tvc184

  Proud to state the truth? Not really.    Happy that the American people have stripped Obama's power after he and the Democrats went against the will of the people in passing Obamacare and promptly made a 63 seat swing in the House of Representative? You bet.    I won't make any predictions on what the future may hold as we don't know what will happen in the next 24 months that can change it one way or the other. Obama might just be recreating the circumstances that got him in power in the first place but in reverse. Bush made some political moves that were not popular at the end of his last term and he lost support of the people. It made many people angry and created the perfect storm for a junior senator with almost no experience to leap to the forefront (along with some inside politics since Hillary actually got more popular vote in the primaries). The next Republican candidate whoever it is might be walking into the same angry public on the other side. 

"Haters" is one of those code words that some people like to talk about like "thug" or "undisciplined". Thank you Mr. President for stooping to that level. I guess in the waning days of your power and no more elections to face, it is time to take off the gloves and let your true feelings out. 

Yes Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck and there is nothing we can do about that. When Obama was in his first two years of office the Republicans tried to block several pieces of legislation, most notably Obamacare. That is when the Dems had the super majority and could pass any legislation it wanted but the Republicans kept trying to throw up roadblocks. Representative Elijah Cummings (D) a couple of times in a fairly angry tone got on the television and denounced the Republicans by saying something like, "We won and you lost and we are now in control. That is the way this works". Yes Elijah, that is the way it works. Historically there has been compromise on legislation being passed but now the Dems had the ultimate power for two years. Of course they wasted it and passed only one piece if real legislation, Obamacare. They were promptly hit with the midterms in 2010 where the public greeted their legislative prowess with a stunning reversal in Congress in a historic switch in the House. Yes, Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck. The Republicans made good strides in the Senate and took away their filibuster proof majority. The only reason the did not take over the Senate was because only 1/3 of senators is ever up for reelection at one time but that again is the rules. Since Obamacare the Republicans have held a firm grip on the House. The president or Dems can get nothing passed into law for the last six years of Obama's presidency without Republican consent and it is driving them crazy. Simply put, House elections are local to each area and a majority of the American public has rejected the Dems leadership in passing laws. Yes, Obama got a huge 51% if the vote in 2012 and will now finish out his term however he faces the prospect of losing the Senate also in a couple of months. His power has been stripped and he has resorted to illegal executive orders, some if which have been thrown out by the Supreme Court with likely more to follow (3 losses in the last month). That fact has Obama and the Dems outraged but in the words of Elijah Cummings (now coming back to haunt the Dems), we won and you lost. The Republicans now hold a solid majority in the House and (thank you Mr. Cummings) that us the way this works giving the Republicans overwhelming control.  If the Republicans take over the Senate in November and take full control of Congress, Obama can get his pen in hand (as he loves to say) but this time to issue veto after veto as the Republicans will be sending him law after law. Remember, that is the way this works as Mr. Cummings so eloquently pointed out. But wait, can't the Dem senators simply filibuster? Oops.... Harry Reid and the Dems voted a rules change when they didn't like the Republicans legally blocking legislation (again within the rules) so they changed the rules in mid stream. They were warned not to let the genie out of the bottle as it would come back to haunt them. Now they are desperately praying to hang on to the Senate or face a nightmare in legislation that they created when they couldn't play within the rules. But Obama will still be the president. Let's see how that works our for him with his poll numbers now down into the 30's in many areas. And again in the words of Dem spokesman Elijah Cummings, Obama won and is the president........ but he will be stripped of almost all power except the veto and that is the rules.

  That is what I was wondering. 

  Giving him a pass? My response was that I don't think they should be here at all and whether they pay in state or out of state tuition doesn't matter.    Who are you claiming that backs up Reagan in the amnesty deal? I have never mentioned that as being a good thing and I have not seen anyone else say so. It was one of the worst decisions of Reagan's presidency and although he was promised that it was a "one time deal", many of use thought that it was the proverbial foot in the door.   You often bring up these straw man arguments.    You ask questions about, why do you not disagree with (fill in the name of any Republican) when in truth, no one has claimed support for those issues. You only assume that we support all issues by the national party.   The reason that Bush's popularity waned in his last year was his support and ultimately signing of bailouts like TARP and the auto bailouts. It is a given that the Democrats didn't like him but his late policies changed his own party's opinion as well. You see, therein lies evidence that we don't support only party but what is done. The fact that the Tea Party sprung up within the Republican Party is further evidence that we don't all accept things to toe the party line.   Yet you will likely continue to come up with..."But why did _________ sign _________ and why did you Republicans support him/her?".    The truth is that maybe we don't as I listed above.

