This would have been a good story to run on Fark, but the problem is the accusations were never greenlit here in the first(as far as I know). Either way, it looks like a completely non-story.

Y'know what test I used to determine the guy's a liar?

*sniff* *sniff*

Yep. His story smelled like bullshiat the whole time to me.

/more accurate than a lie detector test

All I know is that if Obama really wanted to ditz around a limo with a nose full of blow and a mouth full of nut, it would not happen with that busted old queen.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Y'know what test I used to determine the guy's a liar?

*sniff* *sniff*

Yep. His story smelled like bullshiat the whole time to me.

/more accurate than a lie detector test

The test I used to determine the guy's a liar... He was on Alex Jones & Jeff Rense radio programs several times.

I don't believe any of the bullshiat accusations, but the lie detector test doesn't add anything to it. Polygraphs are utter bullshiat.

You don't say...

...as a million freepers cry out in disappointment.

No shiat, Sherlock.

Too bad the Farker who was spamming this story in every thread is no longer around to see it crumble.

That's because Obama stole his mojo during the cocaine-fueled sex romps.

incendi: I don't believe any of the bullshiat accusations, but the lie detector test doesn't add anything to it. Polygraphs are utter bullshiat.

I wouldn't say utter bullshiat, but there is a damn good reason they're generally inadmissible in court.

I always knew that O'Reilly was a big fat liar

Well, there is still that very damning allegation that Obama may have fathered a black child.

Etchy333: Well, there is still that very damning allegation that Obama may have fathered a black child.

Two! What an alley cat!

Of course Obama isn't a closet homosexual -He's not Republican.

The rumor floating around is that Sinclair was in mental lockup at the time this was supposed to have occurred (he has been in psychiatric inpatient several times, by his own admission). The staff couldn't formally say this (HIPPA privacy), but if it actually went to court, discovery would take about 20 seconds.

Lawnchair: The rumor floating around is that Sinclair was in mental lockup at the time this was supposed to have occurred

Well that's where I'd go to get some on the side. I mean, who would believe him right? Plus you know the old saying about crazy in the head, crazy in bed...

muck4doo: This would have been a good story to run on Fark, but the problem is the accusations were never greenlit here in the first(as far as I know). Either way, it looks like a completely non-story.

I think it was greenlit in the politics tab sometime last week, but don't quote me on that.

/but I know I heard about it on Fark

So Obama hates teh gays and people with addictions?

All I know is that if Obama really wanted to ditz around a limo with a nose full of blow and a mouth full of nut, it would not happen with that busted old queen.

this

Too bad; being a closet buttfarker would have probably garnered him some wide support from the Republicans.

Dumbass tag, anyone?

Didn't whitehouse.com use to be a porn site? I wonder how many elementary school students got fooled by that one.

It just got a ton of posts on TF politics (I remember some freeper calling me an "Obama fellator" for posting that lie detector tests are bullshiat).

I *think* this is the thread but as I no longer have TF I can't access it: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3407829

JPJ007: incendi: I don't believe any of the bullshiat accusations, but the lie detector test doesn't add anything to it. Polygraphs are utter bullshiat.

I wouldn't say utter bullshiat, but there is a damn good reason they're generally inadmissible in court.

Actually the reason they are generally inadmissible is because they take jury's work away from them. Basically instead of the jury deciding a case, you have a polygraph. This is against the whole principle of trial by jury. It has little to do with the polygraph's accuracy, i.e. even the results were 97% accurate, they would still be inadmissible because they would eviscerate trial by jury.

czerno: Didn't whitehouse.com use to be a porn site? I wonder how many elementary school students got fooled by that one.

I remember the day I discovered that in my high school library. Needless to say, the librarians were quite shocked. Luckily, one of them was my friends mom, so she knew I didn't do it on purpose. It was blocked shortly thereafter.

Wow, but the wingnuts are getting desperate.

TheCid: It just got a ton of posts on TF politics (I remember some freeper calling me an "Obama fellator" for posting that lie detector tests are bullshiat).

I *think* this is the thread but as I no longer have TF I can't access it: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3407829

Are you seriously posting a link to something that might be something you wrote in a fark thread some time ago?

I mean words matter and all, but I can't imagine someone caring.

Failing a lie detector proves nothing. Serious allegations like these need to be thoroughly vetted before we just pass them off. That is why we have a freedom of the press.

Aarontology: Luckily, one of them was my friends mom, so she knew I didn't do it on purpose. It was blocked shortly thereafter.

You probably got your ass kicked for months after that.

dgc360: ...as a million freepers cry out in disappointment.

How about the dumbass who payed him $100K to take that test?

How do you think that bozo feels?

RandomExcess:
Serious allegations like these need to be thoroughly vetted before we just pass them off.

That word, &tc.

While this guy was clearly full of shiat from the start, it's worth pointing out that lie detectors are not an especially reliable measure of the truth.

