Posted by Tina
We cannot fault people like the woman in this video for what the so-called smartest folks in the room have made into law – We can seek better solutions today. But it will take courage and resolve!
Through policies of redistribution and entitlement and failing schools, broken neighborhoods, low standards and expectations, loss of social morals and values, and the notion that we don’t have to work to eat we have sentenced men and women like this to a reality of soft enslavement. It is truly criminal that we have come to this state in our nation:
America took a wrong turn when we adopted Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, mindlessly pouring money into entitlement programs instead of education, training and temporary financial support for whole, intact families.
The solutions we fashioned destroyed the family in conditions that were already weak and made the problems worse. The Moynihan Report shows the the black community was already in trouble and warned of a terrible outcome if we failed to strengthen the family unit…but America wasn’t paying attention and there was political hay to make…and white guilt to assuage.
You can read Moynihan’s report and warnings here:
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/moynihan-report-1965
The persistent rise in Negro educational achievement is probably the main trend that belies this thesis. On the other hand our study has produced some clear indications that the situation may indeed have begun to feed on itself. It may be noted, for example, that for most of the post-war period male Negro unemployment and the number of new AFDC cases rose and fell together as if connected by a chain from 1948 to 1962. The correlation between the two series of data was an astonishing .91. (This would mean that 83 percent of the rise and fall in AFDC cases can be statistically ascribed to the rise and fall in the unemployment rate.) In 1960, however, for the first time, unemployment declined, but the number of new AFDC cases rose. In 1963 this happened a second time. In 1964 a third. The possible implications of these and other data are serious enough that they, too, should be understood before program proposals are made.
However, the argument of this paper does lead to one central conclusion: Whatever the specific elements of a national effort designed to resolve this problem, those elements must be coordinated in terms of one general strategy.
What then is that problem? We feel the answer is clear enough. Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-seated structural distortions in the life of the Negro American. At this point, the present tangle of pathology is capable of perpetuating itself without assistance from the white world. The cycle can be broken only if these distortions are set right.
In a word, a national effort towards the problems of Negro Americans must be directed towards the question of family structure. The object should be to strengthen the Negro family so as to enable it to raise and support its members as do other families. After that, how this group of Americans chooses to run its affairs, take advantage of its opportunities, or fail to do so, is none of the nation’s business.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Democrat) is a favorite of mine because of this paper. He was clearly a deep thinker who was genuinely interested in uplifting our black citizens from poverty. Instead we made the problems they faced in 1965 even worse.
Thanks to Peggy…the gift that keeps on giving…for suggested the video.
Here is the MSM (MSNBC) caught in another lie where they altered a video to show Romney in a bad light. Be sure to watch the CSPAN video to hear the unaltered audio.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-msnbc-scandal-blaze-readers-at-campaign-event-claim-network-misled-in-video-of-rally-chant/
Both you and the woman displayed in this video are sadly ignorant. There is no such thing as an “Obama phone.” The Lifeline program, designed to make sure that the poor have affordable access to telephone service, was implemented under that god-hating Commie Ronald Reagan. Later, a true enemy of capitalism named George W. Bush implemented a similar socialist entitlement scheme known as SafeLink.
http://www.wirelessforhope.org/#!about-lifeline
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
As the links explain, these aren’t actually government programs, and they aren’t paid for by taxes.
Tina, do you still believe, as you inadvertently said in this article, that former presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan contributed to the “soft enslavement” of America by ensuring that the poor had affordable access to telephone service? The idea that everyone should be able to use the basic tools of communication in our society was once a bipartisan one–it dates as far back as 1934. Has the Republican party now become so radicalized, so hateful toward the poor, that Ronald Reagan now looks like Marxist redistributer? Also, do you plan on still trying to find a way to pin this phone program on Obama, even though he has nothing to do with it?
Have you seen the paid TV program ‘Free Money’?
On a side note —
There is no country more progressive than France, they lead the way for the rest to follow. I think we have finally learned what progressives consider a fair progressive income tax rate. 75% Chris should move to France to complete his education.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-france-budget-idUSBRE88R0AK20120928
No, I haven’t lined up to get a free phone yet.
“No, I haven’t lined up to get a free phone yet.” Pie
Ah the things that are promised in exchange for votes. Do liberals have no shame? Any means to an end seems to be okay with this bunch. Take for instance in California, the people behind Prop 30 are telling college students if this passes they will be getting a $300 refund on their tuition.
