Patterico's Pontifications

9/28/2012

Obama’s Giving Me a Phone and Don’t You Dare Notice How Dumb I Sound, Racist!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:48 am

Drudge linked this video yesterday of an Obama voter explaining her support for the President — namely: Obama gave her a phone!!!!

The details of how people are getting free phones from the federal government, and how that came to be, are worthy of discussion. But in this post I want to focus on the fact that people are trying to call this video RAAAAACIST!! — or, at least, racially charged. Here is Elspeth Reeve from the Atlantic Wire, asking: Just How Racist Is the Obama Phone? Her answer is somewhat:

Is this video racist?

Let’s start by saying it’s racial. The Obama Phone video belongs to a genre popular on conservative blogs in which poor people, usually black, confirm conservatives’ worst 47-percent fears by saying they can get something for nothing because Obama’s in office. The message is, “Here’s what Obama’s supporters really look like.”

The standout in the category is “Obama money”: Back in October 2009, big lines formed formed for Detroit housing assistance applications after the city underestimated how many people would show up to apply. The scene was chaotic, and local TV reported there were rumors that $3,000 checks would be handed out.

The meme on rightwing blogs became that it was an angry mob in search of “Obama money.” A Detroit radio station interviewed people in line for “Obama money.” One woman says, “I don’t know where he got it from but he’s giving it to us. … O-BA-MA O-BA-MA!” Rush Limbaugh excerpted the audio, saying, “This is the model citizen in Barack Obama’s vision.” He continued:

“These are the people who would be wealthy and rich today were it not for the fact that the achievers of this society since this country was founded stole everything they had. And so Obama looks at these people as victims of an unjust and immoral country, and by God, he’s going to make sure that they think he’s making it all good for them. And they all do. Dumb, uninformed, shockingly, saddeningly stupid, the model citizen for Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.”

Drudge’s only commentary with the Obama Phone video is “OBAMA HAS MY VOTE, HE GAVE ME A FREE PHONE,” but the conservative internet quickly picked up a broader electoral theme: this is what the 47 percent — the people Mitt Romney referred to as “dependent upon government” at a secretly taped fundraiser — looks like.

This is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be said, but obviously it does.

The above video is hilarious. It is representative of a group of Obama voters who feel entitled to handouts from government. It does not matter what the color of the speaker is. It’s news.

The same goes for any woman who says: “I don’t know where he got it from but he’s giving it to us. … O-BA-MA O-BA-MA!”

Conservatives should not have to shy away from such amusing examples of entitlement mentality simply because the particular proponent of that mentality happens to be black.

And anyone who says different might just have a race problem of their own.

218 Comments

  1. Racists

    Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:49 am

  2. This place is turning into StormFront

    Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:58 am

  3. I like it when the left accuses conservatives of somehow being responsible for what those peope with an entitlement mindset say in public.

    Makes me feel all powerful and stuff.

    Comment by Icy (f5a1fc) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:59 am

  4. The principle of res ipsa loquitur (Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”) rules here.

    Comment by Neo (d1c681) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:59 am

  5. If you didn’t give me a phone, you suck.

    That’s my new criterion for whether people suck.

    All of you? You suck.

    Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:02 am

  6. Does Elspeth go to the New Black Panthers for the liberal perspective on an issue ?

    Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:03 am

  7. The entire metaphor of a “dog whistle,” is that only dogs can actually hear the whistle.
    So, by definition, if the lefties at The Atlantic, Daily Kos, Media Matters, or MSLSD “hear” something particularly racially motivated in saying, “golf,” “Chicago,” “free phone,” or “food stamps,” it’s more likely that they happen to associate black people with those things in a negative context.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:06 am

  8. My wife’s smartphone was recently stolen and I had to replace it (out of my pocket since I don’t pay Verizon protection money).

    $400 later.

    Where’s my free phone?

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:10 am

  9. Just another typical Government Program that starts out providing landlines for people to call 911 to a program that ends up providing “gangbangers” an ability to quickly call their “circle of friends”.

    Comment by radioone (2121f8) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:12 am

  10. This is the same thing that children of divorce do:
    “Mommy bought me a phone; daddy didn’t buy me jack! I vote to live with mommy.”

    Comment by Icy (f5a1fc) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:15 am

  11. Who said anything about gangbangers?

    Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:17 am

  12. SPQR, just pay the protection money. Cave, man, cave!

    Comment by Icy (f5a1fc) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:18 am

  13. Why did the Patterico blog filter screen out my mention of the ophone yesterday?

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:21 am

  14. SPQR, wouldn’t your Homeowner’s Policy cover the theft of a personal item?

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:33 am

  15. I’m thinking of retiring my Star-Tac; does this “free phone” gambit involve actually having to visit an OFA office to sign-up?

