How can one person be judged or handled differently, when both of them were being physical with one another? What kind of example does it set when a man gets no punishment after hitting a woman? This shows young children that women are no more significant now than they were many decades ago and propels our nation backwards after the many rights that women have gained and fought for over the years. Scott Bundgaard's position as a senator should not protect him from going to jail; it should instead set a higher standard on people like him. They are who we elect to represent us in political matters, and if they conduct themselves in this manner they should not be given this position of power. Furthermore, in the constitution it states that no man or woman regardless of social or political status is above the law. However, Bundgaard is treated as such. His status should have nothing to do with how his crime is handled and he should have to go through the same process as anyone else would in this situation.
Mark Mingura, Gilbert
Dale Whiting posted at 4:03 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.
Yes, you can. But you ought not to. Rather one must allow the examiner to study the issues and make up his own relevant questions. The person being examined ought not to kwow in advance any of the questions related to the issues.
While polygraphs are not admissible as evidence in court, PD's use them routinely to help eliminate suspects. And voice stress tests are probative, too.
Once I had an employee of mine get polygraphed on a theft issue. He returned the next day to tell his manager he had passed his test with flying colors and would be back to work in a few days [the poligrapher "exagerated" a bit]. I then told the manager the colors flying were all red. Hidden across the street while he was passing materials to an accomplise, I saw exactly what he had done.
Cerulean posted at 8:40 am on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.
Dale,
The polygraph test is interesting. I wonder if you get to choose the questions if you pay for the test?
Dale Whiting posted at 8:08 am on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.
Leon,
And your point is? It sounds to me like you have one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans. Where we saw Clinton's popularity falter but then recover somewhat, let's let time rule on Bundgaard, too. But let's not be taken in by the rhetoric of either and let's see that the spotlight shines on Bundgaard. His faked poligraph exam is as shameful as was Clinton's statement of not having had sex. We all know what "is" means.
Bundgaard should appreciate that finally I have learned to spell his name!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 10:13 pm on Sat, Mar 12, 2011.
CLINTON was DISBARRED by the Arkansas Supreme Court for 5 years for giving false testimony under oath (PERJURY). He was also DISBARRED PERMANENTLY from the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
As for the other remark...I will let....CLINTON'S DNA EVIDENCE that was found to be on Lewinsky blue dress and corroborated by the FBI FORENSIC LAB.....to be my response.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:18 pm on Sat, Mar 12, 2011.
And didn't you become even more suspecious of Bungaard when he manufactured his very on "objective" poligraph examination? Anyone who manufactures his own poligraph examine and passes it is only acting smart, not being smart. Anyone who believes the results of such an exam is stupid. Had Bungaard failed it, no one would have heard about it. The reputable poligrapher who would allow himself to be used like this ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Cerulean posted at 3:17 pm on Sat, Mar 12, 2011.
Mark, you make a very valid point.
Leon,
When you talk about Bill and Monica, I can almost hear your brain ooze with the thought of the scandal.
The difference between being aroused by a man on a desk in the White House and being laid out in the dirt just off the freeway with scrapes on your knees and bruises all over your chest is - there is no analogy there.
Bundgaard is a sleaze and it is embarrassing that he is our Senate leader.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:36 pm on Sat, Mar 12, 2011.
Before jumping to conclusions as to who did what let's wait until Law Enforcement has dotted all the "I's" and crossed all the "T's".
Look at how long it took for all the pieces of the CLINTON-LEWINSKY SCANDAL...to come out. At the time the Democrats were that the Republicans were trying to LYNCH THE PRESIDENT. Day by Day the American Public was torn this way and that way. It wasn't until a couple of years after that we have learned the TRUTH.
Clinton did meet with Lewinsky ..9 TIMES...from 1995-1998.
Clinton did have "improper relations" with Lewinsky on 5 TIMES IN THE OVAL OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
The FIRST LADY, HILLARY CLINTON, WIFE OF THE PRESIDENT...was.. IN.. the WHITE HOUSE DURING 5 OF THESE ...."MEETINGS".
President Clinton was asked UNDER OATH if he had IMPROPER RELATIONS with LEWINSKY.
President Clinton did commit...PERJURY...when he denied that he had had...IMPROPER RELATIONS...with LEWINSKY.
Linda Tripp, a friend of LEWINSKY, had secretly taped..PRESIDENT CLINTON and MS. LEWINSKY FOR YEARS.
So before we know all the FACTS of the BUNGAARD ALTERCATION (it's only been a week). Let's let the PARTISAN CALLS FOR HIM TO STEP DOWN...die down a bit.
Isn't it the DEMOCRATS who are on all the TV CHANNELS...and LOCAL NEWSPAPERS calling for ....CIVIL DISCOURSE ? ? ? ? ?