    Let's refresh our memories in this thread. The comment that I made was about the article and its likelihood of it being wrong and rarely (in my opinion) is it ever true. In other words, I have little belief in its accusations.    The mention of race was only brought up by bigcam in post #3. The terms race, whites, black, racist, African American, content of character and others were brought up. Hippy was called out to clarify his statement or beliefs.   In fact hippy made no statement and only copied/pasted a local website that claims to be "news".     I only responded to the post. I said such bad things as content of character does matter and we are talking about a federally convicted criminal. If you want to think that the US Justice Department falsified evidence or targeted someone and it is a scam, your are certainly free to feel that way. I still merely stated facts.    In fact you made the comment:       .... bring up both Black and "Hood Card". Oops! I guess we forgot about that one but it may have only been a joke so it doesn't matter? I can imagine the response if I had said something like that.    All that I have said in my posts is that race does not matter (like hippy, after being called out.. "So I ask TVC, are the scales balanced??") and listed reasons why I feel that way but Walker's pleading guilty does matter. Apparently some take that as offensive after I am asked a direct question. Again, feel free to think any way that you wish and not agree with me but please look back and see who brought up what.    Again, hippy posted a political opinion from another website with no further comments of his own and I immediately (with the first response) said that the site rarely has any truth to it and it calls rumors as fact. If that is too difficult to comprehend, it is saying that I believe very little from the website unless I see something else other than his opinions. In other words, I did not accept the additional claims made by the website against Walker and possibly politicians without further proof as it is often wrong or skirts around the truth.    Feel free to fact check the thread.      

    I doubt that a guy with millions of dollars in his account and with a high profile attorney pleaded guilty after a hung jury because he was worried about being wrongfully convicted. Especially when the plea makes him pay back millions of dollars.  We aren't talking about a guy found with a rock of cocaine or a small baggie of marijuana on a traffic stop and with a court appointed attorney. Either way, he stood up in front of a judge and he proclaimed his own guilt.   On the other hand I notice that you conveniently missed the point of the post and that is that the prosecutor was an Obama appointee and the head of the Justice Department that prosecuted him was the US Attorney General, Eric Holder. I guess Eric Holder's Justice Department and an Obama appointee had it out for Walker due to race.... which is what is being stated or implied.    So I am wondering how many people realize that it was the FBI and US Justice Department that gathered the evidence and filed charges and ultimately got a conviction on Walker? Do they think that Eric Holder's Justice Department and a Barack Obama appointee targeted or allowed Walker to be prosecuted due to race because reading posts in this forum and in other online debates, that seems to be the claim?    

Okay, now four. 

    Maybe you haven't kept up on current events but he already is convicted. He pleaded guilty in a deal for probation rather than risk many years in the federal hoosegow. The state has now come in and picked up the same charges that were for some reason not taken up by the last DA.    Yes, the scales are balanced unless you are going to imply that a white guy can over bill a school district for several million dollars and then give different statements to the IRS so that he can pay less in taxes and everyone will let him go because of his race. If that is true you need to take it up with the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas who was appointed by Obama, was approved by the Democratically controlled US Senate and is under the US Attorney General.    Unless something has changed, I believe that all prosecutions and surely all major ones from the US Attorney office have to go through Washington. They are not independent or nearly so much as a DA is from the state. A DA is locally elected and autonomous from the state, the US Attorney is not. What that means is that Eric Holder's Justice Department likely approved the prosecution of Walker. Perhaps you think that our US Attorney General was prosecuting Walker because of his race.    The claim of race as a motivator is an easy way to divert blame. I am not involved in any part of nor have any knowledge of the state or federal investigations but (again), the Obama administration prosecuted Walker and doubt that race entered into the equation. Maybe you have some more inside information that says otherwise. I would love to hear it. 