Yeah, sure, when donkeys fly…
Chris: “Tina, do you still believe, as you inadvertently said in this article, that former presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan contributed to the “soft enslavement” of America by ensuring that the poor had affordable access to telephone service?”
Yes, although their intent, which was exactly as you stated, “making sure the poor had affordable access to phone service” has been transformed into a growing giveaway without controls and that has exploded beyond expectations under Obama:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212019667595.htm
Serving cash-pinched customers like Mensch can pay off due to federal government subsidies. And finding new customers isn’t hard. With unemployment at 9.4 percent and one in six Americans living in poverty, Sprint and rival Amrica Movl’s (AMX) TracFone unit have seen an explosion in sign-ups for the government-subsidized free wireless services they’ve offered for more than a year. In some financial reporting periods, Assurance accounts for up to 60 percent of new subscribers to Sprint’s prepaid cellular plans, which don’t require an annual contract, estimates Michael McCormack, an analyst with Nomura Securities International.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/18/government-welfare-cell-phones-for-the-poor/
Also this woman was paid by the SEIU to protest at a Romney campaign rally:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/27/seiu-paid-anti-romney-protesters-11hour-in-cleveland-video/
“Also, do you plan on still trying to find a way to pin this phone program on Obama, even though he has nothing to do with it?”
It was Obama campaign activists (Obama as a lawyer trained the SEIU in the Saul Alinsky method) that chose to advertise the “Obama phone” as a campaign promise. Don’t blame me for pointing out that your party secures votes by giving stuff away and promising to take care of people.
And don’t try to pull off that crap about hoe republicans are cruel and don’t care about people and would let people die in the streets either.
The problem Chris is that this video points out all of the scummy tactics, all of the cheap tricks, and all of the lies that make up the Democrat Party MO…you secure voting blocks with promises of free stuff or special rights, you pay people to make false accusations about opponents, and you lie about the record and intentions of your opponents. Rarely do you honestly debate the workability and implications of ideas and polices.
And by the way…this is another example of the poor and elderly being perfectly capable to sign up for something free…signing up for a photo ID can’t be any more difficult.
Pie it will be fun to watch France as they impose this tax over the next few years. I think Chris should teach over there instead, he’d fit right in.
Jack…just like lottery money would mean that education was funded forever without a need to raise school taxes ever again!
A report from 2007
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2007/0703_sff_lottery.pdf
Teachers don’t have school supplies and materials because their benefits package eats up most of the tax money and lottery money!
Chris, you are correct about the lifeline program, but like everything the government gets involved with it morphs into somehting it was not intended to do.
Originally it was set up to where we pay a small amt. on our phone bill to pay for the phone for the poor, it was a land line with limited calling ability, primarily for emergencies.
Jack: “Ah the things that are promised in exchange for votes. Do liberals have no shame?”
Once again, Jack: free phone programs have been supported by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and have gotten bipartisan support in Congress. Obama has not expanded these programs at all. There’s no logical way to connect this issue with buying votes, and you are inadvertently accusing Republicans–including your hero, Ronald Reagan–of having “no shame.”
Do some freaking research next time before you embarrass yourself like this.
Chris, why are you attacking me and being so nasty?
I didn’t bring up cell phones, wasn’t my story, I only agreed with Pie that politicians who promise things in exchange for votes are shameful. Any politician who for personal gain in an election uses any “freebee” to garner votes is shameful… or don’t you agree?
Under what terms then, is it okay for a politicians to buy votes and advantage themselves while using the taxpayers money?
Now if you want to attack me for something I bought up, then go after me over the issue of telling students they are going to get a $300 refund on their tuition. I was the one that brought that up. I own it.
Just remember…if you are going attack messengers, be sure you attack the right messenger and please…try not to be so nasty?
Give us stuff pandering continued …
Biden probes deep into the senior sector.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-promotes-free-colonoscopies-to-seniors-in-florida/article/2509330#.UGY2pKDs9IA
Here Chris…. the cell phone story has taken several turns, maybe you should read up?
(Black woman talking about getting a free Obama cell phone)
Surely this woman is deceived, right? Surely surely Barack Obama is not in the business of giving out cell phones in exchange for a vote. Right?
