Any adults left in Washington?

[NOLA]

Originally Posted by pgh69

Do you understand what Socialism is? You seem to be confusing that concept with the concept of incurring national debt (ie., spending money that your country doesn't have.) Do you understand that those two concepts are completely unrelated and have nothing to do with each other?

Answer is no........he once referred to communist Tzars.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by NOLA

Answer is no........he once referred to communist Tzars.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

[madmax]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Oooh...hit a nerve with you too.

Naw, dummy, you hit my funny bone. I think it's typical, yet hilarious, when you get twisted up.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Obama bought the election pure and simple by pandering to the middle class and lower, by giving entitlements to people that already have a "victim mentality," by promising reform and non-enforcement of the law to people that live an alternate life-style, and by lying to women over several stupid Republican missteps. Even he didn't actually start the phone giveaway he and his minions took credit for it and expanded the program beyond all reason and cost.

More bullshit. Situation normal.
No, Einstein... they never took credit for it, they never expanded it. What part of "not a government funded program" do you not understand? Obviously all of it. This is typical of how you buy the bullshit and become a brainless mouthpiece for it.
You have bought into yet another myth: "victim mentality". There have always been people with a victim mentality - human nature doesn't change. You yourself display a similar mentality on here. You whine about being victimized by those you claim have the victim mentality - pretty damn funny!
What "entitlements" did he give?
"Lying to women"??? Romney said he would defund Planned Parenthood. He said he would not support the Lilly Ledbetter law... and on and on... Those are facts that were not "lied" about.

Typical... all bullshit. You should be in the manure business instead.

Originally Posted by hrdguera

Now, he still campaigning and refusing to negotiate in good faith. And he will probably take that $4 million dollar vacation when he should be working on avoiding the fiscal cliff. He has already started blaming others for his own lack of leadership.

The job of the president is to lead. That he is doing by presenting the will of the people. The polls show that almost 2/3 of the public wants the tax policy presented in the president's negotiation proposal. The "campaigning" is a new right wing talking point, but is actually what all presidents do in selling their proposals. So by doing this he is "negotiating in good faith" and backing his previous position and doing what the public wants.

Originally Posted by hrdguera

What a maroon.

Try being original.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

More bullshit. Situation normal.
No, Einstein... they never took credit for it, they never expanded it. What part of "not a government funded program" do you not understand?

As a BUSINESS OWNER what part of Government MANDATED are you having a problem comprehending??

The job of the president is to lead. That he is doing by presenting the will of the people. The polls show that almost 2/3 of the public wants the tax policy presented in the president's negotiation proposal. The "campaigning" is a new right wing talking point, but is actually what all presidents do in selling their proposals. So by doing this he is "negotiating in good faith" and backing his previous position and doing what the public wants.

Try being original.

That should be analyzed to see just the 2/3 of the public you are talking about consists of. It sounds like a pretty substantial majority and in fact it is. That would be 2/3 of the voters being in favor of raising taxes on anyone but themselves.

We are talking about the increase in federal income taxes for the top taxpayers in the country. We know that 50% of the population pays no federal taxes at all. Rounding up the 2/3 majority that you reference would be roughly 66%. If you were to subtract the 50% that pay no taxes from the majority that you reference that would leave 16% of the population that actually pays taxes being in favor of raising taxes. The remaining 16% would more than likely consist of the lower middle class that wouldn't be effected by the tax increase either. That 66% would encompass the unaffected people people and those who would have a victim mentality, getting even by raising taxes on those rich bastards that screwed them out of what is or was, in their opinion, rightfully theirs. Why the hell wouldn't they favor the tax increase.

Just an abstract thought. Maybe votes could be allocated in proportion to the "FAIR SHARE" of taxes paid.

I'm just injecting some logical original thought. I can hardly wait to hear how stupid I am for even thinking such thoughts.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by dumbass

As a BUSINESS OWNER what part of Government MANDATED are you having a problem comprehending??

Oh, I comprehend that completely. If you would pay attention the fact check I posted on this said it was government mandated under the Reagan admin, expanded to cell phones under the Bush admin. I also comprehend that this was not an action of this administration. HG claimed Obama expanded it - that is complete bullshit. There was no administration expansions of this.

I see HG has you as a partner in comprehension issues.

Originally Posted by dumbass

That should be analyzed to see just the 2/3 of the public you are talking about consists of. It sounds like a pretty substantial majority and in fact it is. That would be 2/3 of the voters being in favor of raising taxes on anyone but themselves.

