Should all politicians be required to take a lie detector test?

1. 60

   marinealways24posted 15 years ago

   With all of the political hidden agenda, we never truly know what politicians have our best interest in mind. Should all politicians be required to take lie detector tests before and during office?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well I don't know- would YOU be willing to except the outcome of what YOUR congressman is doing?  Would you be willing to not vote for them again?  Would YOU except the verdict or would YOU make accusations that the lie detector was wrong? 
      
      When it is all said and done- that would be the dilemma at the end of the day.  I don't think most Americans would be willing to except those terms. Look at W.  He is proof that the purpose of a lie detector,(in the political arena) would be worthless. Look at Clinton for that matter.
      
      It would just be a big waste of money and would serve no purpose whatsoever.   
      
      
      
      (YOU is generalized)

      replyreport
      1. 60

         marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         So, you are saying to let them keep lying so no ones feelings would get hurt?

         replyreport
         1. 67

            RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            No that is not what I'm saying.  And that is not what I said at all.  I didn't mention hurting anyones feelings.  I made no mention of trying to keep them from lying. I think I might have mentioned an undertone basis of acceptance.  But feelings- no.  Are you sure you're addressing my comment and not YOUR OWN personal view? I think you must be talking about YOUR own personal views.  And I gather that you think they should take lie detector tests because you never know when they just might leave you scorned.  I see.  Interesting.  Childish.  But interesting.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

               LOL You are quite the hypocrite. You point the finger at me for making assumptions for what you said, then you do the same thing to me. Nice assumptions.
               
               You are pretty much saying exactly as I said. You don't think we should do a lie detector test because someones feelings will get hurt. You are simply saying it in less confrontational terms.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  NO that is not what I'm saying for the third time.
                  
                  I could give a rats shit about someone's feelings.  As for your personal attacks and name calling in my direction- I can see that you are not a worthy person to be debating with.  Hypocrite?  Don't think so.  And after everybody else has read the flow of this thread, I'm quite sure you'll just be left looking like an ignorant ass, who can't comprehend what they've just read.  so lololololololol back at ya.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm quite sure you'll just be left looking like an ignorant ass
                     
                     So, you aren't a hypocrite?

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Can't leave well enough alone now can you?  Move on. 
                        
                        
                        Sorry folks what was the question?

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Your previous comment truly shows your arrogance and lack of intelligence. Your ego is on full display. Those with egos are those without intelligence. When you understand this, you will learn.

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Dude, I'm tired of trying to move pass your ass.  Now get over yourself.  People don't like you enough yet to warrant your attempt to create a sideshow.  So I suggest you back off little one, cool down and talk your doggie to the park.  But you and me; well there ain't a you and me side show anymore.  And the next time, I'll flag your ass.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           Truly entertaining.

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              Flagged.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                 The truth hurts. The truth will set you free.

                                 replyreport
2. 60

   lxxyposted 15 years ago

   No.
   
   Lie detector tests can be fooled, one way or another. And besides that, if you don't believe a politician to begin with, what's going to change your mind?
   
   You're just going to add more fodder.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I think you are giving politicians too much credit. You think Pelosi could pass a lie detector test? She couldn't pass a press interview.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         lxxyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         HAHA! Nope, just like Gibby. My whole point is, however, that the methodology used by lie detectors alone is uncertain at best.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I watched something crazy on a new lie detector test. It was kinda like a cat-scan. It checked whether the person was lying or not by reading the brain patterns. I believe it was pretty reliable, however I think it's still being developed.

            replyreport
3. 63

   My Inner Jewposted 15 years ago

   Hahaha...they would all fail!

   replyreport
4. 74

   earnestshubposted 15 years ago

   You don't need a lie detector, just watch them, and if their mouth moves, you know they're lying!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lxxyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      haha!

      replyreport
5. 66

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   It does not really matter, "needed" people will pass anyway

   replyreport
   1. 60

      marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Can't argue with you on that.

      replyreport
6. 49

   Kellysmith38posted 15 years ago

   Yes! A lie detector and maybe even a potent truth serum.

   replyreport
7. 60

   lxxyposted 15 years ago

   Yes, this type of technology is well under way. You also have the "hold out your hands, Fauker," method.
   
   Actually, you're getting close to having the ability to control computers through your thoughts alone...I'll have to hub about that at some point.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      We already have the ability to control computers through our mind. I refer to this as influence.

      replyreport
8. 60

   curiozitiesposted 15 years ago

   I would watch out for the politician who actually passes a lie detector test because what that tells you is that he/she is a very good liar.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Good point.  But you know they all lie. 
      
      
      Everybody lies.  It is human nature to lie and cover up our ass before it gets us into trouble.  Everybody has lied at least once in their life.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         curiozitiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         All politicians lie.  That's a given. 
         
         But some of them are so good at it people have a hard time telling if they're lying or not.  In order for someone to be that good of a liar, they actually need to believe the lie they're telling is true.  Anyone who can do that and be in a position of power is extremely scary.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Then I imagine your whole world is scary.  For me- not so much. If I would've been Clinton, I'd lie too. That chic was ugly.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               curiozitiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Well, I will say that of our last three presidents the one who seemed the least uncomfortable lying was Clinton.  But not all the time.  There were times when you could see him squirm. 
               