As it turns out, there is a government assistance program to provide low-income individuals with landlines or with cell phones.
So, surely this is another example of Barack Obama purchasing the favor of special interest groups with government largesse, right? Baracks big-government, redistributionist policies run amok?
Thats not quite right either. It was long felt that universal access should be the goal of telecommunications, so that all people would have access to phones in case of emergency and so that existing customers could reach all people. Liberal website ThinkProgress says, 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.
So, the conservative response to the Obama phone is just example of conservative stupidity, right? Obama has nothing to do with the program, and its not supported by taxpayers, right?
Well, no, again its not that simple. For one thing, ThinkProgress supports its reference to Reagan with a link to FactCheck.org, which does not reference Reagan at all. ThinkProgress seems to be reaching hard to associate the Lifeline phone service program with Reagan, when it actually began in 1996 under a law signed by Clinton (isnt it interesting how ThinkProgress leaves out his name?). For another thing, the government forces phone providers to pay a fee in support of the Lifeline program, and phone service providers in turn force their American customers taxpayers to pay a fee. Its not unreasonable to call this a tax, even if its a tax thats trying to avoid being called a tax.
But the really interesting question is: Who has been marketing this as the Obama Phone?
First, lets step back. Having a program to ensure that welfare recipients have at least minimal phone service is not necessarily a bad idea. We can all imagine emergency situations where phone access would be critical, whether its because the individual needs to reach emergency services or because a local government or law enforcement needs to reach the individual. And expanding the program to cell phones is, likewise, not necessarily a bad idea. Its arguably cheaper, since there is no installation charge.
Where I have questions is with the marketing of the free cell phones as Obama phones. Imagine, for instance, that it were the government itself that advertised the phones as Obama phones, starting in 2009. This would be, at the very least, deeply misleading. It would be taking credit for a program begun under predecessors. It would be similar to President Bush in his first term, if he had come to office after Clinton initiated a program that gave free cars to welfare recipients, seeking electoral advantage by advertising them as Bush cars.
But clearly (?) thats not the case here, right? A visit to FreeGovernmentCellPhones.net which calls itself a small publishing company and the authority on the U.S. governments Lifeline Assistance program as it applies to mobile phones decries the false rumor of Obama Phones, which it calls an incorrect term because the cell phone program began several months before Obamas election. Case closed.
Or maybe not. Visit ObamaPhone.net and heres what you see (I suspect theyll make changes soon, if they havent already, so I wanted to take a screenshot):
It begins: What exactly is the free Obama phone? The free OBama phone is a program that is meant to help the financially unstable who cannot afford access to a cell phone
When you click the link at ObamaPhone.net to apply for a free cell phone, youre redirected towait for itFreeGovernmentCellPhones.net. Thats right. The same website that decried the false rumor and incorrect term of The Obama Phone Program has another website, surely desired to attract search engine traffic, that advertises The Obama Phone Program. Nice.
UPDATE: The website has already been changed! Visit Obamaphone.net now, and youll get something like a blog with no pictures of Obama, as though theyre in the process of dismantling the site. But surely theres nothing to see here, folks! Lets talk about Mitt Romneys tax forms!
So then we reach the question: Who funds the companies like FreeGovernmentCellPhones.net and ObamaPhone.net? Did they begin calling it the Obama Phone before or after the rumors of Obama phones began to spread through email? Do they have a profit-share arrangement with the wireless telecoms that receive money (albeit indirectly) from the government to distribute free cell phones? Are they paid by the federal government to help spread the word about the free cell phone service program?
These websites are hard to penetrate, so I dont know the answer, but its a juicy question: Is the Obama administration effectively paying a company to advertise the free cell phones as Obama Phones? Or was the administration aware of the practice, and have they done anything to stop it? Im sure the mainstream media are hard on the case, investigating the Obama administration in that relentless way they do.
You can learn more about the program which, if not begun by President Obama, seems to have grown bloated in his term from Rep Tim Griffins video on youtube.
http://youtu.be/UCqU8yarNpc
This is funny. With these kind of things, always follow the money. To me it looks like marketing gimmick by the cell phone companys to exploit this program. Kind of like the tv ads aimed as seniors promoting reverse mortgages, or life insurance.
