More government inefficiencies......

[lo country]

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.

 

Was reading through and noticed the bolded. I have no issue with your retorts. Intelligent discussion is good. Needs to happen more in politics. I do not appreciate being called a liar (implied). I can assure you that the guy who I first heard call it an "Obamaphone" was the owner of said phone and made no issue about it.

[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.

 

Was reading through and noticed the bolded. I have no issue with your retorts. Intelligent discussion is good. Needs to happen more in politics. I do not appreciate being called a liar (implied). I can assure you that the guy who I first heard call it an "Obamaphone" was the owner of said phone and made no issue about it.

I'm not calling you a liar, lo country. I'm sorry for not making that more clear.

 

Check out the bold above. ^^^ I said that I don't doubt that you heard it at work.

[lo country]

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.

 

Was reading through and noticed the bolded. I have no issue with your retorts. Intelligent discussion is good. Needs to happen more in politics. I do not appreciate being called a liar (implied). I can assure you that the guy who I first heard call it an "Obamaphone" was the owner of said phone and made no issue about it.

I'm not calling you a liar, lo country. I'm sorry for not making that more clear.

 

Check out the bold above. ^^^ I said that I don't doubt that you heard it at work.

Thanks for the clarification.

[carlfense]

Where is the rub? I used your most common response, and changed it to the opposite, therefore being satirical of your arguments.

Riiight.

 

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.

Show me. You're the second person to say that the program exploded under Obama. Show me the numbers. I'm sure that you've checked them out, right?

[Hingle McCringleberry]

Where is the rub? I used your most common response, and changed it to the opposite, therefore being satirical of your arguments.

Riiight.

 

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.

Show me. You're the second person to say that the program exploded under Obama. Show me the numbers. I'm sure that you've checked them out, right?

 

 

http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/08/how-to-get-the-government-to-cover-your-cell-phone-bills/

 

Took about 5 seconds using my google-fu. Spending on the program has more than double since 2008, going from $772 million to $1.6 billion. The FCC has rooted out 270 thousand doubled accounts, so they are getting some results, that has saved $33 million. Good enough?

[carlfense]

Where is the rub? I used your most common response, and changed it to the opposite, therefore being satirical of your arguments.

Riiight.

 

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.

Show me. You're the second person to say that the program exploded under Obama. Show me the numbers. I'm sure that you've checked them out, right?

 

 

http://moneyland.tim...ll-phone-bills/

 

Took about 5 seconds using my google-fu. Spending on the program has more than double since 2008, going from $772 million to $1.6 billion. The FCC has rooted out 270 thousand doubled accounts, so they are getting some results, that has saved $33 million. Good enough?

That is good enough. Thanks!

[lo country]

Where is the rub? I used your most common response, and changed it to the opposite, therefore being satirical of your arguments.

Riiight.

 

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.

Show me. You're the second person to say that the program exploded under Obama. Show me the numbers. I'm sure that you've checked them out, right?

 

 

http://moneyland.tim...ll-phone-bills/

 

Took about 5 seconds using my google-fu. Spending on the program has more than double since 2008, going from $772 million to $1.6 billion. The FCC has rooted out 270 thousand doubled accounts, so they are getting some results, that has saved $33 million. Good enough?

That is good enough. Thanks!

 

WOW! That is a lot of money. Not to defend Obama, but I am sure the expanse of the program has only grown because of the numbers of jobless folks increasing

http://www.investorplace.com/2012/06/the-real-unemployment-rate-is-nearly-15/

 

This alone would add a huge number of persons' to those eligible. I never would have guessed the monies were that much. That is straight BS.

 

Sadly, unless the economy turns around and fast, an answer is found to effectively stop govt fraud and we get people of the govt dole we are screwed. More and more on the "system" and depending on it and less and less paying into the "system" it is impossible to continue at this rate.