More government inefficiencies......

[krill]

The entire program sounds like a complete waste of taxpayer money to me, so I'm not sure why anyone would be patting themselves on the back because the fraud is cut down.

 

I have to agree with this, the more I have read the less it makes sense. In 1996 when most people still had lineline phones, and the phone companies were notoriously unfriendly (putting it nicely) monopolies, it probably made sense to subsidize a phone for some people. Now you can walk into a gas station and buy a prepaid phone and airtime for under $20, so why the government needs to expend resources administrating this program is puzzling. The free market eventually provided a solution with prepaid MVNO's that are dirt cheap and universally available.

[Ziggy]

Sorry if I don't immediately do cartwheels when a government agency SAYS they are going to combat fraud and have a plan.

 

Who said that you have to do cartwheels? Simply acknowledging that they are addressing the problem would be a good start.

 

 

IF this particular program succeeds in reigning in fraud just like they promise, I'll be the first to apologize and admit I was wrong. In the interim, I prefer actual results.

I prefer waiting to see whether something actually works before assuming that it is a failure. You know . . . preferring actual results instead of a hunch? Or did you mean something different than that?

 

Liberal Talking point, straight out of Rachel Maddox mouthhole.......see what I did there. That is always your go to argument.

[carlfense]

Sorry if I don't immediately do cartwheels when a government agency SAYS they are going to combat fraud and have a plan.

 

Who said that you have to do cartwheels? Simply acknowledging that they are addressing the problem would be a good start.

 

 

IF this particular program succeeds in reigning in fraud just like they promise, I'll be the first to apologize and admit I was wrong. In the interim, I prefer actual results.

I prefer waiting to see whether something actually works before assuming that it is a failure. You know . . . preferring actual results instead of a hunch? Or did you mean something different than that?

 

Liberal Talking point, straight out of Rachel Maddox mouthhole.......see what I did there. That is always your go to argument.

Link? (That might be the difference . . . I can back mine up. Can you?)

[Ziggy]

I didn't make a point requiring a link. My observations of your tendencies to really on blaming peoples posts on republican talking points, or Rush, or Fox News are just that my observations.

[sd'sker]

Sorry if I don't immediately do cartwheels when a government agency SAYS they are going to combat fraud and have a plan.

 

Who said that you have to do cartwheels? Simply acknowledging that they are addressing the problem would be a good start.

 

 

IF this particular program succeeds in reigning in fraud just like they promise, I'll be the first to apologize and admit I was wrong. In the interim, I prefer actual results.

I prefer waiting to see whether something actually works before assuming that it is a failure. You know . . . preferring actual results instead of a hunch? Or did you mean something different than that?

 

Liberal Talking point, straight out of Rachel Maddox mouthhole.......see what I did there. That is always your go to argument.

he did not say any talking points? he just stated his personal preferences, the criteria in which he judges.

[Ziggy]

I don't listen to Rush.

But you parrot his "Obamaphone" derp nonetheless?

 

Hillary Clinton coined Obamacare during the Dem primaries as a negative (alleged to have coined term).

If you believe that I guess I can see why you call Bush's cell phone program "Obamaphone" (which is totally NOT because Limbaugh said to call them Obamaphones.)

 

Sorry is this quote better? I was merely doing what Carl tends to do and cry Rush rather than offer a valid response.

[sd'sker]

I don't listen to Rush.

But you parrot his "Obamaphone" derp nonetheless?

 

Hillary Clinton coined Obamacare during the Dem primaries as a negative (alleged to have coined term).

If you believe that I guess I can see why you call Bush's cell phone program "Obamaphone" (which is totally NOT because Limbaugh said to call them Obamaphones.)

 

Sorry is this quote better? I was merely doing what Carl tends to do and cry Rush rather than offer a valid response.

yes.

[carlfense]

I didn't make a point requiring a link. My observations of your tendencies to really on blaming peoples posts on republican talking points, or Rush, or Fox News are just that my observations.

Actually, you did make a point that requires a link.

 

If you bothered to read the link that I'd posted you'd see that Rush used the exact same term, a variation of the same story, and the exact same fake website as the poster here. That's one heck of a coincidence.

 

That's why I invoked the Rushbo.

 

You said this:

Liberal Talking point, straight out of Rachel Maddox mouthhole.......

Here's the problem for your argument . . . you said this . . . but you (unlike me) have nothing to actually show that anything that I said in this thread is a "liberal talking point, straight out of Rachel Maddox [sic]"

 

If you still don't understand the difference I'll try again. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

[Ziggy]

I understand the difference. But you sadly do not. I was being facetious with the liberal talking point/ Maddox statement, you use Rush/Repub talking points/ Beck as actual arguments. That is the difference. And your condescending tone and words only make your statements that much less effective in arguments.

 

[sd'sker]

I understand the difference. But you sadly do not. I was being facetious with the liberal talking point/ Maddox statement, you use Rush/Repub talking points/ Beck as actual arguments. That is the difference. And your condescending tone and words only make your statements that much less effective in arguments.

it is maddow, but carlfense used no talking points. he just explained his thought process. satire has to have some place in reality, your assertion just did not make any kind of sense.

[carlfense]

I understand the difference. But you sadly do not. I was being facetious with the liberal talking point/ Maddox statement, you use Rush/Repub talking points/ Beck as actual arguments. That is the difference. And your condescending tone and words only make your statements that much less effective in arguments.

No . . . my Rush Limbaugh link shows the same story and fake website as lo country claims he sees in real life. I don't doubt that he heard "Obamaphone" at work. I also don't doubt that whoever he first heard "Obamaphone" from is a Rush listener. The story and link are too similar to be coincidental. Your response to that is to make a hollow comparison to Rachel Maddow talking points even though it's completely unsupported. When called on it . . . you were just being facetious.

 

Anyways, perhaps you'd like to step in and explain why it should be called an Obamaphone.

[carlfense]

satire has to have some place in reality, your assertion just did not make any kind of sense.

There's the rub.

[Ziggy]

satire has to have some place in reality, your assertion just did not make any kind of sense.

There's the rub.

 

Where is the rub? I used your most common response, and changed it to the opposite, therefore being satirical of your arguments. Assumptions are always a bad thing. If you couldn't tell my "talking points" was intended as being of facetious intent, then maybe tone down your emotions and read a little slower.

 

Obamaphone, not really what I would call it given its history. But I would guess because the program exploded under his administration is why the name has stuck.

[sd'sker]

satire has to have some place in reality, your assertion just did not make any kind of sense.

There's the rub.

 

Where is the rub? I used your most common response, and changed it to the opposite, therefore being satirical of your arguments. Assumptions are always a bad thing. If you couldn't tell my "talking points" was intended as being of facetious intent, then maybe tone down your emotions and read a little slower.

 

Obamaphone, not really what I would call it given its history. But I would guess because the program exploded under his administration is why the name has stuck.

can i just say obamaphone sounds like homophone?

[sd'sker]

if we lived in a reasonable, free-thinking society, the government would be working on banning tlc. that station is criminal.