Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2015 at 2:16am:


Thanks Dan  Wow   A Christian Pastor ?  You've got to be kidding me ?  No wonder there are so many people who hate Christians.  I'm glad I don't go to church anymore (but I still believe).  One of my favorite Commandments plainly says, "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor".  Unless everyone this guy has tested has been independently proven to be innocent or guilty consistent with his finding, I'd say there's a real good chance he has borne lots of false witness against his neighbor and ruined said neighbor's life.  Although we are all sinners, it sounds like this guy willfully sins in a most egregious manner and profits from it.  My understanding of the Good Book indicates he'll end up in a warm place.   

        Sorry to proselytize, but I've had personal dealings with Islamic terrorists and self-righteous, phony Christians and I think the Islamic terrorists are better people.

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2015 at 9:46pm:


Interesting Dan.  It is amazing how history repeats itself.  These people are no different than the self-righteous zealots that burned witches in the 17th century.   None of the family members of the Salem prosecutors were ever accused or harmed.  In a similar vein, I've also noticed that bureaucratic elites and children of bureaucratic elites never have a problem with the polygraph.   I've seen lots of children of very high ranking government officials get jobs in their agencies and I've never heard of any big-shot's kids having a problem with the polygraph.  I'm sure if it ever were to happen, the polygraph examiner and the adjudication lynch mob would miraculously discover the chart to be NDI.

American Polygraph Association elections are looming. Now there's talk from APA headquarters of moving the procedural goalposts yet again.

In the January/February issue of the APA magazine, released yesterday, APA president Walt Goodson floats a trial balloon calling for a discussion on eschewing the advances of technology -- which enables APA members to vote electronically, regardless of their location anywhere on the planet --  and going back to holding elections at the annual seminar, an event that attracts a mere fraction of the APA's total membership.

Worries good ol' boy Goodson: "With the current process, our membership is invited to cast a vote based on a 500-word candidate statement and a photo. Unless you know the candidate, there is little chance for interaction or feedback to clarify a candidate’s position on the issues.  We don’t have the luxury of televised debates, public appearances, and the media exposing the good, the bad and the ugly on our candidates. Thus, votes may be cast based on a photo and how well a candidate can write a compelling candidate statement."

Goodson's rationale is fatally flawed. As for any member seeking clarification on a candidate's positions, intentions or qualifications, that is easily remedied by sending an email or making a phone call. It's simply not an issue.

It seems to me that Walt longs for the days of an establishment-oriented electorate to coronate the next batch of politically reliable APA officers.

Otherwise, why would Goodson even consider efforts to summarily disenfranchise the vast majority of the APA membership?

By the way, when I ran against Goodson in 2014 for APA president-elect, I asked him to debate the issues with me in on-line polygraph forums. He ignored my request.

Goodson's regressive proposal to effectively disenfranchise the vast majority of APA members is yet another colossal misstep of the "new, improved" American Polygraph Association. 

Such a divisive move ranks right up there with the APA's board (reportedly) entertaining a virtual form of self-preserving nativism, designed to prevent non-U.S. citizens from ever holding office.

Lest we not forget the APA's recently abandoned goal: "To serve the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons."

It is becoming increasingly obvious why the APA leadership saw fit to dispense with that time-honored principle. Seems the polygraph bidness (politics and all) is primarily about power, control and money. Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons?  Meh...that was then, this is now. Disgusting.

This latest blunder is yet another reminder that the APA's self-ordained illuminati -- and their dutiful lackeys -- have got to go.

Ugh, here we go again.  As if dealing with the ranting of the barking dog and the hair piece were not enough to put up with this year.

Dan, Walt brings up good points.  Ugh, I hate that I am put in a position to defend a Texas Examiner, but what's right is what's right.

It is impossible to make a rational decision about who to elect with a 500 word statement.  How can you know someones character based on that and a picture?  Also, I think making it so that you have to be present to vote, isn't moving the goal posts; in my opinion.  It is encouraging attendance and involvement in the annual conference.  

