- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by retcopper
- May 22, 2006, 11:51 AMJeffery:
To answer your question, "What is a liberal"? You're postings here seem to define a liberal perfectly. Integrity, loyalty, comon sense and decency are the virtues I try to ascribe to. I don't try to impress anyone by making "intellectual comments" to win "intellectual arguments" on this site.
To answer your question, "What is a liberal"? You're postings here seem to define a liberal perfectly. Integrity, loyalty, comon sense and decency are the virtues I try to ascribe to. I don't try to impress anyone by making "intellectual comments" to win "intellectual arguments" on this site.
Posted by Jeffery
- May 19, 2006, 10:04 PMQuote from: retcopper on May 19, 2006, 06:27 PM8675:
The answer is yes. I'm a big proponent of kicking in doors to make an arrest when warrantless search and seizures are allowed by law.
Regarding your statement about not having been proven that one did NOT violate a law. I am also a strong proponent of innocent until proven guilty.
What happens when you overstep and kick the door in of somebody who was innocent?
Do you also support the rights of citizens to protect their lives and property?
Serving no-knock warrants/warrantless kicking must be a VERY risky business...
Posted by Jeffery
- May 19, 2006, 10:00 PMQuote from: retcopper on May 19, 2006, 04:23 PMHow many children have been killed by US bombs? How many civilians by (acting illegaly and by no means representative of the whole) US Troops? http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/18/murtha.marines/
1. No WMDs found because Putin and Chirac tipped off Hussein. At least Hussein can't conitue slaughtering and torturing thousands of innocent civilians. And this was stopped by a government you castigate for petty human rights violations. Very contradictory don't you think?
Before you twist that and attpemt to "discredit" me in your eyes as an antiwar liberal, I'm not.
But, I'll stand by my original comment -- the US IC (who beileve strongly in polygraphics) also beileved strongly there were WMDs in Iraq. We now know both of these beliefs to be false.
Quote
2. Trial is still going on so what's your point?
3. You conveniently forgot to mention that it was a hunting acccident that is common.
Common? How often does the number 2 leader of the free world shoot soembody in the face?
Quote
4. I didn't see all the evidence in this matter. In any event he isn't there anymore.
So is this a polygraph success or failure (the Porter Goss situation?)
Quote
5.I agree that higher ups have to bear more responsibility and possible punishment if guilty. Our country made this public and the matter was investigated. The violations were not as serouus as the atrocities committed by China, Korea and Hussein's past regime so why don't you focus on condemning those countries if human rights violations seriously bother you.
China, North Korea and Sadaam are not examples our country should aspire to. Comparing our ethics to theirs is idiotic.
Quote
6. I am not sure it has been proven that the NSA or their agents violated any law.
7. It has not been determined if she was an undercover agent at the time which is a possible defense to any prosecution.
8. Are the secret prisons illegal because you don't like them? Reporters questioned for any information about leaks is not intimidation. They are no different than anyone else.
NSA: I guess you blelieve Clinotn "didn't inhale" and "didn't have sex with that woman".
You have a nice day too.
Cheap rationalizations. These are all flagrant violations of law and morality and the entire world knows it.
Posted by DippityShurff
- May 19, 2006, 09:56 PM[quote author=Jeffery accountability?
I can assure you Sir, I am beholden to no political party. But I am certainly not a liberal. What I earn I desire to keep in my OWN paycheck. But I do respect the rights of others. Please tell me your definition of conservative includes that as well.[/quote]
While I don't know your politics, we can agree on one thing. The FairTax program.
I can assure you Sir, I am beholden to no political party. But I am certainly not a liberal. What I earn I desire to keep in my OWN paycheck. But I do respect the rights of others. Please tell me your definition of conservative includes that as well.[/quote]
While I don't know your politics, we can agree on one thing. The FairTax program.
Posted by Jeffery
- May 19, 2006, 09:47 PMQuote from: retcopper on May 19, 2006, 01:14 PMYou sound like a typical disgruntled ,misinformed liberalYou realize, Sir, that with comments as intelligent as what you stated, you have completely lost the intellectual side of the argument.
who distorts the facts and shoots from the hip in order to blame others who do not conform to their point of view.
What exactly is a liberal anyway? What is a conservative? Is a conservative somebody in favor of individual rights, liberties and responsibility? Is a conservative somebody who favors limited government (as in the powers granted government only by what are explicitly granted in the Constitution or approved by the elected body (Congress))?
Or is a conservative somebody who pledges unquestioned and indieing loyalty to a governemt that operates in secret, with no oversight and no accountability?
I can assure you Sir, I am beholden to no political party. But I am certainly not a liberal. What I earn I desire to keep in my OWN paycheck. But I do respect the rights of others. Please tell me your definition of conservative includes that as well.
Posted by Onesimus
- May 19, 2006, 07:52 PMQuote from: retcopper on May 19, 2006, 06:27 PM8675:
I am also a strong proponent of innocent until proven guilty.
Doubtless you are also against taking negative action against someone based solely on the results of a polygraph test then.