We are talking about the increase in federal income taxes for the top taxpayers in the country. We know that 50% of the population pays no federal taxes at all. Rounding up the 2/3 majority that you reference would be roughly 66%. If you were to subtract the 50% that pay no taxes from the majority that you reference that would leave 16% of the population that actually pays taxes being in favor of raising taxes. The remaining 16% would more than likely consist of the lower middle class that wouldn't be effected by the tax increase either. That 66% would encompass the unaffected people people and those who would have a victim mentality, getting even by raising taxes on those rich bastards that screwed them out of what is or was, in their opinion, rightfully theirs. Why the hell wouldn't they favor the tax increase.

Just an abstract thought. Maybe votes could be allocated in proportion to the "FAIR SHARE" of taxes paid.

I'm just injecting some logical original thought. I can hardly wait to hear how stupid I am for even thinking such thoughts.

No, you can't subtract the "50%"... which is actually 47% (what, you can't remember Romney sticking his foot in his mouth?). A lot of these 47% vote Republican, and have bought the GOP talking points on this. Just look at the red states and their populations that pay no income taxes.

And, BTW, most still pay payroll taxes.

BTW: Citizens United already "proportionally allocates" votes in an abstract way.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

Oh, I comprehend that completely. If you would pay attention the fact check I posted on this said it was government mandated under the Reagan admin, expanded to cell phones under the Bush admin. I also comprehend that this was not an action of this administration. HG claimed Obama expanded it - that is complete bullshit. There was no administration expansions of this.

I have acknowledged when and who initially mandated the LifeLine program and that it was expanded to include Cell Phones under Bush. From there you are into "CYHA" (Cover Your Hero's Ass") mode. It is an undeniable fact that the program expanded under the first three years of the Obama administration from a cost of about $775 Million dollars in '08 to $1.6 Billion dollars per year on Obama's watch. I have been unable to find PSAs advertising the program prior to '08.

Another question that I'll ask you; Why are these phones called "OBAMA PHONES? Why aren't they called Reagan Phones of Bush Phones?

I see HG has you as a partner in comprehension issues.

For once I agree with your acknowledgement that we both possess excellent comprehension skills.

No, you can't subtract the "50%"... which is actually 47% (what, you can't remember Romney sticking his foot in his mouth?).

You're confused again. The 47% were people receiving some form of Government assistance. The 50% number accurately depicts the percentage of people that pay no Federal Income Tax. If you're going to pick the fly shit out of the pepper pay attention to what you're doing

A lot of these 47% vote Republican, and have bought the GOP talking points on this. Just look at the red states and their populations that pay no income taxes.

So what's your point?

And, BTW, most still pay payroll taxes.

Again, What's your point. This increase is only pertaining to Federal Income Taxes and has nothing to do with payroll taxes at all.

[pgh69]

Originally Posted by NOLA

Answer is no........he once referred to communist Tzars.

I missed that...file that under Founding Father George Washington Carver.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by dumbass

I have acknowledged when and who initially mandated the LifeLine program and that it was expanded to include Cell Phones under Bush. From there you are into "CYHA" (Cover Your Hero's Ass") mode. It is an undeniable fact that the program expanded under the first three years of the Obama administration from a cost of about $775 Million dollars in '08 to $1.6 Billion dollars per year on Obama's watch. I have been unable to find PSAs advertising the program prior to '08.

Listen, dumbass: it is not on "Obama's watch". You still don't get the fact (yes, FACT) That this has ZERO to do with the Obama admin. Just how dumb are you trying to prove yourself to be? Show me the proof of a PSA from the Obama admin on the phone program. You can't, because you pulled that out of your ass. You haven't been able to find said PSA at all. The "program" is no government program at all. All "expansion" is under private enterprise.
This isn't cover anyone's ass. This is you and HG making shit up because you can't make a case on facts. And this is pushback from the complete `

You have gone from the ridiculous to the absurd.

Obama Phones? You are a patsy for the absurd bullshit slingers.

I can't believe this is a real issue to anybody with at least half of a brain.

Originally Posted by dumbass

Another question that I'll ask you; Why are these phones called "OBAMA PHONES? Why aren't they called Reagan Phones of Bush Phones?

You really have no idea of the marketing world, do you? You guys bitch about Obama's "celebrity" , then wonder why a celebrity name is associated with marketing. So either you really are a dumbass, or your talking out of both sides of your ass again.
But really, what a dumb and irrelevant question.