In any other association, including the NPA, if you are not there, you don't get a vote.  If I was not at the NPA conference this year, I would not have been able to vote for current officers.  I would not have felt disenfranchised.  If I couldn't make it, I wouldn't be able to vote.  If it was truly important to me, I would either make an effort to be there, or get on the phone and campaign for the candidate I did want in with people I know would be there to vote.  There are more ways to be politically active than just voting.

Personally, I think someone should not be on the ballot, unless they are at the conference to meet and greet people also.  This is simple Irish politics, Dan.  How can people like you, when you don't even show up and press the flesh with would be constituents? kiss hands, shake babies.... wait, stop, reverse that, kiss babies and shake hands.  lol

Sorry, had to insert a wee bit of my famous dark humor.

You do not endear yourself to voters by hiding away in a hole.  Again, this is politics 101.  Moreover, you are asking that people trust you to run an organization, that you don't even show up to meetings for yourself?  That is like phoning in an "in person" job interview, and expecting to get the job over someone who did show up.  

Dan, You would see a big jump in numbers if you started showing up and pitching to people, eye to eye, over mud slinging here.  Come on, even the people here at AP has to see how that makes sense.

The people who get elected, are the people who show up to the game.  You can't win the Stanley Cup, if you don't show up with your sticks.  I think it should be a rule, that to be eligible for nomination for office, you should either

1, be actively involved in a committee
2, be present at the last conference, and be present to the conference in which the voting shall occur.
3, or both of the above.

Sorry, even at the NPA, I would have a hard time voting for someone, into office, that is not active in the association, either showing up, or being active in a committee.  I certainly would never cast my vote to someone that wasn't there to accept office if he or she had run (unless there was a good reason for not being there;  death in family, or family emergence, etc.)

Your attack on Walt (I still can't believe I am put into a position to defend a Texas Examiner) is one diminutional  and unreasonable.  I hope you will read what I have wrote and see it as me giving you tips on being more electable and a better candidate.

As much as I would jump on the band wagon to attack the Texas polygraph illuminati, I will not do it when I feel the position is wrong or unjust.  I do not see his reasoning as "fatally flawed."  I think his reasoning makes sense on some level and is not entirely out of line.  

Now you having a different set of views, is also reasonable.  What is unreasonable, is you run for office, and then you don't even show up to meetings to explain your position face to face.  You say you want to debate the issues, then show up to the arena.  You can't say people will ignore or avoid you; because my meeting with Holden, with Oburke and a few other officers being right there next to us, would not have happened.  Holden is important enough to have avoided me there if he had wanted to, and I am sure he could have had people run interception also. 

Fact is, I was a place where host conversations were encouraged; and for the record, people did ask where you were.  People are interested to talk to you and hear your positions.  Having said that, it is your responsibility, as a candidate, to reach out to them to sell your ideas.  It is not up to them to reach out to you.

Run for office, Dan.  I am happy to see you do it, and I admire the fight in the dog, not the dog in the fight.  If you are going to be a candidate, fight to win; don't fight just for the fight.  

Someday, I will run for office in the NPA; that day is coming.  I wouldn't want anyone to vote for me, if I was never there, or have some role that showed my sincere desire to be involved in the support of the organizations positive endeavors.

I am not trying to discourage your candidacy, I am encouraging you to be a better, more winnable, candidate.

  
"There's two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You got your talkers and you got your doers. Most people are just talkers, all they do is talk. But when it is all said and done, it's the doers that change this world. And when they do that, they change us, and that's why we never forget them. So which one are you? Do you just talk about it, or do you stand up and do something about it? Because believe you me, all the rest of it is just coffee house and bullshit."

Being a doer, takes a lot more than spouting off here.  Time to show up to the game, guy.

So, what's it gonna be?  Because you won't win an election like this.  You want to be Donald Tump, but you're acting like Ross Perot

Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:


Joe, I am not a politician, I'm a radical change agent who is steadily assembling an ideological insurgency. It's a totally different ball game that has its own playbook.

Ark, don't hold your breath. Those APA establishment "dedicated to truth" fakers are CHICKEN.