  I answered your last question and got two "likes" so I will note that as three responses.   How many do you need? 

The content of character, as you brought up, is the issue. Here we have a guy that has admitted to falsifying invoices, not paying taxes, etc. He is a convicted criminal yet many in his community will defend him and as I saw a comment yesterday on one of the local news Facebook sites, callled the investigation a witch hunt. If someone mentions Walker as being a crook then many will defend him (even sfter he has pleaded guilty) as being the victim. With that thought in mind, what causes another segment of the community to defend a convict if not for race. It sure isn't his content of character.

And Al Jazeera doesn't?

On rare occasion that rag is correct. Rumors are reported as fact but most of the storues fade into history never to be mentioned again with no follow up and that is true of stories that include a phrase like, "this one has legs".

As the saying goes, the "E" in email stands for evidence.

But as Englebert keeps pointing out, they don't detect lies and never claim to.

But polygraphs do work a lot better than 60% and besides, the analogy doesn't make much sense. A GPS is dependent on almost pinpoint accuracy. A polygraph does not and only guages reaction. A hand grenade doesn't have pinpoint accuracy either but is a highly effective tool. Simple interviewing of people isn't nearly as accurate as a GPS either so should the police quit questioning people?

  They will win but they won't finish the job. Too many people in the world want them to back off and let Hamas regenerate and kill more innocent people in Israel. 

  Okay, I will expound a bit.    What are you asking? 

  Our results must be atypical then because I don't see the waste of money and time. It costs almost nothing and I have never seen it cause overtime for the operators. They schedule the interviews during regular duty time just like any other interview/interrogation. It is not like there is an emergency called out at 3:00AM for a spur of the moment polygraph where the taxpayers have to pay the overtime.    When you get a confession from a child molester or a murder suspect, I wonder how they measure that cost as a waste. I wonder if another method could have been used faster and cheaper.    I can look at the time that we have had for overtime on surveillance and what the odds of success are. I imagine Beaumont PD has put in a lot of time and money (maybe thousands of dollars) into the serial rapist investigation and as of yet, has turned up nothing or at least not to getting probable cause for an arrest (I am sure that they have some leads). I guess stakeouts and task forces need to be stopped as they are not cost effective. The question then goes to, what do the police do to solve the serious crimes and what part does cost play to the public and are the other methods more cost effective than a polygraph?    My guess is that they are not.    Or as westend stated, it is a tool. 

  We are giving a test in September.  :D

............ and if your point is that the polygraph doesn't specifically detect lies and the the public doesn't always know or understand that, I agree. There are lots of areas the public has absolutely no clue about.    The way I look at that issue is, who cares? It is still an option for an investigation just like other methods. It is not an end all in an investigation. I wish it was that simple. I have seen a case that I worked around the edges about 25 years ago where a guy completely blew a polygraph and we thought that he kidnapped and killed a small child. He did not confess however and we at that point did not even have a body. A few weeks later we found her body and about 10 years later he confessed. The polygraph (probably through his fear of being discovered) was dead on target and it meant nothing as we could not use it. If the polygraph would have ended it, we might have found the little girl sooner and would not have to wait several years for his conscience to bother him. 

And?