If it’s to buy votes, then it’s not working. The states with the highest participation of Lifeline phone assistance are Alaska, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Virginia. Not a lot of Obama-friendly states there.
http://www.lifelinesupport.org/_res/documents/li/pdf/participation-rates/li-participation-rate-map-2010.pdf
Tina: “It was Obama campaign activists (Obama as a lawyer trained the SEIU in the Saul Alinsky method) that chose to advertise the “Obama phone” as a campaign promise. Don’t blame me for pointing out that your party secures votes by giving stuff away and promising to take care of people.”
So far we know of a grand total of one crazy lady activist advertising an Obama phone, and a stupidly named website that redirects to the official Lifeline website. I don’t think it’s plausible that Obama or the Democrats wanted to promote the “Obama phone.” He must know that would sound bad and create a lot of negative impressions in voter’s minds.
Jack, thanks for the research you and Tina do to present facts, and present them in a way people can learn and decide on. Yes, the attacks have gotten a bit nastier of late, and it is because the liberal mindset won’t handle the truth, and that is caused them frustration from all the complete discovery that Post scripts presents. Then again they do have a just fear and concern that entitlement programs such as this Phone assistance program may be lost once we elect a new and real President for the Nation. Voters are waking up and getting angry about paying for the increasing cost of those programs. And working voters are learning more and more how Obama is bleeding our country dry by catering to people that have a “gimme gimme attitude and it’s all about me mentality”. It is disgusting that the Democratic party just keeps their voter base in financial chains, and caterwaul about why the rich(which seems to have become a fluctuating figure by Obama’s standards) can’t pay more, so that government dependent people can live better on the tax payers sweat, but even more important to those kind of politicians is just staying in power, at least to any cost of the working tax payer. what I see as thoughtless, is that those very same Democrats, if they did some real thinking in congress to help elevate Americas TOTAL populous, and stop dragging down those leaders who create job opportunities, how fast this country would recover.
Chris: “So far we know of a grand total of one crazy lady activist advertising an Obama phone, and a stupidly named website that redirects to the official Lifeline website. I don’t think it’s plausible that Obama or the Democrats wanted to promote the “Obama phone.”
Right…in fact he promised much more!
This video from a 2008 campaign stop ssys it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=player_embedded
The party has spread entitlement THINKING for votes for decades. They use and exploit the poor for power! They use taxpayer money to hand out just enough free stuff to keep them dumb and happy. If they truly gave a rip they would have designed programs that resulted in better education, training and community participation in small businesses. They would have devised plans that supported strong marriages and family.
That would require leadership, service, and some thought about the consequences of laws in practical every day terms.
Jim: “To me it looks like marketing gimmick by the cell phone companys to exploit this program…”
Jim you sure have an attitude against making money. If you want to follow the money you might try following how your tax dollars are spent…including petitioning business to provide “free” service or “low rate” subsidized service:
http://www.naruc.org/lifeline/
Did you get that? September 10-16, designated as ,national telephone discount awareness week! And the entreaty at the bottom of the page: Help us spread the word!
A meeting was held earlier in the year and one of the things they addressed was the reasons people were not accessing the program. One of the solutions they came up with was asking carriers in your state what they are doing to educate & sign up consumers.
Businesses do not turn down business (dirty b-tards!) but please keep in mindit was government that approached them to get involved and help spread the word!
Others solutions included: Issue a press release, Inform constituents through your period newsletters, Educate district staff case workers.
Public service announcements were also created and materials were made available for outreach: The FCC has prepared a broad array of materials to educate consumers about the program, with an emphasis on new rules recently enacted governing eligibility criteria and non-duplication of assistance. Educational and outreach materials are available in English and Spanish
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline/outreach
But thats not all! Free phones for emergencies (or job application calls) is not enoughnow we are expanding into broadband service:
It used to be that things like telephone service, television, radio, newspapersany means of communication or information was something we had when we found a way to afford it, an incentive to improve ones income and position. People saved for new thingsnow people are told they are entitled when we cant afford them.
Redistribution and entitlement thinking will not only ruin our country, it will ruin the lives of generations of people who fail to experience the lessons and rewards of working and earning a living for themselves. They will fail to experience their full potential. Wasn’t that the point of our attempts to lift people out of poverty through social programs?
