regarding the environment is simply following standard scientific practices. Failure to follows these practices is what the Man-Made Global Warming nazis practice.

Standard scientific standards not followed by the VAST majority of scientists.  Got it  

[TxHoops]

8 minutes ago, Englebert said:

The are not right more often than not. And they should never be used by law enforcement, or for any other use. I've read the research. I wrote a whole paper on them in college after doing extensive research. And I know for a fact they do not work. You can flip a coin and get just as good results. If you don't believe, read up a little on the subject. If you would like entertainment value with your research, Penn & Teller did a pretty good piece on them in their HBO series of shows called "Bullshit".

I’ve done a little more than write a college paper on them.  I’ve been exposed to them for 20 plus years on a fairly routine basis.  And read a LOT of research on them.  But your opinion is noted.  It’s all good, even if it’s wrong.  

[Englebert]

13 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Standard scientific standards not followed by the VAST majority of scientists.  Got it  

Scientific standards says that you eliminate extraneous variables before concluding a cause-effect relationship. This has not been done by any stretch of the imagination...and is therefore outside of the scientific standards.

 

11 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I’ve done a little more than write a college paper on them.  I’ve been exposed to them for 20 plus years on a fairly routine basis.  And read a LOT of research on them.  But your opinion is noted.  It’s all good, even if it’s wrong.  

Then set up a meeting and I will run my little single digit experiment. Even though I don't gamble, I would be willing to bet any amount of money (or non-monetary/bragging rights) that your lie detector/operator cannot "guess" my number. Would you like to take that challenge? BTW, I've done this twice, and the machine/operator has failed to guess my number both times. (Different machines/operators and different times.)

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Scientific standards says that you eliminate extraneous variables before concluding a cause-effect relationship. This has not been done by any stretch of the imagination...and is therefore outside of the scientific standards.

 

Then set up a meeting and I will run my little single digit experiment. Even though I don't gamble, I would be willing to bet any amount of money (or non-monetary/bragging rights) that your lie detector/operator cannot "guess" my number. Would you like to take that challenge? BTW, I've done this twice, and the machine/operator has failed to guess my number both times. (Different machines/operators and different times.)

Lie detectors, as you know, don’t detect lies, deception.  I’m not saying it’s impossible to beat one, or that they’re fool proof.  They are also often inconclusive.  But with a skilled operator, they can be very useful.  

We can agree to disagree as we often do. We are a lot alike in that we usually both think we’re always right.  The difference is I usually am....

 

 

I KID!  I KID!!!!!

[Englebert]

7 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Lie detectors, as you know, don’t detect lies, deception.  I’m not saying it’s impossible to beat one, or that they’re fool proof.  They are also often inconclusive.  But with a skilled operator, they can be very useful.  

We can agree to disagree as we often do. We are a lot alike in that we usually both think we’re always right.  The difference is I usually am....

 

 

I KID!  I KID!!!!!

I agree they can be useful...at times, and I also know that they can be harmful...therefore should never be used other than a novelty item. I actually have a signed and notarized document that says I will not submit to a polygraph test. I did this so that if the situation ever arose where I was asked to prove my innocence, it won't look like I'm guilty for refusing to submit to one. Since I lost it in the flood, I guess I better draw me up another one. 

[Reagan]

The fake smear campaign may be turning voters toward Roy Moore!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

13 minutes ago, Reagan said:

The fake smear campaign may be turning voters toward Roy Moore!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Dems will stop at nothing. The woman making these false claims should be arrested. That will put a stop to these illegal claims.

[Reagan]

More good news!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Hagar]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?  Why was Bill Clinton given a pass on an alleged rape, and they want Moore drawn and quartered for what appears to be a politically motivated accusation?  Man, this is as one sided as a TV.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, REBgp said:

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?  Why was Bill Clinton given a pass on an alleged rape, and they want Moore drawn and quartered for what appears to be a politically motivated accusation?  Man, this is as one sided as a TV.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

We're talking about accusations against a Christian conservative Republican here...come on, man!  

No proof needed for guilt.

[Hagar]

13 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

We're talking about accusations against a Christian conservative Republican here...come on, man!  

No proof needed for guilt.

Seems they've already found a flaw in the story.  She claimed Moore called her on her bedroom phone.  Her mom said she didn't have a bedroom phone then.  And from what I've read, there's no proof.  Nada.  None.  And did mom just let her, at 14, go to a cabin with a 32 yr old man?  I think this story is unraveling.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

When I first heard about the attack on the Hannity's advertisers, the first one I thought of was the snake soros.  And sure enough it's true!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

I think Roy Moore should.  If this was a hit piece, I'm sure the Washington Compost wasn't expecting a law suit.  They figured it would be like some other Republicans that back down and not say anything.  After all -- we are innocent until proven guilty.  Aren't we??!!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

On 11/11/2017 at 4:38 PM, stevenash said:

" This is the most transparent administration in history"

 

On 11/11/2017 at 4:39 PM, stevenash said:

Pass my stimulus bill and it will create shovel ready jobs

 

But he was very smooth and charismatic when he made these statements from the teleprompter.

A quality that the left deems more important than actual results.

[stevenash]

Correct- Some refer to it as "symbolism over substance". 

[Bigcam2903]

On 11/10/2017 at 2:33 PM, stevenash said:

Disagree- Greatest con was a  President promising a $2500 healthcare premium cut ( and all minions/bots totally accepting it)and delivering a $4100 increase instead.  What makes it worse is that he knew that was going to happen

That was a great Con. Why doesn't his Family use the care if it's so great?? Very disappointed