It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The problem I see is that most Americans believe their government to be corrupt liars but we still line up and pick against our least favorite puppet.
I would not interpret the law in such a manner. That's ridiculous.
Speaking to a room of 100 or so individuals is an entirely different matter.
Listen, I am not trying to attack your personal character, I am just trying to pose a meaningful discussion, and I'd rather leave out the cheap shots. Back to the discussion...
From my understanding of the law, there is a lot of gray area. If this goes to court, which it probably will, there will be some rather open-ended questions that will be asked.
Originally posted by Libertygal
Exactly. That right there. At this point, we literally have no one that's truly electable, because viable candidates are literally afraid to run.
Afraid of the face off with the media, and afraid of any backlash they may have to face, and afraid of what unsaid government entities may dig up on them to use against them.
As I said, we all make or made mistakes in the past, the point is, did we grow and learn from them? Seems no one is willing to give credit where credit is due in that respect, but instead, people have to fear that maybe they were perceived as a bully in elementary school, or perhaps their grades weren't the best, or their thesis kind of sucked.
In the end, if they are willing to stand up and not *be* a puppet, do those other things even matter?
Candidates have enough to worry about as it is without having to fear being surreptitiously recorded in the days of cellphones and ipads and laptops and the like. I have even seen ink pens with full audio/video recording abilities, web browsers, and apps. Ink pens.
Will it have to come down to full body searches before people attend a private dinner or other private event now? Or, will people just have to be afraid of everything they say? This doesn't just go for public officials, but for private individuals, as well.
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by detachedindividual
Originally posted by detachedindividual
...This is what your MSM is SUPPOSED to do...
Well, not quite.
I can think of nothing worse or unmanageable than as standard of 'media investigation' that enables someone to violate my privacy rights in the name of 'news'.
Where would it end?
Do bloggers count as media?
Can a private citizen violate my privacy rights to 'investigate' any potential issue of interest to the spying individual(s), if they think it might be newsworthy?
I would dare say that if you were the target of such interest, you'd change your tune very quickly.
We live in an imperfect society... That will ALWAYS be the case. But your vision would make things much, much worse, imo.
edit on 19-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)
Interview: Leslie T. Chang
Posted: 12 Dec 2008
Bong Miquiabas speaks with Leslie T. Chang about her two years spent among the Factory Girls of Dongguan.
Any savvy reporter knows that great stories can often be found in commonplace situations. Journalist Leslie T. Chang took this approach to winning effect in her new book Factory Girls. Her story about the lives of Chinese migrant factory workers uncovers a world fuelled by individual hustle, overwhelming pressure to succeed, and, ultimately, hope.
Chang, who was born and raised in New York, and educated at Harvard, first visited Dongguan, in Guangdong province, in 2004 as a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. She saw there was far more to say about the state of Chinese factories than merely detailing the often atrocious working conditions. “It began with a bit of a contrarian instinct,” says Chang, of her decision to write a book examining the lives and choices of Chinese migrant workers. “Newspapers had missed out on a lot of human interest.”
She and her husband, writer Peter Hessler, live in Cairo with their two daughters.
Yet the complete audio and video is not complete. There is a gap in the recording immediately after Romney’s now famous discussion of the 47% of voters who don’t pay taxes. The cut in the audio and video comes while Romney is in mid-sentence, so we actually do not have the full audio of what Romney said on the subject.
Originally posted by timetothink
The person who runs "Mother Jones" is now saying part of the speech is missing from the video because the phone cut off......stinks.
Interestingly, the full video posted Tuesday, which Mother Jones claims has not been edited, does not contain the clip of Romney discussing his visit to the factory in China.
Originally posted by underduck
Originally posted by Libertygal
I don't think it is just me that feels this way, so again, it bothers me that this isn't disturbing to you.
Perhaps I live my life a little different than most. I say what I mean and I try to be as honest as possible. I dont hide my feelings in public only to release them privately when I think nobody is watching or listening.
I would be careful to not try to compare this to some sort of thought police type senerio either. We are not talking about a random person at home discussing the government with their spouse. We are talking about a public figure discussing his plan for the running of OUR country.