People in business are in business to make a living. Some do better than others but we all have the opportunity because of freedom and property rights to improve our circumstances. A few more generations of entitlement thinking will bring an end to those two very valuable gifts of this nations founding fathers to their posterity.
Are you prepared to give them up because a few greedy people also exist within the system? (As if that wouldn’t be the case in any system)
You need to watch Rep Tim Griffins video on youtube posted above by Jack.
Where are all of these phones being made that are being given away? I’ll bet it’s not in the USA and is just more of this administration’s overseas jobs outsourcing.
So sorry to hear the woman who won a million dollar lottery and continued to collect food stamps died of a possible drug overdose, leaving a 18 month old child. So sad.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/1m-lottery-winner-who-continued-to-collect-food-stamps-dies-of-possible-overdose/
Chris you need to take a look at the following, especially the American Thinker page!
An article Saturday in the Dayton Daily News in Ohio claims the program has increased in recent months:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/subsidized-cell-phone-program-nearly-doubles-in-oh/nRDqC/
A chart in the article shows that the program cost in 2008 was $30.4 million. In 2011 it rose to $75.4 million and according to the article the size of the program has exploded in recent months
An article in The American Thinker this morning includes a screen shot with Obama advertising the Obama free cell phone program:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/your_universal_service_fee_at_work.html
Peggy, that’s one of the dangers of winning so much money. Sometimes people don’t have the good sense to know how to use it.
Quite a few lotto winners wound up being big losers in life because money became a tool of their self destruction.
The poor woman obviously had major problems that even money couldnt help solve. After reading she was trying to maintain two homes I just feel sorry for her that she became so overwhelmed she took drugs to escape from dealing with her financial and other problems.
Our economy HAS to improve to give people the belief their lives will get better instead of worse. As I used to tell my students to convince them to hang in there and not drop their classes or out of school, They could do anything for a short amount of time. It would be different if they thought theyd do it for the rest of their lives.
People need hope and to see the future is and can get better.
Back to food stamps and cell phones.
After reading an article about a woman selling her food stamps to buy an iPhone I found the below article that should really make everyone mad.
“Investigation Uncovers People Selling Taxpayer-Funded Food Stamps”
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/16/investigation-uncovers-people-selling-taxpayer-funded-food-stamps/
Re Chris: Has the Republican party now become so radicalized, so hateful toward the poor, that Ronald Reagan now looks like Marxist redistributer?
WOW!!! Boy howdy, has Chris has really grasped a firm hold of the Hegelian dialectical tool or what? A favorite of progressive worms and low life rats like Alinsky. Your are an excellent, it not outstanding student (er, goose stepping brown shirt)Chris!
Pose a statement as a question. Excellent wiggle room for deniability.
I absolutely love it!
Can only respond to one thing right now:
Tina: “An article in The American Thinker this morning includes a screen shot with Obama advertising the Obama free cell phone program:”
That screenshot simply displays a picture of Obama that absolutely anyone could have obtained and put on their fake website. Again, there is no proof that Obama had anything to do with this. And it makes no sense that he would–most voters would be completely turned off by this.
There seem to still be some people here blaming Obama for the existence of this program, even though it’s already been proven that it was invented and nourished by several different presidential administrations, including Reagan and Bush.
More people may be on it now, due to the recession, which began under Bush. But keep trying to pretend that Obama is the cause of all that. Your more gullible regulars will love you for it.
Well, Pie, you could always try answering the question, which was perfectly valid given the circumstances. The message of this article, many of the comments, and essentially the entire right-wing reaction to this story can be summed up as, “Free cell phones? That’s socialism!” So without meaning to, your fellow conservatives are accusing Ronald Reagan of implementing socialist policies. It’s entirely fair to point this out, and to call attention to how far right your movement has become.
If it helps, I’ll pose it as a statement, rather than a question:
The Republican party has now become so radicalized, so hateful toward the poor, that Ronald Reagan now looks like a Marxist redistributer.
Better?
“Jim you sure have an attitude against making money.”
Excuse me. Where did you come up with this? I’ve never said anything against making money.
In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature. Stuff is sole this way all along. It’s kind of like a celebrity endorsement, except in this case they don’t need to pay the celebrity.
I think we have already shown that Obama has nothing to do with this.
