Obama Myths . . .

[VanceMack]

First, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. I show my lean as Moderate because I wish to distance myself from some of the things my party is doing that I absolutely don't agree with.

But. Fair is fair. Here's the deal.

"What's the myth?" and!!!!!!

"What's your proof?

The Myth of the Obama Phone

There is no such thing. Subsidized phone service was begun by the FCC in 1984, under Ronald Reagan. It was significantly expanded under Bill Clinton. Although I'm confident the program is (and has been) abused since inception, it's something that's sorely needed. Imagine being homeless and not being able to afford a phone number. How do you get a job? How do you call for help? I support the program. It's subsidized in part by phone service providers and in part by the Federal government. There is no such thing as an Obama Phone.

And here's my proof:

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

And FactCheck.org says this:



​So. Whatcha' got??

Wouldn't it be nice if this thread stayed on track?

Whats the 'myth'? An Obama supporter (s) promoted the whole "get yo Obamaphone..." line.



But it wasnt just the "Obamaphone" rhetoric that got people going, it was the whole rationale (or lack thereof) that made it so repugnant to people. She sounds in this video as ignorant as this gal...



The 'problem' I see with the Obamaphone is that like every other federal handout program it is rife with abuse.

 

[Oftencold]

You seem to live in a fantasy world where we all get ice cream in the mail, and work is always available everywhere.

Quite the opposite. I am just free of the Modern Leftist illusion that jobs for low skill wages need be clean, easy, particularly desirable, high paying, or and here I think we have the major point, in an urban setting.

The fish processing plant here uses foreign workers because Americans are unavailable. They also house their workers. How silly! And no cell phone is required for this work. We've only hard cell service for a year, and its spotty. The country, as might surprise the Urbanite who thinks that food comes from stores, is just choc-a-bloc full of farms, fish processing plants, packing plants, slaughter houses, warehouses, feedlots, dairies, and canneries.

As for the ice cream that you so oddly brought up, why should people who don't earn their bread have ice cream. Odd notion that.

 

[MaggieD]

Whats the 'myth'? An Obama supporter (s) promoted the whole "get yo Obamaphone..." line.



But it wasnt just the "Obamaphone" rhetoric that got people going, it was the whole rationale (or lack thereof) that made it so repugnant to people. She sounds in this video as ignorant as this gal...



The 'problem' I see with the Obamaphone is that like every other federal handout program it is rife with abuse.

The myth is that it wasn't Obama's program. It was actually started during a Republican's administration. The fact that some jamoke is stupid enough to think it came from Obama doesn't excuse YOU for buying into the nonsense.

 

[VanceMack]

The myth is that it wasn't Obama's program. It was actually started during a Republican's administration. The fact that some jamoke is stupid enough to think it came from Obama doesn't excuse YOU for buying into the nonsense.

Well...no...the residential phone service was started by another president. If the program was extended to Cell phones and then opened for widespread abuse it would not be inappropriate to call them 'obamaphones'. Its probably just me, but it doesnt look like she is advocating minority folks to sign up for Obamaphones to further their socioeconomic pursuits. But again...thats just me.

 

[APACHERAT]

Whats the 'myth'? An Obama supporter (s) promoted the whole "get yo Obamaphone..." line.



But it wasn't just the "Obamaphone" rhetoric that got people going, it was the whole rationale (or lack thereof) that made it so repugnant to people. She sounds in this video as ignorant as this gal...



The 'problem' I see with the Obamaphone is that like every other federal handout program it is rife with abuse.

It's Obama's base who believes that they are Obamaphones. They believe if it weren't for Obama they wouldn't have Obamaphones but be stuck with Reagan rotary dial Reaganphones.

I suppose the word Obamaphone is like the N word, blacks can use it, whites can't. Obama's base can call their free cell phones Obamaphones, those who didn't vote for Obama can't.

I wish California had Obamacare phones like they may or may not be offering in Tennessee.


>" As part of its Community Health Connection Program, CHA is offering qualified individuals (Obama supporters) an LG Lucid 2 4G smart phone (or equivalent model), a phone plan and tech support, included as a cost of their health plan benefits. The phone plan includes unlimited talk, unlimited texting and 1.2GB of data.



The idea is to make it easier for providers and patients to stay connected, but it will also help CHA keep track of its member population, many of whom are expected to be new to the health insurance market.



