Obama Phone ?

[Lohman446]

Nice straw man argument. Yout set it up and knocked it down with great flair. I'm not exactly certain whose argument you are attacking because it surely was not mine.

judging from this thread, it looks like a day to show how uninformed half the population is because of there rumor mill conservative media.

You keep ignoring this statement you made. Are you now going to try to craft an argument that this statement (the one you made) is not condescending? Or are you going to elect to attempt another red herring or straw man argument?

[Ando]

i have never stated an opinion, and have never claimed a status

So all this diarrhea flowing out your mouth is what? A statement of how un-opinionated you are?

i also never claimed anything i found was purely factual.

Really?!?!?!

So...the link you posted was what...A nonfactual opinion you support?

No sane person would do that.

[going_home]

this is my first post in this thread, the one that destroyed the thread, 100% complete and unedited:
.

That was the point of my last post.
You destroyed nothing.
Your post was irrelevant.
And full of loose.
The program exists.

All you proved was you don't like the nickname the program has been christened.

Even the people that have the phones use that nickname.

Good luck on YouTube.

[cockerpunk]

Nice straw man argument. Yout set it up and knocked it down with great flair. I'm not exactly certain whose argument you are attacking because it surely was not mine.



You keep ignoring this statement you made. Are you now going to try to craft an argument that this statement (the one you made) is not condescending? Or are you going to elect to attempt another red herring or straw man argument?

i already fully explain that quote. see post #34

So all this diarrhea flowing out your mouth is what? A statement of how un-opinionated you are?


Really?!?!?!

So...the link you posted was what...A nonfactual opinion you support?

No sane person would do that.

you accused me that anyone who did not share my opinion was wrong. since i have not stated one, that doesn't make sense.

you said purely factual. no where did i claim everything in that link is purely factual.

That was the point of my last post.
You destroyed nothing.
Your post was irrelevant.
And full of loose.
The program exists.

All you proved was you don't like the nickname the program has been christened.

Even the people that have the phones use that nickname.

Good luck on YouTube.

i never claimed a program didn't exist. it is however fundamentally different then the conservative media has reported it to be. i have no problem with the name, i even have probably used it more in this thread then anyone else. i have a problem with the notion that the program operates in any way similar to how the conservative rumor mill has reported it to work.

[going_home]

conservative rumor mill

i never claimed a program didn't exist. it is however fundamentally different then the conservative media has reported it to be. i have no problem with the name, i even have probably used it more in this thread then anyone else. i have a problem with the notion that the program operates in any way similar to how the conservative rumor mill has reported it to work.

Dude.

All I did was post a couple Youtubes and a link.

Where did Fox news come into play ?

I know in past posts of yours in here your thought pattern almost always revolves around
Fox news.

Its amazing how much hate Fox generates, topping the most watched list,
while their counterparts like CNN and MSNBC etc etc barely have any audience at all.

But that aside, again, I posted a couple Youtubes and a link.

You know Youtube, owned by Google, owned buy two of the most liberal billionaires on the planet ?

Dont you post your diaries on Youtube ?

I heard once you do.

[Ando]

Everyone stop feeding the troll.

[Lohman446]

i already fully explain that quote. see post #34.

Your explanation was a conclusion with no supporting evidence. As your conclusion was that there was nothing insulting about calling half of the population uninformed I rejected it as lacking face validity. You still continue to insist that your statement was not insulting or for that matter condescending.

So no you did not fully explain how the quote was not insulting or condescending.

[dahoeb]

Without digging into which administration started it or the intimate details of the issue, the idea that government welfare has become so perverse that it is helping people buy a phone is pretty depressing.

The only welfare that government should be providing (in my humble, slightly libertarian opinion) is only the most basic of things in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only for a limited amount of time. A phone does not come close to that threshold.

[going_home]

[BigEvil]

Without digging into which administration started it or the intimate details of the issue, the idea that government welfare has become so perverse that it is helping people buy a phone is pretty depressing.

The only welfare that government should be providing (in my humble, slightly libertarian opinion) is only the most basic of things in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only for a limited amount of time. A phone does not come close to that threshold.

^
This guy is the man

[Me�iCX]

Without digging into which administration started it or the intimate details of the issue, the idea that government welfare has become so perverse that it is helping people buy a phone is pretty depressing.

The only welfare that government should be providing (in my humble, slightly libertarian opinion) is only the most basic of things in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only for a limited amount of time. A phone does not come close to that threshold.

Well said!

[OPBN]

Without digging into which administration started it or the intimate details of the issue, the idea that government welfare has become so perverse that it is helping people buy a phone is pretty depressing.

The only welfare that government should be providing (in my humble, slightly libertarian opinion) is only the most basic of things in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only for a limited amount of time. A phone does not come close to that threshold.

Totally agree with this. but I think that the idea of having a phone is more for emergency use in households that have kids. In todays world, I think most people would agree that a phone, much like food, running water, and electricity is a necessity. Its pretty difficult to get a job if you can't afford a phone to get callbacks from potential employers.

The problem is that the system was most likely created with these intentions in mind and has devolved into the inevitable abuse that is inherent when lazy people, bent on abusing the system to get what they feel society owes them when they in turn add no value to society other than being a leech. are given hand outs.

[dahoeb]

Totally agree with this. but I think that the idea of having a phone is more for emergency use in households that have kids. In todays world, I think most people would agree that a phone, much like food, running water, and electricity is a necessity. Its pretty difficult to get a job if you can't afford a phone to get callbacks from potential employers.
The problem is that the system was most likely created with these intentions in mind and has devolved into the inevitable abuse that is inherent when lazy people, bent on abusing the system to get what they feel society owes them when they in turn add no value to society other than being a leech. are given hand outs.

Exactly. Any type of welfare program is always done with the best of intentions and like clockwork, they are always taken advantage of. When creating these programs, government NEVER takes human nature into account (or maybe they do and just prefer to advertise the "rosier" numbers for political expediency). This is why communism/socialism inevitably fails. They always assume that people are robots without dynamic behavior, emotions or thought-processes.

[Lohman446]

Exactly. Any type of welfare program is always done with the best of intentions and like clockwork, they are always taken advantage of. When creating these programs, government NEVER takes human nature into account (or maybe they do and just prefer to advertise the "rosier" numbers for political expediency). This is why communism/socialism inevitably fails. They always assume that people are robots without dynamic behavior, emotions or thought-processes.

Actually ever so techinically socialism, as defined by Marx does not. The theory behind socialism is, summed up easily, from each according to their abilities to each according to their DEEDs. It is communism that changes the face of it into from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs. The problem is even Marx acknowledged that communism actually working would required a fundamental adjustment of human nature and theorized it could only be done over time. Socialism is simply an adjustment to the ownership of the means of production. It does not, at least in Marxist theory, allow for people to simply take from the system without putting in.

[dahoeb]

Actually ever so techinically socialism, as defined by Marx does not. The theory behind socialism is, summed up easily, from each according to their abilities to each according to their DEEDs. It is communism that changes the face of it into from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs. The problem is even Marx acknowledged that communism actually working would required a fundamental adjustment of human nature and theorized it could only be done over time. Socialism is simply an adjustment to the ownership of the means of production. It does not, at least in Marxist theory, allow for people to simply take from the system without putting in.

Well that's pretty interesting. I've never heard that distinction, I'm going to have to brush up on my Karl Marx readings (some day).