Posted by retcopper
- May 19, 2006, 06:27 PM8675:
The answer is yes. I'm a big proponent of kicking in doors to make an arrest when warrantless search and seizures are allowed by law.
Regarding your statement about not having been proven that one did NOT violate a law. I am also a strong proponent of innocent until proven guilty.
I won't respond to your other statements because I think we are straying too far from the subject of polygraphy.
Chill out and have a nice weekend.
The answer is yes. I'm a big proponent of kicking in doors to make an arrest when warrantless search and seizures are allowed by law.
Regarding your statement about not having been proven that one did NOT violate a law. I am also a strong proponent of innocent until proven guilty.
I won't respond to your other statements because I think we are straying too far from the subject of polygraphy.
Chill out and have a nice weekend.
Posted by Twoblock
- May 19, 2006, 06:09 PMretcopper
It is my understanding that agents are not on undercover jobs 100% of their time. If this was so, I imagine "burnout" would occur within 10 years or less. Aren't they always on call? In between covert assignments they still have (less stressful) jobs to do to earn their pay.
I assume y'all are talking about Valerie Plame. She may not have been on covert duty at the time her name was released (for political retribution against her husband) but she was still an employee, on call, with a TS clearance which costs to achieve have been thrown out the window. This was wrong and wrong is still wrong whether it be democrat or republican.
It is my understanding that agents are not on undercover jobs 100% of their time. If this was so, I imagine "burnout" would occur within 10 years or less. Aren't they always on call? In between covert assignments they still have (less stressful) jobs to do to earn their pay.
I assume y'all are talking about Valerie Plame. She may not have been on covert duty at the time her name was released (for political retribution against her husband) but she was still an employee, on call, with a TS clearance which costs to achieve have been thrown out the window. This was wrong and wrong is still wrong whether it be democrat or republican.
Posted by 8675309
- May 19, 2006, 05:17 PMQuote
1. No WMDs found because Putin and Chirac tipped off Hussein. At least Hussein can't conitue slaughtering and torturing thousands of innocent civilians. And this was stopped by a government you castigate for petty human rights violations. Very contradictory don't you think?
So the ends justify the means? Where are your facts that he was tipped off? Using your argument below about not knowing official facts, you are hypothesizing what may have happened. Does this mean you also justify kicking down doors in the US without a warrant if it yields the arrests of suspected terrorists? Because those people couldn't continue to plot against us anymore if you did that.
Quote
6. I am not sure it has been proven that the NSA or their agents violated any law.
You're right on this one. But its not a distortion of facts whatsoever. They have been spying on people, and the legality is a grey area. It also hasn't been proven that the NSA did not violate a law either.
Quote
7. It has not been determined if she was an undercover agent at the time which is a possible defense to any prosecution.
Regardless if she was an active undercover agent, they messed up big time. If you had been undercover at some point, and your information was splashed everywhere, you probably would not be too pleased either.
Posted by retcopper
- May 19, 2006, 04:23 PM1. No WMDs found because Putin and Chirac tipped off Hussein. At least Hussein can't conitue slaughtering and torturing thousands of innocent civilians. And this was stopped by a government you castigate for petty human rights violations. Very contradictory don't you think?
2. Trial is still going on so what's your point?
3. You conveniently forgot to mention that it was a hunting acccident that is common.
4. I didn't see all the evidence in this matter. In any event he isn't there anymore.
5.I agree that higher ups have to bear more responsibility and possible punishment if guilty. Our country made this public and the matter was investigated. The violations were not as serouus as the atrocities committed by China, Korea and Hussein's past regime so why don't you focus on condemning those countries if human rights violations seriously bother you.
6. I am not sure it has been proven that the NSA or their agents violated any law.
7. It has not been determined if she was an undercover agent at the time which is a possible defense to any prosecution.
8. Are the secret prisons illegal because you don't like them? Reporters questioned for any information about leaks is not intimidation. They are no different than anyone else.
NSA: I guess you blelieve Clinotn "didn't inhale" and "didn't have sex with that woman".
You have a nice day too.
Posted by 8675309
- May 19, 2006, 01:48 PMQuote from: retcopper on May 19, 2006, 01:14 PMYou sound like a typical disgruntled ,misinformed liberal
who distorts the facts and shoots from the hip in order to blame others who do not conform to their point of view.
haha - which of those statements was distorted exactly?
Posted by NSAreject
- May 19, 2006, 01:37 PMHey retcopper,
Everything Jeffery said is true - especially, with the
NSA getting ahold of our phone records. I could tell
you all sorts of abuses by NSA, like listening to our
troops overseas, over MILSAT, just for entertainment,
and keeping massive amounts of USSID-18 data (let's
not forget all the porn that is captured and passed
around). You sound like the typical sleaze-ball,
lying polygrapher, that has probably had an abusive
childhood...
Everything Jeffery said is true - especially, with the
NSA getting ahold of our phone records. I could tell
you all sorts of abuses by NSA, like listening to our
troops overseas, over MILSAT, just for entertainment,
and keeping massive amounts of USSID-18 data (let's
not forget all the porn that is captured and passed
around). You sound like the typical sleaze-ball,
lying polygrapher, that has probably had an abusive
childhood...
