Title: OBAMA GETTING HIGH ON THE DOWN LOW Source:
YOU TUBE URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY Published:Jan 30, 2008 Author:HOUNDDAWG Q. SCHWARTZ Post Date:2008-01-30 23:36:37 by HOUNDDAWG Keywords:None Views:2271 Comments:122
Poster Comment:
The "respectable" media ignores this the same way they ignored Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" before he was elected.
#31. To: All, Tauzero, noone222, freepatriot32, iconoclast, aristeides, castletrash, ghostdogtxn, (#0)
ghostdogtxn wrote: "This video is bullshit and smacks of Clinton dirty tricks. Of course, it's convenient to blame it on Ron Paul folks instead, right Hillary?"
Well gang, Larry Sinclair took a 4 hour polygraph examination, and it included drug screening to verify that he didn't chemically alter his stress/physiological responses before the test.
Does this sound like bullshit, now?
HAH!
OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S ON DA DOWN LOW, OBAMA'S........
"The only things I like better than receiving a stuffed brown paper bag from grateful constituents and the party faithful is smoking a fact rock while getting a "beej" from a sweet bird (a swallow in fact) for whom performing the act isn't simply obligatory (like my wife) but pleasurable! Smokin' rocks in, smokin' rocks out!!"__Barack Obama
The fact that you apparently look upon any system-approved selectee favorably while accepting the manufactured image without suspicion or skepticism would indicate that you're either hopelessly maladjusted or tragically naive.
There is no third possibility.
And, your attempts to elevate him with the shameless use of white guilt is proof of your immoral pragmatism, and America has suffered quite enough because of that, thank very much.
Larry Sinclair Polygraph Test Indicates "Deception" In Obama Claims.
What makes me think you guys are not going to apologize?
Don't you want to wait for the second examiner's results?
We may find that the results say more about the examiners' politics than Larry Sinclair.
For instance, suppose the examiner is a closet homophobe conservo who is concerned more about alienating the establishment and possibly the future prez than at sustaining the assertions of someone he personally despises.
After all, one former polygraph expert-turned critic calls polygraph "A mechanical Charlie McCarthy" and claims that it's most effective when people refuse to take it!
Here is something to consider:
"The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.
The polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive.
The test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions.
The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through."
Although I know these things, I don't know that Larry Sinclair does, or how truthfully he answered the so called control questions, or how much of the so called "deception" was based on those as opposed to the actual test which he may have passed with flying colors. Polygraphs are supposed to have a follow up report detailing the reasons for pass, fail, or inconclusive results. The absence of a detailed report but this advanced leak, possibly to intimidate the other examiner and skew his results may say more about the examiner than Larry Sinclair.
Do you think that some asshole who is afraid of being dropped from the federal speakers' luncheon circuit would engage in deception if he deemed it necessary to protect his credentials?
It will be interesting to see if the other examiner will be influenced by the fact that the first to blab his results is a "Former President of the American Polygraph Association". Perhaps that was the intention of this examiner who jumped the gun and it is he, more so than Sinclair who has a hidden agenda.
If anything, the fact that Sinclair was willing to test at all says more than any "interpretation" by a state worshiper whose livelihood depends on selling snake oil.
Update: I (Mr. Maschke) have posted to YouTube the following commentary on why -- pass or fail -- Mr. Sinclair's polygraph results will be evidence of nothing:
So, before demanding an apology perhaps the first examiner should explain how he knows that the second examiner will "confirm his results" and "Did the deception he "found" have to do with the control questions to which he expected Sinclair, and in fact all examinees to lie?"
And, before you declare Obama the victim perhaps since you seem to put so much faith in a polygraph, (in fact a preliminary and ambiguous leak that serves your needs and possibly the examiner's as well) you should insist that Obama submit to a polygraph!
("Oh no, we don't want that!", aristeides and iconoclast cry!) If anything, the two examiners now have considerable motivation to agree, lest they only cancel each other and further discredit their chosen "profession". The first examiner had to know that when he leaked this stuff, and he has only succeeded in impeaching his own professionalism as a result. The test could have been useful if Sinclair took it and Obama was asked but refused. But now someone has unilaterally defeated the whole line of inquiry and allowed Obama an escape chute, (while ostensibly protecting their polygraph racket) and this examiner cannot claim ignorance of that fact or innocence for his actions.
What makes me think you guys are not going to apologize?
I see I was right.
(I happen not to have much faith in polygraphs myself. But I'm not the one who first made the claim on this thread that Sinclair had passed his polygraph test. That's why I thought an apology was in order.)
But I'm not the one who first made the claim on this thread that Sinclair had passed his polygraph test.
Well, I'm not going to read the thread to find out who that was if in fact anyone made that assertion.
And, if the opposite result had been leaked would you apologize and say, "Gee I guess I was wrong about Obama!"?
No, you had your skepticism about polygraph in ready reserve just in case.
So, it would appear that Obama isn't the only one who will deny this at all costs, "and by any means necessary."
I understand his reasons, but yours are a mystery to me. How can you possibly believe that he or any other politician, particularly a DEM or a PUB, particularly one from Cook County, particularly one who has already metamorphosed from a Palestinian sympathizer to "Israel's newest and bestest buddy" is incapable of self serving dishonesty and therefore incapable of illicit drug use and sexual encounters?
