See post #28 in this thread, for example.
I’d like to see you repeat that under a lie detector.
Regards,
Shodan
You mean, wear one like a hat? Or use it like an umbrella?
Did you just write that? I mean, a mere several posts after evidence that polygraphs are bullshit? A reasonably intelligent person would think that person A might be a confident and accomplished liar and person B might not want to submit to a procedure that is both inadmissible and unlikely to yield useful results.
How about if I repeat that over a lie detector? That way I don’t have to worry about it falling on me.
ETA: Or even beside would do. Just not under. I’m not sure how much a lie detector weighs, but probably enough to hurt if it landed on me.
I sure did! While they’re nowhere near accurate enough to be used in a trial proceeding, they still provide a data point. A shaky one, to be sure. And apart from the individual he-said, she-said testimony, we have very few data points. Some supporting witnesses for Ms. Hill, and the polygraph result.
Your explanation of events is plausible, but the only person who would *assume *it is correct is hopelessly biased. Absent other evidence? The weight of the data is clearly on one side. Since ALL the evidence we have is on one side. And if you want to disregard the polygraph? That’s fine, but there are still witnesses.
This week we found out that he feels so strongly about federalism that he’s willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of people that he feels morally superior to in order to preserve it. Sad.
Link?
Let’s not exaggerate: he’s willing to end the availability of affordable health care for tens of millions of people over a principle.
That would likely mean tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
It can be a heroic thing to sacrifice one’s life for a principle.
The same cannot be said about sacrificing other people’s lives for a principle.
They’re not rich and/or powerful. They don’t really qualify as people. Hell, even the ones that work only do service jobs.
Bricker is trolling in that thread, as usual. I reported a post of his once where he admitted that he posted things to this board just to rile up the left-leaning population, and nothing was done.
Eh, Bricker and Shodan are fine by me. They’re both among the reasonable political posters of this board. I actually don’t even find Bricker to be particularly partisan–he’s changed his mind on issues on this board. I think Shodan is a little more set in his ways and a little pricklier, but still someone who is on the reasonable side of the spectrum.
That got me my first moderation, at long last! Or at least, as far as I remember—if it’s happened before, it’s receded into the obscurity of the unremembered past. As Bricker, and all his beliefs, his ideals and hopes will likewise, in time, as well as those of his fellow regressives and reactionaries—because all they have, really, is a glorified past that never was, and never will be again, and whose luster will only be dulled by time and erased by history.
They probably looked at the report and realized you’re not very smart.
I can only fight the good fight as long as I grace this mortal coil.
I don’t think my ideals are destined for the dustbin of history, but there’s no way to know; when history renders its verdict I’ll be elsewhere.
The only way you can rebut my clever and cogent arguments is to make up stuff I never said and then valiantly rebut that stuff.
As the above demonstrates.
Sad.
I pray that your life be as long and full as Phylis Schafly’s, and that you see exactly as many of your ideals outlive you.
I have never understood what it is about Bricker that gets under people’s skin. He consistently withdraws arguments proven wrong, offers charitable interpretations of his opponent’s positions, and, contrary to his reputation, tends not to get bogged down in petty squabbles or semantics nearly as often as the median poster.
You don’t like his political views? Well, that doesn’t exactly make him unique. Indeed, he’s probably not even in the right-most quartile of this board. What so many people don’t like, I suspect, is that he argues views you disagree with clearly and forcefully.
As for the “you want to kill people over federalism,” please. It’s hardly an argument to tally up all the possible death and destruction on one side of the ledger, ignore everything your opponent puts on the other side of the ledger, and then declare victory. If you think federalism is important, then you also think it makes people’s lives better (and in many cases saves them). That’s what you should be debating, not this sophomoric straw man of a calculus.
Any really intelligent person would refuse to pass any polygraph test, especially if they’re innocent. It could only hurt your case, because polygraph being completely unreliable, they could show you’re lying when you aren’t, and cast suspicion on you.
In fact, the only situation where I think it could make sense to pass one would be when you’re lying/guilty and there are already significant evidences against you. At this point, you don’t have much to lose, and the polygraph result might say that you’re telling the truth, and weight in the balance in your favour. Maybe also, when I think of it, if you’re saying the truth while evidences rather show that you aren’t. So, let’s amend it : if evidences are against you, whether or not you’re telling the truth, accept the polygraph. If evidences are in your favour, refuse it.
Thinking the way you do (that the person accepting the test is more likely to be truthful than the person refusing it) requires the assumption that those people are convinced, at least to some extent, that a polygraph test is reliable. Many people like me think that it’s about as reliable as reading tarot cards, and would decide whether or not to agree to pass the test following the same reasoning they would use if offered a tarot reading instead.