Originally Posted by dumbass

For once I agree with your acknowledgement that we both possess excellent comprehension skills.

LOL!!! Obama phones... ACORN.... climate change deniers....
Yeah, you guys got a great track record for comprehension.

Originally Posted by dumbass

You're confused again. The 47% were people receiving some form of Government assistance. The 50% number accurately depicts the percentage of people that pay no Federal Income Tax. If you're going to pick the fly shit out of the pepper pay attention to what you're doing.

Well thanks for proving WHO has the comprehension problem. Here is Romney's quote:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people."

So are you lying, have comprehension problems, or truly are a dumbass? It has to be one of the 3, or some combination.

Originally Posted by dumbass

So what's your point?

See above.
dumbass

Originally Posted by dumbass

Again, What's your point. This increase is only pertaining to Federal Income Taxes and has nothing to do with payroll taxes at all.

It has everything to do with the point. These people pay taxes. The only difference is the classification of the tax. Both classifications have to do with taxes on earning a living. And BTW: payroll taxes are part of the debate.

But here is the ultimate point: discussion of real issues or substance are not possible with those of you who focus on absurdities, who can't keep a story straight, and yes, you have comprehension and/or honesty issues.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by madmax

Listen, dumbass: it is not on "Obama's watch". You still don't get the fact (yes, FACT) That this has ZERO to do with the Obama admin. Just how dumb are you trying to prove yourself to be? Show me the proof of a PSA from the Obama admin on the phone program. You can't, because you pulled that out of your ass. You haven't been able to find said PSA at all. The "program" is no government program at all. All "expansion" is under private enterprise.
This isn't cover anyone's ass. This is you and HG making shit up because you can't make a case on facts. And this is pushback from the complete `

You have gone from the ridiculous to the absurd.

Obama Phones? You are a patsy for the absurd bullshit slingers.

I can't believe this is a real issue to anybody with at least half of a brain.

Pushback from the "COMPLETE" what??

I just erased a paragraph that came down to your level with no substance at all just as your rant above is completely devoid of substance.

I'll keep it simple and factual. and refrain from the personal attacks that serve no purpose at all.

1. I never said that PSA's were "from" the Obama administration. The "FROM" was your enhancement of my comment.

2. I did say that I couldn't find any prior to '08. (I Stand by that)

3. The PSA's are mandated by the FCC.
Reference: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-refo...eline-program- low-income-americans-0%0A (ADOPTED JANUARY 1, 2012)

4. The specific rule covering the PSA requirement, “Section 214(e)(1)(B) of the Act requires ETCs to advertise the availability of services" , can be found using Ref#271 in the above FCC Report.

5. There are way too many specific PSA's to reference all of them but AARP has been extremely active in disseminating Lifeline Information. Just to reference two;

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/inde...line_phon.html

This is an Op-ED from Jeff Abramo who is AARP New Jersey associate state director for communications.

http://vote.aarp.org/race-detail.do?id=10282713

This is CT AARP sponsored voter information includes their support of Lifeline programs as well as candidate positions on the same.

6. You lied when you falsely stated "The "program" is no government program at all."

Again referencing and quoting directly from the FCC Report:

Reference: FCC #275
“We also require ETCs to explain on certification forms that Lifeline is a government benefit program….”

Reference: FCC #274
“Consumers may not understand that these products are Lifeline-supported offerings entailing a government benefit,”

Although you may be somewhat correct when you stated "All "expansion" is under private enterprise." That would only be true to the extent that the actual expansion is physically and contractually done by "Private Enterprise" but the outreach with the specific goal of expanding the program is "MANDATED" by the federal government. Again:See FCC Report referenced above

I've found reams of additional information but I've produced ample, factual, documented, referenced, substantive information from impeccably reliable sources to completely discredit your sophomoric rant that contained nothing of substance to the contrary at all.

I will admit that the Lifeline Program has merit but the dramatic expansion has occurred under the Obama Administrations watch and it is just one of many publicly funded programs that are exploited to influence voters. Again, I've never heard of the term "Bush Phone" or "Reagan Phone" but I damn sure heard the term "Obama Phone" nor have I ever heard Obama disclaim the program. In me opinion he likes the term because it serves to his benefit.

The remainder of your rant is nothing more that you're penchant for hearing yourself say how smart you think you are. I don't care to engage in that.