               The ones who scare me are Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad, both of whom seem to lie with a straight face. 
               
               As far as Monica, I thought she was okay.  Not necessarily ugly, but I probably wouldn't have given her a second look on the street.  The thing with Clinton is he's a Southern boy and Southern boys generally like their women to have some meat on their bones, so to speak.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               LOL Well, the whole thing with that, is OK--he lied about an affair.  A freakin' affair.  Who wouldn't?  And it wasn't like she was underage, either.  That Star and the Republicans turned THAT into impeachment proceedings is hilarious to anyone with sense.  Which is why--when the Republicans are oooh so astounded why his female constituency still supported him after the fact--they just show a serious break with reality once again.  Because obviously 'abuses of power,' can be broken into levels of 'thou shalt nots,' as they have been in the entire history of human ethics.  Women (who do have brains) know that. And were always more interested in what Clinton could do as far as their interests rather than the problems in the Clintons' marriage.
               
               And Clinton himself is no treat to look at,   Billy Bob.  Bllleeh.  He gives excellent speeches though--I've seen him speak 3 times.

               replyreport
9. 74

   earnestshubposted 15 years ago

   I saw Bill Clinton on the late show just as Obama was about to be elected. He made a lot of sense.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      He always did.  Very bright man, too--just more of a corn ball, (hey, that's OK) and a traditional politician.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Lita- I don't know what corn ball means (maybe I also belong to that ESL category)..LOL
         
         PS: I checked this link(and found 7 meanings which one is appropriate/relevant) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … orn%20ball

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            It just means kind of a 'goof.'  He gets hoakie, ie., a la Primary Colors, if you have ever read the book/seen the movie.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               I am afraid I maybe very ignorant with so many popular movies/books yet to be seen/read. I guess I will have to work harder to be a part of this "American Dream"

               replyreport
10. 75

    cashmereposted 15 years ago

    most of them lie all the time, so it would be a waste of funds.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       What is the reward for being peaceful and truthful in this world? Does the world reward those who are honest, truthful and hard working? Are we ready to accept the truth and nothing but the truth no matter what. One of the rarest success stories could be  Gandhi's truth/non violent approach which worked on the mighty British Empire but Tibetan monks similar approach is met with greater disdain. So does the same method work all the time. Or maybe it is  sometimes just convenient not to mess with the powerful even if we don't agree with there methods. Or maybe it could be that to be at the top one may have to employ some relatively dishonest means. And sometimes it could be relative too where some tend to accept the means if the ends are justified.
       
       I guess my question would be simple: Are we ready to accept the truth and work towards strengthening the cause of truth?

       replyreport
11. 71

    soni2006posted 15 years ago

    Should all politicians be required to take a lie detector test?
    
    yes indeed.

    replyreport
12. 0

    Béla Mongyiposted 15 years ago

    No I think it's the other way round. Lie detectors should be tested on politicians. If they indicate they're lying then they are accurate.

    replyreport
13. 67

    RKHenryposted 15 years ago

    Back to the basics.
    
    
    My answer is without a doubt- no.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Obviously.  Point of fact:  Lie detector tests do not work a great percentage of the time, anyway.

       replyreport
14. 57

    andromidaposted 15 years ago

    Its a very good idea.But I heard even a lie detector can be deceived.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       If a new lie detector is formed that is 100%, would you agree or disagree?

       replyreport
15. 0

    Béla Mongyiposted 15 years ago

    ok. just published a hub on this
    http://hubpages.com/hub/Talk-like-Politicians-Do

    replyreport
16. 70

    ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

    Lie detector tests can be tricked.  They use a series of baseline questions to set a baseline reading.  The thought is that if you react to a question with something other than a baseline reading, you're lying.  Study after study proves that lie detector tests are misleading and wrong.  Yet they're still used because most people are ignorant of this fact and take it as given that just because it says lie detector test, it must detect lies.  Why do you think that those results are inadmissible in court.
    
    Now Functional MRI is a bit different.  Apparently different parts of the brain light up when you're telling the truth and when you're making something up.  An FMRI can pick up on this, but don't expect them to be used anytime soon.  I mean, who really wants a functional lie detector test?  Gasp.  People might actually have to be honest in what they say and do.  Society would collapse overnight.

    replyreport
17. 60

    marinealways24posted 15 years ago

    Hello ledefensetech,
    
    Now Functional MRI is a bit different.  Apparently different parts of the brain light up when you're telling the truth and when you're making something up.  An FMRI can pick up on this, but don't expect them to be used anytime soon.  I mean, who really wants a functional lie detector test?  Gasp.  People might actually have to be honest in what they say and do.  Society would collapse overnight.
    
    The FMRI is what I was referring to in an earlier post. Do you think politicians should constantly keep getting away with lies to push their personal agenda?
    