You seem to have an axe to grind with polygraphs and note that they do not detect lies. That is true but they work the way they are intended.    Remember that a person does not have to consent to taking one for a criminal investigation. I have known many people that "passed" in that they did not show deception so the idea that merely asking people a question of guilt will show that they are lying (false positive) because they are nervous is not correct, otherwise every person would show deception.    When I took a polygraph to get hired by the police department, they asked me all kinds of sensitive questions (some which they can't ask any more) that made me very nervous as they would exclude me from being hired if they could find out evidence that I was not telling the truth. That is also why all questions have to be asked multiple times and there has to be a certain amount of time between questions. The idea that some questions make people nervous even if they are telling the truth is a known factor.    I was watching an old Dragnet show last week from I think 1969 where a murder suspect was taking the polygraph (girlfriend was found dead). He showed "deception" but then Sgt. Friday asked about the interpretation of the "suspect's deception", the polygrapher stated that he did not think the guy did it. Of course it was television (claimed to be from actual cases) but when questioned the polygrapher stated that maybe the guy watched a recent movie where a similar event happened, maybe his girlfriend always did something a certain way or he could have merely guessed because of what is routinely thought of as a means of death like a shooting or strangulation. When asked specific questions about where the victim's car was located, where the body was found and other such details were asked, he showed no response. So even 45 years ago some television showed that even with a positive response in some areas, it does not show that a person lied or was guilty. As the polygrapher in the episode noted, a couple of deceptive answer did not show guilt and he thought that the cops had the wrong guy and in fact they did. The entire interview and test is the key, not a single "did you lie" question.    I can believe that was taken from a real case where the guy on the hot seat was very nervous about general questions because everyone thinks if a woman is found dead, there is a good chance the boyfriend/husband did it but in that case the details cleared him. And again, it is a tool that a person does not have to submit to. I can assure you that many criminal cases have been cleared by the polygraph and with completely different factual evidence as the use of the polygraph itself cannot even be disclosed in court. It takes real evidence both testimony and physical for a conviction, not a polygraph.    If the police had a lot of problems with false positives as you suggest, why would they still be using them? I never saw a point in wasting my time in an investigation and in the years that I was in detectives I only asked for a polygraph on a couple of occasions. One guy backed out and one confessed when I suggested it.    There are also other methods to solve cases and get confessions like kinesic interview techniques which are basically a person to person "lie detector". They are extremely effective if the interview/interrogation last long enough but like the polygraph, it is just a tool to get a confession or to find evidence and the technique itself is not evidence. We can't give up crime fighting because hunches, polygraphs, interview techniques, etc., can't be stated as evidence. They all play a big part is solving some crimes however. 

  No, I would be okay with them not being in the country. I don't want them here paying out of state tuition either.    None of that has anything to do with you trying to make (for several weeks) a correlation between the Obama Dream Act and the Texas in state tuition law. You are trying to make it show that if Perry does it, it is okay but if Obama does it, it is wrong. You have the apples and oranges problem of comparing two different things where one has almost nothing to do with the other. 

Those silly experiments are nonsense. The polygraph depends on a person having something to lose or as you say, the fear test. I agree that it is fear that drives them but it isn't fake. Telling me that it is a fear test doesn't negate the results, it shows what causes them.    A person that lies about a number on a test that he volunteers for has no consequences. I have watched some of those and they have no bearing. Have the person sign away his life savings or let him get hit with the Taser if they can discover the lie and see what the results are.    A polygraph is not a lie detector but a measure of blood pressure, pulse, respiration, etc. It doesn't flash that a person is lying, it tells you questions that cause a person problems in some kind of fear of being discovered or as you say, a fear test. You can bet that there are people in this forum that might have stretched the truth a bit on how big of a fish they caught, etc. Their blood pressure didn't sky rocket out of fear of being discovered, their respiration didn't get heavy and their pulse didn't quicken. It is because there was no one there to call them on it and there was no real loss because of the lie.    When a person is answering questions about a crime and you get to a question that makes his pulse rate go up, his blood pressure start rising and his breathing starts to get more labored and the previous 10 questions had no such response, there is a reason.    The instrument does not detect lies. It detects body responses. A person that "passes" a test does not mean that he is telling the truth (as the goofy numbers test shows) but he is a person that has no fear of what he knows or about someone else finding out. A person that shows deception might have other reasons for the elevated responses. It does not mean that he lied but something in the question is causing a different response than the other questions.   Like two people have said, it is a tool. If it was ever a definitive "lie detector" then it would be admissible in court and we could do away with juries. It is not nor is it ever claimed to be.   Does the general public know that? Probably not but many of them also believe that the police can get DNA results in 15 minutes and plug it into a computer of every living soul and come up with a suspect. Most of the public knowledge of law enforcement, laws in general and prosecutions comes from television and movies.