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:35 am

  16. AD, yes. Guess what my deductable is …

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:38 am

  17. AMEN!!! The person speaking could well have been a white male – there are more and more of them appearing every day, it seems…..if you go by the #Occupy crowd as an indicator.

    This is the Alinsky tactic of throwing down the race card to stifle debate. It IS news, and that is why it must be STIFLED. The real raaaaacists (or prejudiced ones) are those who see people as groups by skin color, income level, sex, etc. Democrats seem to attract them in DROVES.

    Keep on, keeping on! Don’t let the Frankfort School of PC speech-stifling lefties keep you from speaking TRUTH!

    Comment by DINORightMarie (e6659a) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:41 am

  18. ______________________________________________

    an Obama voter explaining her support for the President

    It’s not just Obama per se, it’s mindless liberalism in general that fuels such people. Most people on the left will happily tolerate a ton of corruption, anomie, decline and failure, far, far more than the way that most people on the right do. Too many of those like that woman would prefer a government (from the president on down) that was 100% white and liberal compared with a government that was 100% black and conservative or even truly centrist.

    I can’t think of a single conservative, rock-ribbed Republican version of areas like Detroit and Oakland, the tattered sections of New York, LA, Chicago, Cleveland or Washington DC, or countries like Mexico, France or Argentina. Perhaps there are, I’m just not aware of them.

    Beyond that, I’d say the following is a peculiar mix of the aforementioned mindless liberalism combined with a bit of cult-of-personality (as shaped by the modern, I’m-okay-you’re-okay industrialized world), sprinkled with some racism—but not in the way that most on the left like to define “racism”:

    blogs.telegraph.co.uk, Tim Stanley, June 13, 2012:

    The (predominantly white) Europeans still love Obama; his approval rating in the EU has dropped by only six points, from 86 percent in 2009 to 80 percent in 2012. He is also adored in Japan, where the figure has fallen from 85 to 74 percent. But in the bits in between Europe and Japan, the picture is uglier.

    Few Russians ever liked Obama (36 percent) and few still do (35 percent). In Mexico, his rating has dropped from 55 percent to 42 percent (something that is surely electorally significant), and in China it has declined from 62 to just 38 percent. Significantly in Russia, China and Mexico, the USA as a country is far more popular than Obama – these low ratings are personal and not a knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

    Obama’s lowest ratings are among Muslim countries. There his favourable rating has slipped from 33 to 24 percent, which still makes him a little more popular than the USA (15 percent). Why does the Islamic world dislike Obama so much? To take the Spike Lee thesis, it could be rampant racism. Perhaps the people of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan and Turkey have decided that they can’t take four more years of a person of colour who has been labelled by some Right-wing loons as a Muslim born in Kenya. Perhaps that’s why slightly high proportions preferred George W Bush to Obama. They’re all a bunch of birthers.

    Comment by Mark (6d5e0d) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:42 am

  19. You have nothing to lose but your cellphone, you have nothing to gain but your foodstamps.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:44 am

  20. If all these videos indicate anything “racial”, it is how poorly the public schools work in the “inner city.”

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:50 am

  21. Here is a story about the people of Cuba who supported Casto. It was only after he was in office that they realized, under his tyranny, that he was a communist. So, do we have that now with Obama? His supporters just didn’t know he was a communist until we started seeing the highest rate of food stamps, downsizing of our average income by $3,000 a yr.?

    Here’s a book that’s a must read of average Americans taking a stand against tyranny so I recommend it. It’s a thriller & must read. ( http://www.booksbyoliver.com )

    At least someone becomes an activist to defend our country. And no, the ‘free phone’ is not free. The other half paid for it. Great article. Thanks!

    Comment by MountainHome (a41dd7) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:04 am

  22. I heard this played on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday and some of this (the woman who talks about Obama’s stash) I heard years ago.

    I think all this is from 2009.

    And this is actually probably a Bush program.

    And people aren’t looking for phones – they are being told, mostly by the carrier, that they can get them (although one person there seems to think this is something special for blacks (something that a local political office might have got them to believe)

    This is a nationwide program.

    It’s called Lifeline.

    Lifeline was originally exemption from certain federal taxes on telephone service. People got charged minimal rates – like $1.00 – for basic phone service and otherwise pay per call. I am not sure if there was any subsidy.

