Roy Moore Slams America, Says ‘Maybe Putin Is Right’

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

I've been in my rocking chair on the porch of my house in the middle of the road this whole time. Would you like some iced tea while you join me? 

 

if the middle of the road runs through the porch on your house, i have to wonder what is in that iced tea....

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

if the middle of the road runs through the porch on your house, i have to wonder what is in that iced tea....

Shh...let NB drink it first...

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

Shh...let NB drink it first...

 

He wont fall for that..

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

9 hours ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Can we just get a big bus and ship all these Putin -lovers and America -downers to Russia ?
Maybe they could do Putin some good in his 'reigning' his country, they are so loyal to him already.
 

Putin get things done! Steven Segal and Gerard dePardieu. MARA!

[TBoneTX 45,319]

8 hours ago, bcking said:

Shh...let NB drink it first...

Mid-job, the electrician paused, puzzled.

"Jim, grab that black wire," he told his assistant, who complied.

"Feel anything?" asked the electrician.

"No," said Jim.

"Good!" said the electrician.  "I was wondering which was which.  Now, for heaven's sake, don't touch that white wire -- it'll kill you!"

[Dashinka 24,514]

6 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Mid-job, the electrician paused, puzzled.

"Jim, grab that black wire," he told his assistant, who complied.

"Feel anything?" asked the electrician.

"No," said Jim.

"Good!" said the electrician.  "I was wondering which was which.  Now, for heaven's sake, don't touch that white wire -- it'll kill you!"

Reminds me what we used to call police officers when I was on the fire department and we would get a Hazmat call...Blue Parakeets.

[TBoneTX 45,319]

I still want to know whether, when toucans get divorced, they're known thereafter as onecans.

[jayjayj 571]

On 12/8/2017 at 11:08 PM, bcking said:

I think everyone still supporting Roy Moore is doing so because they are putting some other political opinion ahead of their views on his sexual abuse/assault allegations. Trump, Republicans in Congress, many Alabamans. Many haven't even tried to hide it. Their defense of him is just that his opponent would be bad for certain political agendas, therefore Roy Moore is good.

 

Well I guess there are probably some in Alabama who really don't think he did anything wrong, even if they believe that he did what has been claimed.

It could be because there isn't any actual evidence that he did anything wrong.  In addition the glaring lack of evidence, one of the accusers has now admitted to being a liar and a forger.  Give all the accusers and Roy Moore lie detector tests on live TV and then we'll know for sure who is lying and who is telling the truth.

[jayjayj 571]

On 12/9/2017 at 12:53 AM, Ebunoluwa said:

Can we just get a big bus and ship all these Putin -lovers and America -downers to Russia ?
Maybe they could do Putin some good in his 'reigning' his country, they are so loyal to him already.
 

This type of delusional stuff cracks me up.  

 

Anyone wondering why Roy Moore's supporters don't believe the allegations, read above.  

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

It could be because there isn't any actual evidence that he did anything wrong.  In addition the glaring lack of evidence, one of the accusers has now admitted to being a liar and a forger.  Give all the accusers and Roy Moore lie detector tests on live TV and then we'll know for sure who is lying and who is telling the truth.

There is very little evidence that lie detector tests work...

 

So actually we still wouldn't know for sure.

 

How do you reconcile McConnell's stance? He said he believed the women at one point, but then changed his mind. I believe his mind changed before the woman admitted to adding the date and location to the yearbook (keep in my she claims the signature is still genuine).

Edited December 10, 2017 by bcking

[jayjayj 571]

Just now, bcking said:

There is very little evidence that lie detector tests work...

 

So actually we still wouldn't know for sure.

There is plenty of evidence that they work.  Why do you think the U.S. government has polygraph screening for certain security clearances and many jobs?  They aren't 100% accurate for every single questions asked, but when examining multiple answers over the period of the interview, one can easily and accurately determine if the person is being truthful in general.  This situation would be perfect for polygraphs.  Highly talented people can be trained over a long period of time to beat polygraphs, but I doubt any of these people are of that caliber.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

There is plenty of evidence that they work.  Why do you think the U.S. government has polygraph screening for certain security clearances and many jobs?  They aren't 100% accurate for every single questions asked, but when examining multiple answers over the period of the interview, one can easily and accurately determine if the person is being truthful in general.  This situation would be perfect for polygraphs.  Highly talented people can be trained over a long period of time to beat polygraphs, but I doubt any of these people are of that caliber.

Please find that evidence. It suffers from low specificity and sensitivity, as well as problems with intra-rater reliability. "Truthful in general" would now prove that these women are lying. That is incredibly non-specific.

 

The argument "why do you think people use it" is meaningless. We use many many tools in medicine that have no evidence to back them up. Criminology suffers from the same problem. Things gain attention because of "expert opinion" and then become standard without actual rigorous proof.

 

O2 sat monitors (the little finger Band-Aids/clips that you wear in the hospital which tells you your heart rate and oxygen saturation) had no studies showing any improvement in outcomes for patients. They are now standard of care and used worldwide.

Edited December 10, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

I did a quick search on my phone.

 

The most recent meta-analyses I could find was in around 2013 and published by...you guessed it...The American Polygraph Association. That's the first red flag.

 

Fortunately they do have a methodology for their systematic review.

 

As far as I can tell they did not do a two person independent review or determination of inclusion. They don't report where they searched for studies, or their search strategy (so it can't be replicated). They claim to exclude papers if their results hadn't been replicated at least once (the whole point of a metaanalysis is to be inclusive and to combine the results yourself).

 

I have a busy day today (rounding today, then helping my wife compete in a Gingerbread House competition). I'd be happy to fully review the metaanalysis with you if you'd like, but it would likely be later or tomorrow. I've written these before, so I am comfortable with the expectations and methodology.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

51 minutes ago, bcking said:

There is very little evidence that lie detector tests work...

 

So actually we still wouldn't know for sure.

 

How do you reconcile McConnell's stance? He said he believed the women at one point, but then changed his mind. I believe his mind changed before the woman admitted to adding the date and location to the yearbook (keep in my she claims the signature is still genuine).

She only made up part of it. Lol. Cross her off the list 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

15 minutes ago, bcking said:

I did a quick search on my phone.

 

The most recent meta-analyses I could find was in around 2013 and published by...you guessed it...The American Polygraph Association. That's the first red flag.

 

Fortunately they do have a methodology for their systematic review.

 

As far as I can tell they did not do a two person independent review or determination of inclusion. They don't report where they searched for studies, or their search strategy (so it can't be replicated). They claim to exclude papers if their results hadn't been replicated at least once (the whole point of a metaanalysis is to be inclusive and to combine the results yourself).

 

I have a busy day today (rounding today, then helping my wife compete in a Gingerbread House competition). I'd be happy to fully review the metaanalysis with you if you'd like, but it would likely be later or tomorrow. I've written these before, so I am comfortable with the expectations and methodology.

 

 

😐😲😲😲