“Members will have the phone number for their CHA representative pre-loaded in their phones and can quickly get answers to questions about their policies,” said CHA Chief Operating Officer Judy Slagle in a news release. “At the same time, we will be able to connect with our members by phone, by email or by text almost instantly with health tips and reminders.” "<



Read more: Obamacare phones offered to health insurance buyers | The Daily Caller

I wonder if there's a connection with the CHA and any of the umbrella groups under the infamouse former ACORN ?

Update on Obamacarephones. -> Obamacare cell-phone promo raises eyebrows - Nashville Business Journal

 

[imagep]

Not at all. You need only expel the illegal invaders, I favor doing so by placing a bounty one them, then transporting then to the employers who need work positions filled, and will be willing to house the Indigents. Give the employer a tax break for the first few months.

Government jobs are no answer.

Why in Earth did you assume that I meant government jobs?

Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed that you meant government jobs.

You apparently just meant that undesirables should be rounded up and forced to work in slave labor camps.

I do share your frustration over workers being forced to pay for slackers. Means tested welfare is the cause of much of our poverty, not the answer to poverty. I just think that there may be better answers to poverty than slave labor camps.

 

[Kobie]

This thread just further highlights why I simply cannot understand the mindset of the far right. Providing very basic needs to the poor, to them, is nothing more than a burden on those who are more fortunate; the poors are just a bunch of lazy layabouts; and all sorts of other nonsense.

Right-wing hatred of the poor sickens me.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

First, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. I show my lean as Moderate because I wish to distance myself from some of the things my party is doing that I absolutely don't agree with.

But. Fair is fair. Here's the deal.

"What's the myth?" and!!!!!!

"What's your proof?

The Myth of the Obama Phone

There is no such thing. Subsidized phone service was begun by the FCC in 1984, under Ronald Reagan. It was significantly expanded under Bill Clinton. Although I'm confident the program is (and has been) abused since inception, it's something that's sorely needed. Imagine being homeless and not being able to afford a phone number. How do you get a job? How do you call for help? I support the program. It's subsidized in part by phone service providers and in part by the Federal government. There is no such thing as an Obama Phone.

And here's my proof:

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

And FactCheck.org says this:



​So. Whatcha' got??

Wouldn't it be nice if this thread stayed on track?

Maybe some sharp business person will begin selling the Obama phone and make a killing just on the name. Worked well for Best Way trucking!

 

[AlabamaPaul]

This thread just further highlights why I simply cannot understand the mindset of the far right. Providing very basic needs to the poor, to them, is nothing more than a burden on those who are more fortunate; the poors are just a bunch of lazy layabouts; and all sorts of other nonsense.

Right-wing hatred of the poor sickens me.

Why does a person NEED a cell phone?

 

[sangha]

Six pages and they're still stuck on Obamaphones :lamo

 

[Buck Ewer]

We should all start calling them Reagan phones.

 

[Kobie]

Why does a person NEED a cell phone?

Not needed to survive, sure, but you try getting a job with no phone.

The right demands those dirty poors get off their lazy poor asses and get jobs, but to hell with giving them any assistance in doing so.

 

[clownboy]

This thread just further highlights why I simply cannot understand the mindset of the far right. Providing very basic needs to the poor, to them, is nothing more than a burden on those who are more fortunate; the poors are just a bunch of lazy layabouts; and all sorts of other nonsense.

Right-wing hatred of the poor sickens me.

Well at least you proved your lead in sentence. You're right, you don't understand. Whether that's a matter of capability or simple intransigeance, that we don't know yet.

 

[VanceMack]

It's Obama's base who believes that they are Obamaphones. They believe if it weren't for Obama they wouldn't have Obamaphones but be stuck with Reagan rotary dial Reaganphones.

I suppose the word Obamaphone is like the N word, blacks can use it, whites can't. Obama's base can call their free cell phones Obamaphones, those who didn't vote for Obama can't.

I wish California had Obamacare phones like they may or may not be offering in Tennessee.


>" As part of its Community Health Connection Program, CHA is offering qualified individuals (Obama supporters) an LG Lucid 2 4G smart phone (or equivalent model), a phone plan and tech support, included as a cost of their health plan benefits. The phone plan includes unlimited talk, unlimited texting and 1.2GB of data.



The idea is to make it easier for providers and patients to stay connected, but it will also help CHA keep track of its member population, many of whom are expected to be new to the health insurance market.



“Members will have the phone number for their CHA representative pre-loaded in their phones and can quickly get answers to questions about their policies,” said CHA Chief Operating Officer Judy Slagle in a news release. “At the same time, we will be able to connect with our members by phone, by email or by text almost instantly with health tips and reminders.” "<



Read more: Obamacare phones offered to health insurance buyers | The Daily Caller

I wonder if there's a connection with the CHA and any of the umbrella groups under the infamouse former ACORN ?