    Thank You for responding. Very Informational.

    replyreport
18. 59

    Laughing Momposted 15 years ago

    Wait a minute, marine.  I thought one of the pre-qualifiers for being a politician was that everytime they speak, they DO lie!  Here all along, I thought they were successful at their job descriptions.  This sheds a whole new light on things.....

    replyreport
    1. 60

       marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Lol , Thanks for that.

       replyreport
19. 0

    Lady_Eposted 15 years ago

    If they did, they'd pass it anyway. 
    
    Remember the first time this statement was made.  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"!
    He said it with a straight face and if there was a lie detector machine around at that moment, he'd have passed it.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       How about a lie detector that is 100% ?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Laughing Momposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Is there such a thing?

          replyreport
          1. 60

             marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

             The Functional MRI that ledefensetech mentioned is a new type of lie detector. I am not sure of it's percentages, however I believe it looked pretty reliable on the study I watched.

             replyreport
20. 70

    ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

    Then nobody would want the job and they'd have to find new ways to screw people out of their money.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       curiozitiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, they'd all become used-car salespeople.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Or crack dealers or Bernard Madoffs.

          replyreport
21. 70

    ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

    It's an MRI minus the big magnet thing they put you in.  It's kind of like a skullcap that does an MRI of your brain.  When they did tests on it, they found that a portion of the brain lights up when people access true memories while if you make up a story another part of the brain lights up.  The confidence when such a thing happens is pretty high although I don't have the numbers.  Popular Science did an article on it several years ago, so it's been around for a while.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Laughing Momposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       In some of my work with abused children, I've learned that people can actually "create" a memory.  It involves creating a scenario and intensely focusing on it until you actually believe it was a real occurance. 
       I'd be interested to know how that would work on the MRI skull cap thing.  Any ideas?

       replyreport
       1. 73

          someonewhoknowsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          It seems to me that it wouldn't make any difference,the scan should be the same,but it would be interesting to see scans of someone you describe getting scanned before and after being "conditioned" to believe something happened when it never did.That in itself would be cause for concern about the absolute infallibility of the technology to prove someone is lying or just believes what they "think" is the truth

          replyreport
       2. 70

          ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I'm pretty sure it would.  I think they used it to verify a "recovered" memory and found that they person was lying when they told about abuse in the past.  It's been a while and I might be misremembering.  It would be a boon to people who work with those kids.  At the facility I used to work at there was no shortage of kids who would make allegations against staff who made them mad.

          replyreport
          1. 67

             RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             I'd like to read some data on that.  Know where I can look?

             replyreport
22. 70

    ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

    There might be something in the archives or Popular Science.  I think it was an issue in 2005 or 2006.  I remember thinking that it was a great advancement, but it would be a cold day in hell before anyone in authority let it be used on them.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         I agree.  But I find that it is an interesting discovery.  Maybe you could write a hub about it.  I bet it would get a lot of traffic.

       replyreport
23. 70

    ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

    Interesting thought, it might be useful in finding more about the he said she said situations that make law enforcement such a joy to work.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I would also read the hub if you created one on the MRI machine. I am very curious of it's percentages.

       replyreport
24. 69

    Research Analystposted 15 years ago

    yes!

    replyreport
25. 70

    ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

    Actually I think used car dealers would be out of business too.  Would you go see one if you didn't have a handy dandy FMRI?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Hell, we can run them through the "scanners" too. Lol Lying is one of our society's biggest downfalls in my belief. No one can be trusted anymore. Seems as if most people only care of themselves in my experiences.

       replyreport
    2. 74

       earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Some late model cars have very good lie detectors built in. The on board computer keeps a record of most service details, and can be talked in to spilling it's guts about all sorts of history, even down to panel repair and replacement!

       replyreport
26. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    Why single out politicians for lie detector test? Are there no other liars in other places? Generally liars wreck havoc in opponents' circle. So, any one lying, should be sent for lie detection.

    replyreport
27. 70

    ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

    All joking aside I'm not sure it would work.  Despite what some people believe, honesty is a moral issue.  Only by instilling morals in people and agreeing on what morality is can we learn to live with one another in peace and not give each other excuses to cut each others throats.
    
    If we did allow FMRI to be used whenever we want to test for truth, we'll that might have the effect of increasing lying.  For all we know there might be a way to spoof the thing.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I know there is nothing guaranteed yet. I am speaking in theory, If we had something that was 100%.

       replyreport
28. 70

    ledefensetechposted 15 years ago

    I'm more concerned with what is known as moral hazard.  If we have this machine that detects lies, how will people react to it and will they teach basic manners to their children?  It's like bailing out a company for instance.  If you know for a fact that no matter how badly you run your business that you'll get bailed out, what incentive will you have to run a business successfully?  If you know without a doubt that you have a machine that can tell if someone is lying, how do you build trust and keep your word.  Trust after all is the necessary ingredient for people to get along in society.

    replyreport
29. 64

    johnb0127posted 15 years ago

    No, because after the first one, it would break

    replyreport
30. 60

    scheinandrasposted 15 years ago

    I would test all of them continuosly. They would be on the maschine 24/7

    replyreport
31. 67

    RKHenryposted 15 years ago

    There is also the possibility that there wouldn't be anyone left to run the country, if lie detectors were set in motion.  Who hasn't told a lie?  Let us a least be real about that.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       That's something I can agree with

       replyreport