That said, we could have dismissed this guy from the start, using farking common sense. Which is more accurate than a polygraph. Go figure.

Obamawned

Don't mess with Obama.

RandomExcess: Failing a lie detector proves nothing. Serious allegations like these need to be thoroughly vetted before we just pass them off. That is why we have a freedom of the press.

What makes it a serious allegation? I could say whatever the hell I wanted to say, but does saying it make it a serious allegation? No, it makes it an allegation, and a piss poor one at that. If he had other evidence corroborating his story, like the limo driver he won't give up, then yes, it would be worth looking into. Right now it's nothing but attention whoring.

RandomExcess: Failing a lie detector proves nothing. Serious allegations like these need to be thoroughly vetted before we just pass them off. That is why we have a freedom of the press.

You're right! We should get around to that just as soon as we determine the veracity of every claim the Bush administration has ever made! WHO'S WITH ME???

SaladMonkey: JPJ007: incendi: I don't believe any of the bullshiat accusations, but the lie detector test doesn't add anything to it. Polygraphs are utter bullshiat.

I wouldn't say utter bullshiat, but there is a damn good reason they're generally inadmissible in court.

Actually the reason they are generally inadmissible is because they take jury's work away from them. Basically instead of the jury deciding a case, you have a polygraph. This is against the whole principle of trial by jury. It has little to do with the polygraph's accuracy, i.e. even the results were 97% accurate, they would still be inadmissible because they would eviscerate trial by jury.

You're right, but the reason they aren't admissible is because they're inaccurate -- they were admissible until they were shown to be inaccurate. It has nothing to do with the jury. First year law school, mate.

The funniest part of this story is that people took some retarded schmuck's youtube story so seriously that they actually got him to take a polygraph test. Maybe I should make a youtube accusing a candidate of something with no evidence, and I'll get my 15 minutes of fame.

What a ton of fail.

grxymkjbn: RandomExcess: Failing a lie detector proves nothing. Serious allegations like these need to be thoroughly vetted before we just pass them off. That is why we have a freedom of the press.

You're right! We should get around to that just as soon as we determine the veracity of every claim the Bush administration has ever made! WHO'S WITH ME???

If Bush had to take a lie detector test it would kill the farking machine.

/Why do you want to kill all the machines... what have they done to you?

I'm sticking with the Freepers on this one.

"Just because a burned out doper homosexual fails a lie detector test, that doesn't mean he told a lie."

Fake but accurate, keep the faith alive!

A sad attempt at a character assassination to say the least.

Cathaleon: SaladMonkey: JPJ007: incendi: I don't believe any of the bullshiat accusations, but the lie detector test doesn't add anything to it. Polygraphs are utter bullshiat.

I wouldn't say utter bullshiat, but there is a damn good reason they're generally inadmissible in court.

Actually the reason they are generally inadmissible is because they take jury's work away from them. Basically instead of the jury deciding a case, you have a polygraph. This is against the whole principle of trial by jury. It has little to do with the polygraph's accuracy, i.e. even the results were 97% accurate, they would still be inadmissible because they would eviscerate trial by jury.

You're right, but the reason they aren't admissible is because they're inaccurate -- they were admissible until they were shown to be inaccurate. It has nothing to do with the jury. First year law school, mate.

I'd say it was debatable whether the reason is inaccuracy or constitution - see Link (warning, tons of legal crap). I doubt that even the new versions of lie detection (i.e. brain scans) will ever be admissible.

HAhahahahaha Lie detectors are a big joke. Outside the U.S. they are regarded as laughable. Polygraphs are not science.

I'm going with the theory that if Obama was doing some hot yayo butt-secks, it would not have been with that guy.

Random Excess
I had buttsecks with John McCain while he shot heroin into babies. There, I made a "serious allegation." Where's the press?

/I hope you were kidding

Before going to the lie detector test, was anyone able to verify the various claims in Sinclair's accusations just by checking out his employment history (e.g., did he have a limo company or work for one at the time), family history (e.g., did he have a son graduating from an academy at the time of the alleged encounter), and other pertinent details?

Do Ron Paul supporters (p) have something to do with this?

How can anyone fail a lie detector test when the details of the function and procedures of the tests are available to anyone who cares to look for them? You would have to be fairly dumb or completely out of control of your bodily functions to fail those tests. I'm guessing this guy was just dumb.

Good thing I'm not running for president.

LAWL!

bartink: TheCid: It just got a ton of posts on TF politics (I remember some freeper calling me an "Obama fellator" for posting that lie detector tests are bullshiat).

I *think* this is the thread but as I no longer have TF I can't access it: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3407829

Are you seriously posting a link to something that might be something you wrote in a fark thread some time ago?

I mean words matter and all, but I can't imagine someone caring.

I meant to reply to Murkanen's post but apparently missed the quote button.