Chris…the woman was asked a question about Obama and she volunteered…vote for Obama because “he gave us a phone”…she was asked how and she responded if you “got food stamps,social security, low income, you on disability you sign up”
Where did SHE get the idea that “everybody in Cleveland” knows about the free Obama phone?
We didn’t force this woman to say this…we didn’t make this up. But someone, or some PAC did…THE CAMPAIGN WANTS POOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HE GAVE THEM FREE PHONES!
Chris: “That screenshot simply displays a picture of Obama that absolutely anyone could have obtained and put on their fake website. Again, there is no proof that Obama had anything to do with this”
There’s no proof that anything on the web is authentic BUT there are strong indications. As the American Thinker points out with help from others:
At the end of the American Thinker article:
LET’S ALL PRETEND THAT OBAMA (AND HIS SUPPORTERS) DON’T WANT THESE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE OBAMA IS GIVING THEM A FREE PHONE!
Chris: “The Republican party has now become so radicalized, so hateful toward the poor, that Ronald Reagan now looks like a Marxist redistributer.”
Scream it till your hair falls out…it won’t change the fact that Republican, including the great communicator, Ronald Reagan, HAS NEVER BEEN as uncaring toward the poor as your party has always claimed.
The Republican Party, in fact, has a big heart for the poor…we’d like to see them lifted out of poverty.
The Republican Party is in favor of policies that offer a hand up rather than hand-outs.
The Republican Party thinks that the way to measure the success of a government program for the poor is by the numbers of people that no longer need the program. Democrat programs to help the poor are a huge failure by that measure.
The Republican Party would like to see poor people overcome their poverty and be able to care for themselves, contribute to society as equals, and find themselves in a strong position to give of their time and money to uplift others.
You guys treat them like chattel. You feed them and house them at the bare minimum and in exchange they vote Democrat!
Jim you just seem to have a general negative attitude about business people making money unless they are very small and local. Big box stores represent bigger ideas, ways to deliver inexpensive products to the consumer. Big business phone service companies are out to “exploit this program”. Maybe I heard the attitude behind words like “big box” and “exploit” wrong?
The point about the Obama phone is not that it was marketed. Obviously the public has to be informed about taxes, regulation…even free stuff.
The point is we have a president that has lowered the presidency by becoming an overt giver of free stuff…a carnival barker. This is part of his game plan to attain and stay in power. In my opinion this is an act of a dictator rather than the President of the United States whose job description involves serving all of the people and directing our foreign policy.
I disagree that there is no evidence that Obama encouraged (and enjoys) the Obama free phone image. I think he has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Tina: “Chris…the woman was asked a question about Obama and she volunteered…vote for Obama because “he gave us a phone”…she was asked how and she responded if you “got food stamps,social security, low income, you on disability you sign up”
Where did SHE get the idea that “everybody in Cleveland” knows about the free Obama phone?”
I don’t know where she got this idea. Maybe from an e-mail forwarded by a conservative relative. Myths about the “Obama phone” have been going around the web since 2009.
“We didn’t force this woman to say this…we didn’t make this up. But someone, or some PAC did…THE CAMPAIGN WANTS POOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HE GAVE THEM FREE PHONES!”
Again: You have no evidence that this came directly from the campaign.
Did you hear about the girl in Florida caught on tape trying to register only Romney voters? Turns out she worked for the Romney campaign. I could just as easily blame the entire campaign, and Romney himself, for this young girl’s criminal act…but I have no evidence that anyone but her was responsible, so I’m not going to make wild accusations without backing them up. I’m not like you.
But let’s consider for one second that the Obama campaign is intentionally trying to make voters believe that he started this cell phone program.
Why are you trying to help them?
Your original article implied that Obama was behind this “entitlement,” as you called it. You are decrying the Obama campaign for allegedly promoting this rumor out of one side of your mouth, and on the other, you are promoting the rumor yourself! It’s amazing. Doesn’t the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance ever give you a headache?
Chris: “I don’t know where she got this idea. Maybe from an e-mail forwarded by a conservative relative.”
Chris you have just illustrated the number one truth about progressive democrats, which is: Never take responsibility and never, never admit you could be wrong.
Then they launch right into an attack based, apparently, on GOSSIP:
Then, having realized their error, they assume a posture of taking the high road”
HELLO! YOU JUST DID!