Why would you assume that he is a victim and that is the more likely scenario rather than the possibility that Sinclair is telling the truth? Can you tell by looking at someone if they are totally honest, have an absence of narcissistic tendencies and are totally hetero in their orientation? Or, do you know Obama personally and are willing to vouch for his character? If the answer to either question is no, then, are you simply failing to reveal your own political agenda and pragmatic methods in support of same?
If there were anything behind Sinclair's claims, one of Obama's opponents -- a Hillary supporter, a McCain supporter, somebody -- would have made that very clear by now.
And letting this charge just sit out there is something very characteristic of the games the Clinton people pull.
If there were anything behind Sinclair's claims, one of Obama's opponents -- a Hillary supporter, a McCain supporter, somebody -- would have made that very clear by now.
That does not logically follow for two reasons.
First, McCain and Clinton both have considerable dirty laundry and if they open that book then they invite retaliation and examination of their secrets.
And,
Why should they go negative (especially after Hillary was booed by Democrats for that recently) when they can simply sit and wait and hope that Sinclair torpedoes Obama for them while they stay on the sidelines keeping their skirts nicely starched and clean?
And, "followers" of McCain and Hillary aren't likely to have any more proof than you or I. But, let's suppose that a gay prostitute-Hillary supporter does have proof. How would it benefit Hillary to come forward and say, "I'm gay trade and I support Hillary, and I also went South on Obama!"? Are homosexual prostitutes incapable of lying, or would that individual simply be asking for the same savage treatment that's being heaped on Larry Sinclair now? If someone did that, would you and others who support 'Racky be any more likely to believe him than you do Sinclair? If not, then why would you even suggest this as a way to strengthen the case against Obama, when you'd be among the first to attack such a source?
You need to step back and take a breather. You're getting frantic and it shows.
Frantic? Because of the testimony of one extremely untrustworthy source?
No, because you are suggesting that polygraph proves something while simultaneously waiting to attack it, and then suggesting that if another Hillary or McCain "supporter" supported Sinclair's charges that would strengthen the case against Obama when we both know that you'd attack such a source as readily as you're attacking Sinclair now!
And, in your frantic search for purchase on that rocky precipice you don't even see that you're contradicting yourself.
There is no way any intelligent person would attempt to attach the two words.
totally impossible.
So, it's your position that "pragmatism" is always a good thing, and cannot and is not ever abused?
Very well.
I won't argue that point.
Suffice to say that I don't agree with that, and it would be a simple matter to prove my point.
But, I'd love to hear why you feel the way you do. Unfortunately, (I believe that) there is no way for you to defend it but with sarcasm, and vaingloriously using yourself as an example of intelligence.
Is it possible that you're only comfortable with cliches with which you are familiar, and you confuse your own calcified memories with a benchmark for intelligence?
Or, are you "intelligent enough" to explain why the two words in conjunction are unworkable?
So, it's your position that "pragmatism" is always a good thing, and cannot and is not ever abused?
Good heavens no....
I am a pragmatist but there is no such thing as immoral pragmatism. That is like saying, "you have immoral blindness". I may be immoral and blind but one cannot connect the two.
I am a pragmatist but there is no such thing as immoral pragmatism. That is like saying, "you have immoral blindness". I may be immoral and blind but one cannot connect the two
If my use of the phrase isn't enough then here it is used by Stefan Molyneux:
"The immoral pragmatism involved in making a living by corrupting the young is so ghastly that it can only be sustained by completely separating theory from practice. When you want to keep doing bad things, you must separate your self-justifying theories from your empirical actions, otherwise your guilt and self-hatred will arise and compel you to change your behaviour. You must numb your conscience by repeating over and over that morality has nothing to do with practicality – but only because the practicality that you have chosen is completely immoral." link
And, from the book AUSCHWITZ-A New History by Laurence Rees:
"Rees determines that a terrible immoral pragmatism characterized many of the decisions that determined what happened at Auschwitz. Thus the story of the camp becomes a morality tale, too, in which evil is shown to proceed in a series of deft, almost noiseless incremental steps until it produces the overwhelming horror of the industrial scale slaughter that was inflicted in the gas chambers of Auschwitz." link
And BTW, blindness is a morally neutral state. Pragmatism is not by definition or as a necessity morally neutral, despite your obvious unfamiliarity with this fact.
And BTW, blindness is a morally neutral state. Pragmatism is not by definition or as a necessity morally neutral, despite your obvious unfamiliarity with this fact.
And BTW, blindness is a morally neutral state.
Moral or immoral cannot be subscribed to blindness any more than it can be used to describe pragmatism. Neutral means nothing as it has no descriptive value whatsoever.
You may well have immoral behavior as it defines substantive human value. You have feet but they are not moral or immoral. By the way the person you quote is someone I have never heard of. So you have your opinion, I have mine and I am familiar with a lot of things.
I see you chose to reply with a total bullshit non sequitur instead of an apology.
Obviously, I'm aware that pragmatism can be morally neutral which is why I qualified, modified and otherwise specified what I meant with the addition of the word "immoral" only to be told by you that "it's against the law to put those words together" or some such nonsense. (But, you already know this, and you're trying to avoid admitting your error by tossing up grammatical fairie dust, hoping to make your escape in the blinding cloud)
Now, a gentleman would admit that he learned something from all of this, and I've been quite civil considering that you blindsided me, and considering that you were wrong.