Posted by retcopper
- May 19, 2006, 01:14 PMYou sound like a typical disgruntled ,misinformed liberal
who distorts the facts and shoots from the hip in order to blame others who do not conform to their point of view.
who distorts the facts and shoots from the hip in order to blame others who do not conform to their point of view.
Posted by Jeffery
- May 18, 2006, 09:00 PMHappy Anniversery everybody!
Let's recap the past two years...
Still no WMD found in Iraq.
Enron trial still underway.
Cheny shoots hunting buddy in the face.
Porter Goss forced out of CIA due to links to bribery scandal (and rumors of parties with lovely ladies).
Human Rights abuses at abu Ghraib -- and 20 year old West Virginia Reservist girl takes the fall.
NSA listening to American's phone calls.
White House leaks undercover agents name.
Reporter imprisoned.
Secret prisons in Europe -- reporters investigated and intimidated for reporting the truth.
I'm sure the list could go on.
In hindsight, is anybody truly disappointed they didn't get the nod from their agency of choice?
I'm not. I'm pissed as hell at how I was treated by my own government, but not upset at all by the ultimate outcome.
Let's recap the past two years...
Still no WMD found in Iraq.
Enron trial still underway.
Cheny shoots hunting buddy in the face.
Porter Goss forced out of CIA due to links to bribery scandal (and rumors of parties with lovely ladies).
Human Rights abuses at abu Ghraib -- and 20 year old West Virginia Reservist girl takes the fall.
NSA listening to American's phone calls.
White House leaks undercover agents name.
Reporter imprisoned.
Secret prisons in Europe -- reporters investigated and intimidated for reporting the truth.
I'm sure the list could go on.
In hindsight, is anybody truly disappointed they didn't get the nod from their agency of choice?
I'm not. I'm pissed as hell at how I was treated by my own government, but not upset at all by the ultimate outcome.
Posted by polyfool
- May 14, 2006, 05:49 PMBill, George & FBI Reject,
Happy Anniversary. I'm nearing the second anniversary of my first polygraph failure myself. Although it's been close to two years, I often think back to that fateful day and the ways in which it has changed my life for the better. Once the shock of the situation wears off, things can be seen much more clearly. In a weird way, I am thankful to my sleazy, lying, unethical, egotistical, abusive polygraph examiner for ousting me from the path that would have led me to a career with the FBI. I've gotten so much more satisfaction out of my career and made an impact on the lives of others--experiences my job with the FBI couldn't possibly have competed with. I've had so many more opportunities since my failure that I never would have had if things hadn't turned out for the better. The experience has also made me a more open-minded person and made me understand what it feels like to be falsely accused.
Now having said that, just because I am satisfied with the final outcome of not working for the agency, that doesn't take away from the fact that what the FBI is doing to applicants and employees is wrong. Using a test that doesn't work, to not only prevent applicants from getting jobs, but making sure they have a permanent black mark on their records that will follow them throughout their careeers. It doesn't end there. You and I--the taxpayers are paying for a so-called testing procedure designed to weed out the most truthful and honest of applicants. Those are exactly the types of people who should be trusted to guard the nation's top secrets. To top it all off, agencies that use the polygraph justify it as protecting national security--what a joke!
I will never forget the way my examiner made me feel that day and despite my shock and dismay, I knew that what he did to me was wrong. I know the same thing continues to happen to others all the time. That bothers me and that's why I will never stop trying to clear my name. I will never give up.
Happy Anniversary. I'm nearing the second anniversary of my first polygraph failure myself. Although it's been close to two years, I often think back to that fateful day and the ways in which it has changed my life for the better. Once the shock of the situation wears off, things can be seen much more clearly. In a weird way, I am thankful to my sleazy, lying, unethical, egotistical, abusive polygraph examiner for ousting me from the path that would have led me to a career with the FBI. I've gotten so much more satisfaction out of my career and made an impact on the lives of others--experiences my job with the FBI couldn't possibly have competed with. I've had so many more opportunities since my failure that I never would have had if things hadn't turned out for the better. The experience has also made me a more open-minded person and made me understand what it feels like to be falsely accused.
Now having said that, just because I am satisfied with the final outcome of not working for the agency, that doesn't take away from the fact that what the FBI is doing to applicants and employees is wrong. Using a test that doesn't work, to not only prevent applicants from getting jobs, but making sure they have a permanent black mark on their records that will follow them throughout their careeers. It doesn't end there. You and I--the taxpayers are paying for a so-called testing procedure designed to weed out the most truthful and honest of applicants. Those are exactly the types of people who should be trusted to guard the nation's top secrets. To top it all off, agencies that use the polygraph justify it as protecting national security--what a joke!
I will never forget the way my examiner made me feel that day and despite my shock and dismay, I knew that what he did to me was wrong. I know the same thing continues to happen to others all the time. That bothers me and that's why I will never stop trying to clear my name. I will never give up.