Reply With Quote
actually, i hadn't heard of this free phone thing.
its pretty stupid.
the conservative/Fox propaganda machine has jumped all over the "ObamaPhone"
http://now.msn.com/obama-phone-video...-conservatives
http://www.rightbias.com/
etc, etc, etc
actually, i hadn't heard of this free phone thing.
its pretty stupid.
Yep.
Buying the poor people's vote using redistribution of wealth.
Typical liberal/progressive tactics.
lol you think this is a federal government website
I didn't look at the site itself, but I do know that tax payer dollars is funding phones for poorer people. I remember seeing something on the local news not long ago. There is almost no control over the program. One person was caught getting multiple accounts, then selling them to others.
No .No . Been happening through decades and decaeds of Republican and Democratic presidencies and congresses and no one said about it until some Republican thought he could make it a talking point for idiots to use on message boards.but I do know that tax payer dollars is funding phones for poorer people.
Why do you fall for these things so easily?
Yes, landlines.
Cell phones are from a more recent program, and not necessary.
According to whom?
And what I said still applies. Microwave faux outrage for partisan hacks.
GoodBye.
I see you are being a super chump again.
I can see you are being Wild partisan hack Cobra again.
You tell crack smokers or most powder users for that matter by their teeth.
LifeNet has been around for about 25 years. Adding cell phones to the program is a recent addition. Do you disagree?I can see you are being Wild partisan hack Cobra again.
Yeah because someone made a banner and named their site something that means that the president or his office is seeking credit.
The site even says:
The State and Federal government has a program that provides free cellphones and free talk time to people with low income as well as senior citizens. This subsidized program is called Lifeline phones assistance program. But Obama hasn’t initiated it; it started few decades back and got its current format after going through several changes within this time. Safelink Wireless, the largest cellphone provider of the Lifeline program and a subsidiary of Tracfone, was created under the administration of George William Bush which received grants from a company that was launched during the Bill Clinton’s time and it was done because of an act passed by President Franklin Roosevelt which in turn was influenced because of an agreement between President Woodrow Wilson’s administration and some telecom service providers. So you can realize that this free cellphone service has a pretty long history and the claim about the Obama phone is nothing but a false rumor.
Where's the Limbaugh/Repug/conservative outrage over "socialistic" confiscation of taxes to subsidize/REGULATE, for decades, TX rural phone landlines so the bubbas pay only $5/month vs $30/month in non-rural areas?
Serious question...cite for those rates?
LOL @ stupid Chumps strawmen.
i never said it was an official US government website.
I seriously doubt the Romney campaign put it up, though.
They don't pay "cheap" rates, but technically their hard wire service is subsidized to a certain extent. The point was that in rural areas the cost per unit to provide service can be extremely high...in some cases the phone company may have to run miles of wire just to serve one customer. These rural phone companies do get some federal assistance which comes from the taxes/fees everyone pays on their phone bills.
did you go to the link dumbass?
This isn't Republican propaganda...
It's the actual ing website to apply for your free phone...
I can't fathom how stupid anyone must be to be fooled by a URL called Obamaphone.net and a banner that a 10 year old could make. GoddamnJust when I think the people on this forum can't get any dumber there's always you two idiots to raise the bar.
Oh, so you think it's an Obama campaign website then.
You said Obama is taking credit for it. I guess you'll want to walk back from that one too.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 09-30-2012 at 06:08 PM.
I was told by a rural telephone company that their coop members pay only $5/month (and sometimes get a disbursement of excess coop funds, coops not allowed to have excesses).
What I find is that in the last year or so, TX rural rates have gone up a couple $, and are now $6 to $7, confirming what I heard. Plus yearly increases of about $2.5 until the rates are mostly equal to non-rural rates.
Most rural telephone companies would be broke in a few months if they weren't subsidized by re-distributive/socialistic USF.
GFY Chump. I have no idea who put it up and did not say that the Obama campaign did it. However, it's pretty damn obvious they haven't made them take it down.
Holy , people.... it's a ing default Wordpress blog, tbh.... I could make a "Willard Phone" website that looks the exact same in like five minutes tops....
Neocons
I understand that dumbass. It's not a particularly professional job but if you google search Obama phone that's what comes up and it clearly calls it the obama phone, clearly explains who qualifies, and clearly links to applications. It's not just a ing masthead. If the Obama campaign didn't want the site to be up, they could get it shut down in a heartbeat.Holy , people.... it's a ing default Wordpress blog, tbh.... I could make a "Willard Phone" website that looks the exact same in like five minutes tops....
What law would they use to make the owners take it down, counselor?
It was just a GAFFE!
It was not how the Repugs, conservatives, conservative stink tanks, VRWC, ALEC, 1%ers REALLY think about the 47%. JUST A GAFFE! WHAT A LAFFE!
Mitt Romney says his '47%' remarks were 'completely wrong'
Mitt Romney disavowed his much-criticized statement that the 47% of Americans who supported President Obama paid no taxes, considered themselves "victims" and refused to take responsibility for their lives, saying in a Thursday night interview that he had been “completely wrong.”
“Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you say something [that] doesn’t come out right," the Republican presidential nominee said on Fox News. "In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong."
Romney spoke in an interview with Sean Hannity, who asked what he'd have said if Obama had brought up the 47% remark during their Wednesday night debate. Democrats have used the line in campaign ads.
For more than two weeks, Romney has faced a backlash after the covertly taped video of him speaking to donors was published online by Mother Jones magazine. In that video, from a Florida fundraiser in May, the candidate described the 47% of Americans who paid no federal income tax last year as being Obama supporters who are dependent on government, believing they are "victims." He said they were “unwilling to take responsibility for their lives.”
After the video came to light, Romney stood by his remarks but said that his point was "not elegantly stated." He has also strived to emphasize that he cares for all Americans, and continued that defense Thursday.
“I absolutely believe my life has shown that I care about 100%, and that has been demonstrated throughout my life, and this whole campaign is about the 100%,” he said.
Political experts had expected Obama to raise the 47% comment during the first presidential debate Wednesday evening, but he did not. Obama disappointed many Democrats when he turned in what many agree was a lackluster performance.
Romney told Fox that he was glad the debate had focused on issues rather than gaffes, calling it “an evening of substance.”
“I was pleased that I had a chance to talk about my vision for America, and the president was able to answer some questions that I posed that I think Americans across the country wanted to have answered,” he said, adding that he appreciated the moderation by Jim Lehrer, which was widely panned. “It was not a big 'gotcha' night coming from the moderator but instead was a chance for the president and I to go toe-to-toe on the important issues that people care about.”
Romney also previewed his criticism of Obama’s handling of foreign policy, which will be the subject of a future debate.
He highlighted the crisis in Libya that resulted in the deaths of an American ambassador and three other Americans. Describing the attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazias a “tragic failure,” Romney said:
“There had been warnings of possible attacks, there had been requests … to have additional security forces. They were turned down. And then following the tragedy we saw, well, misleading information coming from the administration. In fact, the president didn’t acknowledge this was a terrorist attack for a week or two? I mean, this was a terrorist attack, lives were lost, this happened on 9/11. We expect candor and transparency from the president and from the administration. We didn’t get it.”
When the Benghazi attack happened last month, Romney accused the administration of having sympathy for Mideast demonstrators angered by a YouTube trailer of a movie depicting the prophet Muhammad as a child molester and womanizer. At the time, some fellow Republicans criticized Romney's quick comments, especially after it became apparent that one of the four dead was the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens.
http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=...%3D0%26DPL%3D3
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
