11 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

Perhaps you are referring to Sack v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 823 F. 3d 687 (D.C., 2016)?  The text of Kavanaugh's opinion appears at the following link:

 

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20160520134

 

Also, perhaps this is the language from Kavanaugh's opinion that you may have been referring to:

 

"The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes. It has also explained how the reports assessing the efficacy of those examinations and identifying needed fixes likewise serve law enforcement purposes. Put simply, the reports help ensure that law enforcement officers optimally use an important law enforcement tool. "

 

It's about eight paragraphs up from the end.

 

I hope that helped.

 

And, you are right!  That google.com is amazing!  ???? 

It did. It again shows that folks love to make bald assertions without factual backup. A careful reading of the case shows beyond any doubt that the language used DOES NOT support the assertion that Kavanaugh approves of polys for LE purposes. 

 

So another error is unmasked. Thanks for taking the time to ensure intellectual honesty.

58 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

It did. It again shows that folks love to make bald assertions without factual backup. A careful reading of the case shows beyond any doubt that the language used DOES NOT support the assertion that Kavanaugh approves of polys for LE purposes. 

 

So another error is unmasked. Thanks for taking the time to ensure intellectual honesty.

The situation we are discussing here is one where a government job is potentially being appointed. If your use of "LE purposes" was all encompasing, which you do not indicate, then you are the one who has made an error. If you believe otherwise, just state exactly what you feel the error was, because as it stands right now, you're wrong. 

11 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

The situation we are discussing here is one where a government job is potentially being appointed. If your use of "LE purposes" was all encompasing, which you do not indicate, then you are the one who has made an error. If you believe otherwise, just state exactly what you feel the error was, because as it stands right now, you're wrong. 

Ill be Socratic..have you read the case in its entirety? If so, what is the issue and how was it resolved? How does the language regarding Polygraphs relate to the issue and the holding.

 

If you dont know, or care not to answer I will do your work for you.

I'm sure it's a "scary time" for con men, campaign finance violators, suspected money launderers, unindicted co-conspirators, colluders with foreign powers, gaslighters, and congenital liars too. If Trump gets thrown in jail he'd better hope he is as skilled at dodging dicks as he was at dodging the draft and income taxes. 

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Gecko123

Troll posts removed.

 

Suspensions will be given.

14 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Ill be Socratic..have you read the case in its entirety? If so, what is the issue and how was it resolved? How does the language regarding Polygraphs relate to the issue and the holding.

 

If you dont know, or care not to answer I will do your work for you.

I have already stated my position. It is all there for you to read as many times as you would like. 

 

I will sum up what happened for you though. I made a statement about Kav position on polygraphs as they relate to some government jobs. 

 

You then proceeded to say "another error is unmasked", but failed to provide what the error was, or even who you were speaking to. 

Edited October 6, 20187 yr by utalkin2me

44 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

I have already stated my position. It is all there for you to read as many times as you would like. 

 

I will sum up what happened for you though. I made a statement about Kav position on polygraphs as they relate to some government jobs. 

 

You then proceeded to say "another error is unmasked", but failed to provide what the error was, or even who you were speaking to. 

OK: The case has nothing to do with approval or disaproval or any opinion whatsoever on the efficacy of polygraphs.

 

Therefore you are wrong. The opinion you are relying on is wrong. Read the case. 

33 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

OK: The case has nothing to do with approval or disaproval or any opinion whatsoever on the efficacy of polygraphs.

 

Therefore you are wrong. The opinion you are relying on is wrong. Read the case. 

I did not say the case had anything to do with opinions on polygraph effectiveness. You're saying I am wrong about something I never said, so I can only deduce from that I am not wrong.