Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm watching Christie throwing all his pals under the bus while claiming he knew nothing. When the police suspect someone, they usually suggest a lie detector test. Why not do it with politicians? I'm sure it would cut down on a lot of nonsense.
No it wouldn't. We know many times when a politician has lied. There is no need for a test but yet their supporters will make up excuses and still vote for them.
I often wonder why journalists don't ask harsher, in your face questions. I'd imagine if someone asked "Mr. Christie, would you submit to a lie detector test to prove you had no prior knowledge of the alleged incident?" They probably wouldn't work again, but it would be nice to see.
Given that the results of any such tests are very likely to indicate massive obfuscation of the highest order; what then?
You've got to put some punitive measure at the end of that process, otherwise every pol would just answer and thumb their nose at you.
Removal of said liar from his office would result in a mass exodus of pols leaving empty buildings behind them. You'd then have to institute a draft to find enough replacements that would ultimately pass your tests. Haaar!
I'm watching Christie throwing all his pals under the bus while claiming he knew nothing. When the police suspect someone, they usually suggest a lie detector test. Why not do it with politicians? I'm sure it would cut down on a lot of nonsense.
The machine couldn't handle the lies and melt down.
A little over the top. I'm not ready for a middle ages redux.
Really, your not? requiring someone to take a test to prove guilt or innocence seems very much like tying someone to a stone and tossing them into the river.
Not even to mention goes agasint the concepts of the USConstitution...
Really, your not? requiring someone to take a test to prove guilt or innocence seems very much like tying someone to a stone and tossing them into the river.
Not even to mention goes agasint the concepts of the USConstitution...
Medieval sure does come to mind.
Killing someone for lying bears no semblence to lie detector tests or supposed constitutional infringements. If you think they do, you need a little reflection...
Killing someone for lying bears no semblence to lie detector tests or supposed constitutional infringements. If you think they do, you need a little reflection...
People who were telling the truth also drowned in those trials.
People who were telling the truth also drowned in those trials.
You can refuse a lie detector. I don't think that was an option at an inquisition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
