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:2444 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.)