Hey, Mitt -- know that growing lead Obama now has?
by Josh K - 9/19/12 8:05 AM
You built that!
by: Josh K September 19, 2012 8:05 AM PDT
0 people like this thread
Total posts: 21 (Showing page 1 of 1)
by TONI H - 9/19/12 10:15 AM
In Reply to: Hey, Mitt -- know that growing lead Obama now has? by Josh K
the double digit lead Carter had over Reagan right up until the last week before the votes??? Isn't that the year that 'everyone in the know' figured Carter was a shoe-in because Reagan was nothing but an 'actor', too old, and a sort of 'aww shucks' dumb as dirt candidate?
Don't count your braggin' rights quite yet, Josh.......BO is in a lot of trouble and it ain't over yet....in fact, it's getting worse now that the Admin has tried to cover their 'no protection for their embassies and consulates' butts and have kept that "it's all about that movie" narrative going.
Carter's grandson is a professional geek living in his......
parent's basement that spends his days searching the net looking for gotchas to spin that will make grandpa proud,as evidenced by this latest video.
The absolute,kindest thing I can say about him is that he very much reminds me of a "Slinky".
That may all be true....
by Josh K - 9/19/12 1:33 PM
.....but he still scored this time.
Nobody put a gun to Romney's head and made him say those things, and nobody tricked him into saying them either. He said them, he got caught, end of story.
Who did he score with? Ahhhh..... the 47% ;)
rolling those bones....
....gimme a five and a three! 53% for Romney!!
Was it recorded in somebody's...
by J. Vega - 9/20/12 9:27 AM
Was it recorded at an event held in somebody's private home in Georgia? If so, was it legal to record it?
Ga law says you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. Carter's grandson said it was not done by an invited guest. So who gave permission for it to be legally recorded?
That's not really the issue, is it
It's about what he said, not about how he happened to get caught saying it.
Unless it would be akin to illegal wire taps
in which case courts throw out such evidence and juries are instructed to ignore it. It's different when in done in public as damage can regardless of whether or not the entire conversation was permitted to be heard within its context. We all know that, in the public arena, being accused can mean the same as being convicted.
He's not being prosecuted, though
If he was, sure, what's on that video would have to have been obtained legally.
Again. He revealed his true thoughts about people who don't earn enough money to pay federal income taxes, he got caught, end of story.
And how much good does it really do to instruct
a jury to disregard testimony they heard?
Of course, in this case you also get into the grey areas of people who are seeking public attention then claiming privacy when it gets too public, so to speak.
I suspect the instances of sneaky videos and tape recorders are about equal among all stripes of politicians.
Then another aspect (if you're a fan of black helicopter stories) is that if anyone addressed a large group and said something that he and they didn't want the general population to know they must be planning a conspiracy to take control.
It's just another ploy by politicians to use whatever they can. It may be informational but that is just a side effect. Politicians don't want logical or rational, they want positive emotional reaction to everything they say.........which is why they say something different for each group they address.
Tell that to Linda Tripp
I remember you arguing exactly the same as Vega back then.
.....those tapes were being used in a legal proceeding. You can't use illegally obtained tapes in a court case. This isn't a court case.
The law didn't depend on it being used in a court case or not. Under Maryland law her recording was illegal. Just because a DC court which isn't under Maryland chose to allow it's use, doesn't change that. If anything the argument then would have been that if legal to use in court, it should also have been legal to make in the first place. You are dealing with cross jurisdictional situation there.
and get more publicity...just what he doesn't want.
I'm all for open taping
If you didn't want it recorded, you shouldn't have said it. Think before speaking. God says people will be responsible for what they say, and He hears it all. While some places should be private enough that recording is illegal, there's too many places where taping should be allowed even if the person doesn't know they are being taped.
For instance, I believe every state should allow their police in action to be video taped by anyone who happens to be there. I also believe if the state allows police to video tape drivers, then drivers should be allowed to video tape and record the police without it being illegal. Anything on a public road should be legal to record both video and sound at all times.
You've got your elections confused, Toni
Carter had that double-digit lead over Gerry Ford in '76, and lost a lot of it after his interview for Playboy magazine was published. He still won, but not by as much.
Even Romney's own people are admitting he's in trouble. I don't make predictions but I'd be very surprised if he managed to win, especially after this and the things he said last week.
I didn't confuse them
This may be a blog site, but the numbers are real.......there are links at the top as well.
One of the links at the top goes to a 404 error. The other goes to this:
That article states clearly that the race was too close to call until the last week of the campaign, when Reagan surged ahead. At no time did Carter have a double-digit lead. Remember that this was during the Iran hostage crisis and after four years of double-digit inflation (maybe those are the double-digits you're thinking of). Carter's approval ratings were in the toilet. That it was even close is surprising.
Total posts: 21 (Showing page 1 of 1)