The "Obama phone" explained.

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 



No, gun sales are through the roof because fools are being played by the NRA and gun manufacturers into thinking the end is nigh. The NRA LOVES the mythical Obama it has created (amazing, considering he's not made a single sentence or action to deter your gun stockpiling); it has made them fabulously rich at the hands of the millions of gullible fools it has played like a harp on the Right. You are soooo easy for the intelligent, but malicious corporatists, to manipulate. Someday, maybe you will wake up to realize the heroes you bow to are the one and the same who consider you a dolt to be sheared for its profit. Then you'll realize the people those liars taught you to blindly hate have been all along the ones working most on your behalf.

I am convinced this is why the Right wants to destroy public education. It knows the data -- the dumber the electorate, the more easily gamed they are. Just as the moderates and every to the left of them knows that the most educated people are, the more likely they are to NOT be Right wing (unless of course they are very rich and then they just pretend to be Right wing, because that's how they get much, much richer.)


Seen what is happening in Greece and Spain lately??? Are you that deluded by partisan politics to think that the banking fiasco that is happening in these two countries is not coming to the US very soon? Do you NOT think for a second that the same corporate lobbyists that are padding the Republicans coffers are not generously bribing the Democrats as well?

I think you need to look in a mirror, because I am gonna mirror one of your quotes!

"You are soooo easy for the intelligent, but malicious corporatists, to manipulate."!

Bottom line is, nothing in life if FREE, regaurdless of who is giving it away! There is always a catch, and it amazes me the people who are watching the world collapsing around them, support the criminals who are making it happen!!!




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I could get behind a program in which phone companies - not the government provides the indigent with "free" cell phones for safety reasons.

However the phones should come with no "free minutes" only the ability to call 911. That's it. If they want minutes or a plan that on them. The original intent of the program was for all homes to have a phone line for access to emergency services not to BS about the newest set of 300.00 shoes.

The government should not be involved at all...

There are a plethora of used phones out there that are donated every year - rework them, donate them to the poor through the SNAP program offices or whatever but certainly limit them to 911 unless the user comes up with the cash for the service.

Just my two rupees.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


This thread relates to people's false thoughts about where the phone comes from and how Obama uses the lifeline program to get votes, and how other politicians/associates use this scenario to put down Obama supporters.

I'm sure that free phones ARE given away by corporations and companies. However, this thread specifically is more about the thoughts around the issue. I can relate to your statement in my own beliefs and thoughts, but I think that relating the government to private corporations and the implications of giveaways / helping "freeloaders" can be a whole different thread in itself.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


It's not an "Obama Phone", nor is it a "Bush Phone". It's a "REAGAN Phone".

Ronald Reagan started the "Lifeline program" in 1984. Reagan's program was designed around the principle that "telephone service provides a vital link to emergency services, government services and surrounding communities." To that end the Lifeline program has been available to those meeting the poverty criteria ever since.

So there is your proof - the "Obama Phone" you have slandered was in fact created by the icon of the right, Ronald Reagan.



DO we need to explain the difference between a land line and a cell phone?

Regardless who created it, or WHO morphed it into what it is today, it is a disgusting display of how people have become dependent on a Govt to take from some to give to others.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


They are just displaying who the 0bama voter is. The Govt Teat Sucker.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

DO we need to explain the difference between a land line and a cell phone?

Regardless who created it, or WHO morphed it into what it is today


It's the same program, started in 84 by Reagan, it began issuing cell phones in 96. But of course, let's blame Obama. For a program than started 24 years before he came into office.


Originally posted by macman
They are just displaying who the 0bama voter is. The Govt Teat Sucker.


Doesn't surprise me that you would fall for the obvious racist depiction involved here. Why not hold up this image of a "Govt Teat Sucker"?



He's sucked a lot more money (in the form of oil subsidies) from the Govt Teat than some poor black woman.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


It's not funded by tax dollars. It is paid for from monies taken from the USF (Universal Service Fund) which is paid by the telco's themselves in exchange for the frequency spectrum they use to operate. In some cases, the telcos pass this charge on to their customers, in the form of an additional fee, but it is in no way shape or form a "tax" on "the tax-payers.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer


It's the same program, started in 84 by Reagan, it began issuing cell phones in 96. But of course, let's blame Obama. For a program than started 24 years before he came into office.

Is he in charge, or is he not in charge?
Love the ship jumping when your guy is at the helm.


Originally posted by macman

Doesn't surprise me that you would fall for the obvious racist depiction involved here. Why not hold up this image of a "Govt Teat Sucker"?

Never said anything about her race. Sounds like you are more concerned with her race then others. Closet Racist maybe?


Originally posted by Blackmarketeer



He's sucked a lot more money (in the form of oil subsidies) from the Govt Teat than some poor black woman.

Um,. I am all for cutting it off for all.
But, don't mind that, as it doesn't fall into your reply narrative.
edit on 3-10-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by macman
 


It's not funded by tax dollars. It is paid for from monies taken from the USF (Universal Service Fund) which is paid by the telco's themselves in exchange for the frequency spectrum they use to operate. In some cases, the telcos pass this charge on to their customers, in the form of an additional fee, but it is in no way shape or form a "tax" on "the tax-payers.


It is a tax taken from the Carriers, who raises the price of service to the customer, because the Govt tells the Carrier they HAVE to.
But, since it is not a tax on the People, let's just turn away from it.....

So, we are back to the Alinsky style of debate. Change the terms and definitions.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I don't care who funds it or who started it it's highly discriminatory and a luxury that is not needed. The people I've met with them have 2-3 plus a regular cell phone. It needs to stop



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Right, you claim the lifeline program is a tax on "taxpayers", I show you it isn't, and I am guilty of redefining words? Your narrative is leaking.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by macman
 


Right, you claim the lifeline program is a tax on "taxpayers", I show you it isn't, and I am guilty of redefining words? Your narrative is leaking.

No, you stated it was not a tax.....

It is a tax, passed onto the customer.

Mincing words I guess?



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by macman
 


Right, you claim the lifeline program is a tax on "taxpayers", I show you it isn't, and I am guilty of redefining words? Your narrative is leaking.


Never mind this I guess.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s


It's not funded by tax dollars.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
In my honest opinion it does not matter if it uses tax dollars or not. It does not matter if it's a government giving out phones, or an organization. Free give aways are unproductive! I can understand if a phone company gives away a phone, but requires the customer to buy minutes, but not free minutes and phones.

This does not teach people to work for things! It teaches them that they can just receive money, items, etc for doing nothing. I understand that not all 'receivers of giveaways' are willingly unemployed...but life's tough and the people who do get a job should be rewarded. If you are attempting to get a job, that is understandable, but perhaps not giving them stuff (regardless of their effort level) will motivate them even more.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghostx
 


Benjamin Franklin
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in
their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of
the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be
looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase,
and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances
will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring
them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing
all your estates among them."



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Ghostx
 


Benjamin Franklin
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in
their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of
the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be
looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase,
and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances
will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring
them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing
all your estates among them."


Statements like these, The Bible, and Shakespeare really need to start being quoted in modern English lingo instead of old lingo (thou, shallt, shall, thy, art, etc).





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join