The 47% Video

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

If Romney was wrong about the 47 percenters regarding themselves as victims, then what was 0bama talking about when he said to his supporters, "Vote! Voting is the best revenge!"

Revenge for what, exactly?

Let me skip ahead --

"it was just a figure of speech"

Okay, a figure of speech in place of what, exactly?

[HudsonGator]

Google is your friend:

...as provided in the Act, one party to the communication may consent to the interception, and in limited circumstances may lawfully authorize a third party interception. The consent exception permits interception of “a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."

http://www.jhtl.org/docs/pdf/srahavyv2n1n.pdf

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Google is your friend:



http://www.jhtl.org/docs/pdf/srahavyv2n1n.pdf

This doesn't really apply to the 47% recording, fyi.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

This doesn't really apply to the 47% recording, fyi.

Read the article.

My take away from it is that I was correct, so long as one of the people recording the conversation is part of the conversation, there is no violation of Federal law.

I suppose one would have to determine if the bartender who recorded the conversation qualifies as being a "participant" if he was merely present in the room listening to the speech.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I don't think that's correct.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2510

[108]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

If Romney was wrong about the 47 percenters regarding themselves as victims, then what was 0bama talking about when he said to his supporters, "Vote! Voting is the best revenge!"

Revenge for what, exactly?

the reason this video took up so much air time is because it IS exactly what conservatives believe.......that 47% of the nation are moochers, and they are the ones who pay for them

romney was just saying what you guys all think, which isn't backed up by facts

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I suppose one would have to determine if the bartender who recorded the conversation qualifies as being a "participant" if he was merely present in the room listening to the speech.

Also in the case of the 47% video, this is irrelevant as Florida requires two-party consent.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I don't think that's correct.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2510

I have found that it is good practice to read what you find before you post it.

From your link:

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State. 18 USC § 2511 (2)(d)

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Also in the case of the 47% video, this is irrelevant as Florida requires two-party consent.

I clearly said that this is not my area, and that I was only giving my understanding of Federal law.

If you would like to post the pertinent Florida statute, I would honestly like to read it.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I clearly said that this is not my area, and that I was only giving my understanding of Federal law.

If you would like to post the pertinent Florida statute, I would honestly like to read it.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0934.03.html

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by 108

the reason this video took up so much air time is because it IS exactly what conservatives believe.......that 47% of the nation are moochers, and they are the ones who pay for them

romney was just saying what you guys all think, which isn't backed up by facts

My post you're responding to was a question. You responded without answering it.

Romney said there are 47% of the people who will vote for 0bama no matter what, and "who believe they are victims." You're damn right that Conservatives agree with that comment. And my question is, if we are wrong about that then what was 0bama talking about when he told his 47 percenters to vote because, "voting is the best revenge"? I'll ask again - revenge for what, exactly?

[g8orbill]

I see nothing wrong with what Romney said- it was the truth- the LMSM loves prez b.o. And wanted to make it out like it was something bad to help prez b.o.

it got a ton of play and it worked on prez b.o.'s favor

[g8orbill]

As dar as it being legal- didn't matter- the LMSM was going to run with it- If Romney objected to the legality of the video the LmSM would have crucifies him for that

Mo doubt in my mind the guy who recorded it was hoping to get what he got

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

I see nothing wrong with what Romney said- it was the truth- the LMSM loves prez b.o. And wanted to make it out like it was something bad to help prez b.o.

it got a ton of play and it worked on prez b.o.'s favor

Here's what you are ignoring, a disciplined politician never publicly writes off 47% of the electorate.

You can believe 47% of Americans are not worthy of your time, but a disciplined politician would never say that in any public setting.

Blame the media if you like, but Romney has no one to blame but his own undisciplined self.

With the economy still being far from what it needs to be, the 2012 election was there for the taking, and he blew it. No need to sugarcoat it.

[g8orbill]

Again- I think what Romney said was the truth- also feel he should have manned up and followed up restating it in front of the LMSM

I think he might have energized his base to vote had he done so

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Here's what you are ignoring, a disciplined politician never publicly writes off 47% of the electorate.

You can believe 47% of Americans are not worthy of your time, but a disciplined politician would never say that in any public setting.

Blame the media if you like, but Romney has no one to blame but his own undisciplined self.

With the economy still being far from what it needs to be, the 2012 election was there for the taking, and he blew it. No need to sugarcoat it.

Isn't the point of the video that he didn't "publicly" do anything of the kind? Politicians should adopt the microphone rule and turn it 11 -- assume anything they say, even in the privacy of their own home frankly, is on the record.

Well, conservatives/republicans/libertarians should. Liberal politicians and highly place operatives can do it in public, on tape, and the messenger will just be attacked and the story ignored.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Here's what you are ignoring, a disciplined politician never publicly writes off 47% of the electorate.

You can believe 47% of Americans are not worthy of your time, but a disciplined politician would never say that in any public setting.

Blame the media if you like, but Romney has no one to blame but his own undisciplined self.

With the economy still being far from what it needs to be, the 2012 election was there for the taking, and he blew it. No need to sugarcoat it.

This really wasnt a "political" event, like a speech - it was a fundraiser. Its hard to say he was "off message" because he was basically telling rich people "off the record" what they wanted to hear so they would open up their wallets. I don't know if he believed what he said or not, but it did present a possible dichotomy between his public statements and private sentiments.

[g8orbill]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Isn't the point of the video that he didn't "publicly" do anything of the kind? Politicians should adopt the microphone rule and turn it 11 -- assume anything they say, even in the privacy of their own home frankly, is on the record.

Well, conservatives/republicans/libertarians should. Liberal politicians and highly place operatives can do it in public, on tape, and the messenger will just be attacked and the story ignored.

Very true

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

This really wasnt a "political" event, like a speech - it was a fundraiser. Its hard to say he was "off message" because he was basically telling rich people "off the record" what they wanted to hear so they would open up their wallets. I don't know if he believed what he said or not, but it did present a possible dichotomy between his public statements and private sentiments.

I've been around a lot of politicians in my life, including some great ones. The really good ones treat every moment like they are giving a speech to thousands, and as a result, they never have to apologize for anything they said.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Isn't the point of the video that he didn't "publicly" do anything of the kind? Politicians should adopt the microphone rule and turn it 11 -- assume anything they say, even in the privacy of their own home frankly, is on the record.

Well, conservatives/republicans/libertarians should. Liberal politicians and highly place operatives can do it in public, on tape, and the messenger will just be attacked and the story ignored.

yes, because Republicans are always treated so unfairly ... Seriously, doesn't the victim role get a bit old?