It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Obama: Would be 'personal insult' to legacy if black voters don't back Clinton

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ProfusionMy advice to Clinton is to take a page out of Obama's playbook...one word...Clintonphone.



TRUE: A federal program subsidizes providers who supply telephone services to low-income consumers.

FALSE: The Obama administration created a program to provide free cell phones and service to welfare recipients.


(Source).


Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.


(Source).


On Thursday, the Drudge Report splashed a video of an undentified woman who claims to have recieved a free “Obama Phone.” The video has captured the attention of the right online, who see it as proof that Obama supporters are dependent on government.

...There is one problem with the Obama Phone: It doesn’t exist.

Since 2009, there has been an urban myth that Obama created a program to provide free phones to low-income Americans at taxpayer expense.

There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T; in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.


(Source).




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

They were at the same event. LOL.
Great research.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Profusion

Which is going to add to his legacy of uniting the country... Womp Womp. Change, the change was he's a black George Bush who says change and hope alot whole keeping our same economic and military path. His only difference was Obama care, which worked out... Womp womp.



The closest Bush got to a 58% approval rate was in the days right after 911. He needed a major attack to achieve that.

Obama got his through hard work.
Oh and alot is not a word. It's a lot. Two words.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So how do you account for the fact we all think differently.
If what your saying were true no one would ever argue because we'd call believe the same thing.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You are.
But the rest of us are puppets.
Nice to know Donald.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I didn't like Bush either. For the same reasons I don't like Obama, he's a fake Democrat pushing the same agenda that was before him.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

And what hard work would that be?

Deporting more immigrants than Bush?

Bombing more countries than Bush?

More unmanned drone air strikes?

Closing Gitmo?

Assassinations more US citizens with drones without a court case or evidence to a crime?

Hes doing great.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
So Obama *DOES* use race as a campaign trick.

Hmmm.




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Obama got his through hard work.
Oh and alot is not a word. It's a lot. Two words.


Yes, the Criminal Media and Democrat Machine have worked hard since pre-election in puff piecing public attitudes about him via their Identity Politics to achieve whatever "approval" rating it is you're referring to.

Unless there's some list of His accomplishments I've been missing out on? But by busting out the gates ramming Obamacare down everyone's throats I have a hard time envisioning how he pulled off anything close to post-911 Dubya'esque approval ratings.

Honestly I haven't paid hardly a lick of attention to his 8 year reign, so your response ought to be interesting to me...
edit on 18-9-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So how do you account for the fact we all think differently.


DO WE?




If what your saying were true no one would ever argue because we'd call believe the same thing.


While for the 'we all think differently' it is far less different than most would prefer to to think (and even less would prefer to hear), there is a whole wide world of stuff we can believe in, and even more stuff to be interested in.

Interests, consider cars. A person may have varying degrees in any interest in 'cars' in general. Then there's different types different categories of cars. Different types of 'options' within categories. There's to work on them or not. Many things from there such as proper entertainment related to them, any of such categories. Then there's proper industry perspectives (profession related and geopolitical) & cultural attitudes (such as traditionally most people In Detroit have always driven all American made)[or "the Jones'"). Hobby stuff, and potential obsession-isms across any of the above, or not. Potential skills in any of the above, even just driving itself. Etc.

But when you take all of the degrees of potential interest obsessionisms away (which by the way basically none of above there has much bearing on much that normally goes on around here)... people "think" a lot less different than most would prefer to to think (and even less would prefer to hear).

Now if you're truly interested in where I'm going with this, I can tickle your fancy. In the liklihood you'd prefer not, I'll be as extra brief as I can...
Take the work I did in here so far, and couple it with the science / major political bias type arcs in:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, take a real good look at Cognitive Biases. Note these are an entire different ballgame than Political Bias, while they are like or are often the basis of Fallacious thinking / attitudes / behavior (which usually is all mucked up in the mess that is most political bias). You'll want to get a good feel for a great many of them, and then actually go read some published studies. Read a bunch. You'll start to notice that many times they'll do separate control groups where even after informing the people what the bias / the study is, sometimes even testing them multiple times like this, the cognitive biases still dominate the results. Now with any of them I argue if one makes it their lifes mission to overcome such it is possible to dramatically alter that, but even still one can only overcome them so much, short of making it all an obsession rather than just a mere path (that might actually get one 'closer', maybe not). It's kind of like if one sets about becoming "truly self objective", via the right path a person can swing many related facets in their direction, but a person can still only ever become so truly self objective (where all of the above isn't something achievable in some short period of interest). Profusion has a good thread on this last part here.

Shall I go on?

Okay, so we do we some wild card metrics such as Personality Type, gender perspectives, mental illnesses, psychedelics, intelligence. Stuff like that. But then again everyday here in ATS we can see people that are potentially totally "different" in so many ways, and believe in totally different "ends" politically, and yet we see people doing the same exact kind of stuff. The more interested in the subject they are the more alike they become. Take the Trump Vs. Hillary people. One quick example: Trump thread begins, 'what abut Hillary' responses people are already contemplating them, sometimes the Hillary people even call it out that its going to happen in 3,2,1 and then BOOM it happens The circle jerk begins..... An hour later Hillary thread starts, now potentially the same cast involved the EXACT same thing happens but on the flip side. And everybody knows it.

And I can't even entirely excuse myself from any of the stuff in this whole rant, even though my entire adult life it has been the path I have studied, and lived by. On that note, your follow up calling me The Donald, on all of this I'm not a normal person. I'm like a whole other animal in many ways. Which I'd love to go on at length about, if you're actually interested. In such a 'rant' would be revealed how best to go about structuring ones entire life (that I've been able to figure out) to in such an attempt to truly "think differently" (a path that is not for the faint of heart).

But in short I'll leave it at this: If for most of your years you've been watching TV, been spending your time fitting in ala socialite, always listening to "radio music" (or more specifically music with lyrics), etc, etc like 'normal' people... aside from the specific sows you like to watch and genres you like to hear, odds are you think far less differently than you'd ever want to believe.

edit on 18-9-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush.

The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T; in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.

(Source).

As mentioned, this started under Reagan and was later expanded by Bush. It is being further expanded under Obama to cover broadband services.

True that the funding for this is assessed to all telecom providers, but they are allowed to recover this from the people who do not receive such assistance. Check your phone bill and you will see an entry titled "Life Line", "Universal Service Fund" or similar surcharge. This amount is where the low income subsidies come from.



edit on 18-9-2016 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious

So not even that was an Obama "achievement"?!?!?!



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: paradoxious

So not even that was an Obama "achievement"?!?!?!

Nope. What achievement he may have had involvement with is marketing it, and bringing more people on the government dole.

... which we already know how successful he's been bringing people on the social programs.


edit on 18-9-2016 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
In just a few weeks Obama will be as relevant as the Kardashians.

His opinion on matter means squat to me.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Obama's legacy to the black community,

Support the genocide of the African American by visiting Planned Parenthood often,

He has left a legacy of death and destruction and division. Here and in other countries.

Abandoning countless innocent people to horrendous deaths.

He is a monster, that is his legacy.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join