And finally the progressive democrat takes a snide superior attitude, “I’m not like you.”
Clearly you are not. You, like your party, are perfect.
The evidence is there…you just choose to ignore it.
“Jim you just seem to have a general negative attitude about business people making money unless they are very small and local.”
Ok, that part is true. I prefer smaller local business. I do feel that we are being exploited by large corporations. As for all the free stuff, keep in mind all the government handouts that go to the wealthy and large corporations.
Jim you are a reasonable man and I appreciate that. I really love local small business myself but I don’t think, as you do, that we are “being exploited” by large corporations. I think there are crooks out there. I think there are some people who are ruthless and selfish but those people exist in all classes of people. There are many more who are generous and enjoy sharing their good fortune as they make money. The Koch brothers are an example of two men who through the years have accumulated a vast fortune and acquired many holdings. They are very good businessmen. But they are also very charitable and have, because of their good business and investment sense and practices, created millions of jobs and incredible opportunities for investment.
As for the government handouts for the wealthy and corporations I agree there is no need for them to get a handout.
Conservatives have called for a simplified tax code that eliminates loop holes and deductions. If we are going to do that we had better be prepared to make the tax rates on Corporations competitive so that companies have sufficient profits to reinvest in expansion and development and so that we can compete with other countries in the world wide market. Likewise we had better have respect for profits of individuals as being their property. I am absolutely against the attitude that wealth someone has earned and saved is somehow a well that government can dip into any time it decides to be “charitable”. I believe human beings should be charitable personally and have the choice about the timing and amount given depending on their own life circumstances.
Polices that encourage savings and investment, along with this respect for accumulated wealth provide incentive for all Americans to improve the conditions for themselves and their posterity. I think that is 100% American!
We do ourselves great harm when we attempt to create fairness by punishing all corporations for bad deeds of the few who are greedy. Our legal and court systems are there to punish those who break the law. Freedom and the rule of law have worked pretty well…I don’t want to trash what we have in favor of something we have seen fail all over the world.
Tina: “Never take responsibility and never, never admit you could be wrong.”
You’re projecting. I have admitted I was wrong on this blog when warranted. You, on the other hand, continue to claim that Obamacare bans doctors from recommending mammograms to women under 50, even though I have unequivocally proven that this claim is 100% false. That is just one of the many false claims you hold on to even though it is easily debunked by checking the facts. Other examples include death panels, rationing, the Winston Churchhill bust, $2 billion Brazil loan, Obama’s birth certificate…I could go on. You constantly peddle rumors about the president and then refuse to back off of them when they are proven wrong. This article is one more example. You intentionally implied that Obama was giving out free phones for votes, and when you were shown that Obama had nothing to do with this cell phone program, you refused to admit you were wrong.
You are the one who refuses to ever admit when conservative pundits or politicians say or do something wrong. I, on the other hand, am very critical of Obama and the Democrats on certain issues.
“Then they launch right into an attack based, apparently, on GOSSIP:”
Are you kidding me? Did you miss the part where I said “caught on tape?” Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0CL1QPTAqs
That’s not “gossip.” It’s been in the news and everything.
“Then, having realized their error, they assume a posture of taking the high road”
but I have no evidence that anyone but her was responsible, so I’m not going to make wild accusations without backing them up.
HELLO! YOU JUST DID!”
No, I did not. I never claimed that the Romney campaign is responsible for this girl’s actions, because I have no evidence for that. You, on the other hand, are more than willing to blame the Obama campaign for this woman’s ignorance, even though you have no evidence for that. That’s because you don’t care about evidence or the truth; you only care about making your opponent look bad.
Re Chris’: “Well, Pie, you could always try answering the question, which was perfectly valid given the circumstances.”
Dear Chris, rhetorical questions (statements) like that do not deserve an answer. Rhetorical questions, of course, presuppose the answer or only intend to silence or flummox anyone stuoid enough to bother to answer such tripe. Their validity is only in the mind of the moron who utters them and the folks in the choir.
Nevertheless, I am quite excited to see you well on your way to being a thoroughly repulsive, ineffective, progressive weasel worded political(self snip)hole. It will be a career you can take to your grave and beyond. I can see the eulogies already. Know wonder you aspire to be the next Quentin Colgan.
Good luck with that, and as always, best wishes!