Update on Obamacarephones. -> Obamacare cell-phone promo raises eyebrows - Nashville Business Journal

thats a lot more thought than I intended to put into it. I just don't see it as a 'myth'. Yes there are 'obamaphones'. That's what they are referred to as.

From the description of the service and phone, that sounds like their plan is worth about 80 a month or 960 a year. One can't help but wonder if a 10 dollar go phone might not be more appropriate, especially for a government that is 17 trillion in debt.

 

[opendebate]

To be fair, "Obama phone" came from an Obama supporter who was filmed answering a question about Obama and saying she wanted to get her Obama phone. It grew out of that widely played video. So, in fact, there was/is an Obama phone.

how exactly does that make it an Obama phone? Calling it an Obamaphone implies that he is responsible for the program.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Not needed to survive, sure, but you try getting a job with no phone.

The right demands those dirty poors get off their lazy poor asses and get jobs, but to hell with giving them any assistance in doing so.

I have no issue with landlines, but the inclusion of cell phones is what many are questioning as well as the large expansion of the program...

 

[Kobie]

Well at least you proved your lead in sentence. You're right, you don't understand. Whether that's a matter of capability or simple intransigeance, that we don't know yet.

Nope, I don't understand how anyone can have such utter disdain for those who have done nothing to them but deigned to be poor.

 

[Kobie]

I have no issue with landlines, but the inclusion of cell phones is what many are questioning as well as the large expansion of the program...

Why. What difference does it make.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Why. What difference does it make.

Cost...

 

[clownboy]

Nope, I don't understand how anyone can have such utter disdain for those who have done nothing to them but deigned to be poor.

And then you go on to further prove your lack of understanding, good showing! :mrgreen:

 

[Henrin]

This thread just further highlights why I simply cannot understand the mindset of the far right. Providing very basic needs to the poor, to them, is nothing more than a burden on those who are more fortunate; the poors are just a bunch of lazy layabouts; and all sorts of other nonsense.

Right-wing hatred of the poor sickens me.

Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State — then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State.

How is it that the strange idea of making the law produce what it does not contain — prosperity, in a positive sense, wealth, science, religion — should ever have gained ground in the political world? The modern politicians, particularly those of the Socialist school, found their different theories upon one common hypothesis; and surely a more strange, a more presumptuous notion, could never have entered a human brain.

They divide mankind into two parts. Men in general, except one, form the first; the politician himself forms the second, which is by far the most important. -Frederic Bastiat

The Law and Charity

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice. - Frederic Bastiat

I don't agree with him on the idea that if everyone gets all their money back that the law plunders no one, but everything else he says is right on the mark. You should of course add healthcare, cellphones, Internet access, and whatever else people think the government should provide or force someone else to provide for them. Of course, the later adds other issues to the equation that Frederic Bastiat didn't face here. Those quotes still deal with your post though.

It's not about hating anyone, but about government.

 

[opendebate]

You seem to live in a fantasy world where we all get ice cream in the mail, and work is always available everywhere.

Hey....I didn't get MY ice cream!! Where's my ice cream!! :boohoo:

 

[Henrin]

Not needed to survive, sure, but you try getting a job with no phone.

And exactly why is that anyone else's problem? Why should other people be forced to care? If they want to care like you clearly do they can carry out their own moral agenda and keep it out of government.

The right demands those dirty poors get off their lazy poor asses and get jobs, but to hell with giving them any assistance in doing so.

Yeah, to hell with government forcing people to provide charity to others. To hell with it indeed.

 

[sbrettt]

Quite the opposite. I am just free of the Modern Leftist illusion that jobs for low skill wages need be clean, easy, particularly desirable, high paying, or and here I think we have the major point, in an urban setting.

The fish processing plant here uses foreign workers because Americans are unavailable. They also house their workers. How silly! And no cell phone is required for this work. We've only hard cell service for a year, and its spotty. The country, as might surprise the Urbanite who thinks that food comes from stores, is just choc-a-bloc full of farms, fish processing plants, packing plants, slaughter houses, warehouses, feedlots, dairies, and canneries.

As for the ice cream that you so oddly brought up, why should people who don't earn their bread have ice cream. Odd notion that.

You took the ice cream part a little too seriously. It's not an illusion that work isn't available, all the time, everywhere.

 

[Kobie]

And then you go on to further prove your lack of understanding, good showing! :mrgreen:

I understand it just fine, actually, but decorum prevents me from going into more detail.