It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Polygraphs for the next debate.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Hi.

I have to admit I didn’t watch the first debate. I planned to watch it but I work in the maintenance department for a hospital and I got called in to work.

This morning I saw clips on the news and well I have an idea.

Both of the candidates blatantly lie their ass off so I think they should hook both of them up to polygraph machines for the next debate. I want to see these rich bastards sweat a little.

Why not? If they believe what they say like they expect us to believe what they say then I don’t know why it would be a problem.

So what do you guys think?
Probably won't ever happen but it sure would be fun to watch.

edit on 4-10-2012 by cavalryscout because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
That would definitely be interesting! However there is a reason they are not accepted as evidence in a court



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by cavalryscout
 


Actually, there was a lie detector present at the debate. A security firm was hired to use a voice analysis machine. It proved to be inconclusive.
Link



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Heros_son
 


Cool.

I guess we have to step it up a bit.

Next debate we'll just move on to waterboarding these guys.


The people have the right to know the truth.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Here is the big problem with your statement that both candidates "lie their ass off".

We don't know Romneys promises are lies - yet.

With Obama we have 4 years of evidence.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by cavalryscout
 


I think all elected official should take a polygraph before assuming office. Now having one at these debates might be interesting but what I would do in the next debate is have an automatic mike shut off after they reach the 2 minute limit. That would enable the commentator to ask many more pertinent questions.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
During the 2008 campaign many right wing pundits said Obama was not experienced enough and we didn't know enough about him. They were shouted down by the MSM as "racist".

It really is a disservice to the left that the first African Amercian president has proven to be just as those pundits warned - inexperienced.

There were a lot of dissenfranchised Republicans like me and independents that bought into his message and voted for Obama in 2008. Sadly Clint Eastwoods "empty chair" spoof is turning out to be scarily accurate.

Obama's performance last night seems to be an exclaimation point to his presidency - that without a flowery speech and a teleprompter his leadership ability is indeed lacking.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Until lie detectors are 100% foolproof, this would be a huge mistake.

second



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by beanandginger
Here is the big problem with your statement that both candidates "lie their ass off".

We don't know Romneys promises are lies - yet.

With Obama we have 4 years of evidence.



Evidence of Republican obstructionism you mean right?

And in spite of it, a great many awesome accomplishments including equal pay for women, Wall Street reform, healthcare and bin Laden dead.

Regarding Romney...they can't be lies until he assumes office so right now they are just big flip flops on issues he has discussed before. He seems confused about where he once stood and seems to have done an about-face on many of them. He is just saying what he imagines people want to hear. I think it is possible he forgot everything he already said previously and is now offering himself up as a moderate.
Romney says he wants to overturn Obamacare as soon as he gets into office but if you listened to that debate last night Romney could not find anything in Obama care that he would not do himself at the State level. He effing loves Obamacare because it is essentially what he proposed for Massachusetts.
edit on 4-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


This is becoming like a tired recording but Obama had a super majority for the first two years in office. The Republicans COULD NOT STOP ANYTHING the president wanted to do. They couldn't obstruct, they could block, they could not prevent any legislation from passing.

There are no excuses. Even Democrats have apposed a lot of his stuff.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Sure that would be great! And they should to electrodes and every time they lied ...zap them with a few hundred volts



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by beanandginger
reply to post by newcovenant
 


This is becoming like a tired recording but Obama had a super majority for the first two years in office. The Republicans COULD NOT STOP ANYTHING the president wanted to do. They couldn't obstruct, they could block, they could not prevent any legislation from passing.

There are no excuses. Even Democrats have apposed a lot of his stuff.




And the first 2 years in office the idiot was trying to play fair.

Shooting for bi-partisanship.


Their goal was to see this President is a one term President.
Nobody missed that memo.

He was naive and why I preferred Hillary as a candidate and wrote to Super Delegates on her behalf.
She would have been a lot more ruthless.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I take no stock in the polygraph machine.

You can easy alter it by using your sphincter muscle.




top topics



 
1

log in

join