    The argument was that elderly people, who might have medical emergencies – and everybody else as well – need to have phone service.

    I think there was no charge for installation – and since the early 1980s , the cost of installing telephone service has really risen a lot. It’s so high that many people now don’t have standard phone service. I am not sure if that was subsidized, or the state regulator didn’t let them charge.

    This was strictly local service – for long distance, if they wanted it, or even regional calling, they would have to pay the standard price.

    Originally there was not much review – there tends now to be some requalification requirements.

    Then came the extreme popularity of cell phones. The argument was that it shouldn’t be necessary to have a landline phone to get Lifeline – or that Lifeline shouldn’t just apply to landlines. Everybody now uses cellphones was the argument.

    So it was extended to cell phones – the condition still being of course that any individual could only have one phone covered by Lifeline – although the providers don’t make that all so clear in their initial telephone marketing calls.

    But not so many people who are eligible for Lifeline have it or even know about it.

    With exemption from telephone taxes, and the FCC line charge etc, the carriers – I think the main one is Assurance wireless – the carrier could offer somewhat bad telephone service for something like $22 a month – and throw in the phone, as usual, for free. The phone really costs something like $10, maybe less, to the carrier. (most cell phones when sold without a plan, are tremendously overpriced. Certainly a cell phone that is only a phone, with some text messaging capabilities, does not cost much to manufacture.

    And because every cell phone plan now has free long distance – and it doesn’t cost more to deliver it – they get free long distance with the cellphone, which they don’t have with a landline.

    And this can be an extra phone, if it is put in the name of a person whose name is not on the landline. (if there is one)

    Because of the way it’s marketed, people think they are getting (valuable) free cell phones.

    In reality, they’re just getting exemption from some federal taxes. A discounted service.

    Now as with all such things, there are catches.

    I know someone who had Lifeline who moved to California partly to be near his daughter and infant granddaughter – first to an assisted living place, but when it became clear it was much too expensive, given the amount of his Social Security he got together with another inmate and moved to an apartment half a block away. Although not before incurring many $34 overdraft charges from Chase. Soon after he arrived, his phone stopped working, but the company refused to fix it because he was no longer living in New York, and his Lifeline was tied to New York. So, being somewhat desperate for a phone to stay in contact with his daughter someone drove him into town and he quickly signed up for another plan and got another phone. Only this one cost him $50 a month, and it’s no longer a local number.

    I guess he could get Lifeline, and pay maybe about $25 less a month, but that’s a complicated process and he doesn’t know anything about it.

    As with many such social welfare programs, it’s not that you call them – they call you. Somebody arranges this for somebody else.

    That was tre in this video too.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:10 am

  23. I prefer to vote for a candidate who will provide me with more freedom, rather than more freephone.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:11 am

  24. Comment by SPQR — 9/28/2012 @ 8:38 am

    See, she should have gotten the more expensive (super)phone that you wouldn’t let her have.
    (Heh!)

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:12 am

  25. This lady is the genesis of a new word….”freedumb.”

    It’d make a great bumper sticker…”Give me freedom—not freedumb !”

    Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:14 am

  26. The quoted piece didn’t say it was racist. It said it was racial.

    I guess it boils down to whether or not you think negative stereotypes about black people are harmful or not. It probably also matters if you think insulting stereotypes that have been used to justify systemic discrimination should be shunned.

    Also, since when did being racist make something be not funny?

    Can’t it be a funny video that perpetuates a nasty stereotype about why black people want to vote for Obama?

    Comment by time123 (33ce8e) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:19 am

  27. Why is it a stereotype? The lady does not seem to be an actress on SNL — she looks like she’s saying what she thinks.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:28 am

  28. Magnificent submit, very informative. I ponder why the opposite specialists of this sector do not understand this. You should proceed your writing. I am sure, you have a great readers’ base already!|What’s Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve discovered It absolutely helpful and it has helped me out loads. I’m hoping to give a contribution & assist other customers like its aided me. Great job.

    Comment by visit (a20315) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:30 am

  29. They are handing out the free phones to you can get update e-credits for beer and condoms

    Comment by EPWJ (8a4ca7) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:31 am

  30. so you can get updated e-credits – sorry

    Comment by EPWJ (8a4ca7) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:32 am

  31. Facts:

    -There is no Obama phone. Never has been.

    -There is a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone.

    And guess who started it?

    It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush.

    -Even more–guess who originated it?

    The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984.

    -The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.

    I know truth is hard. But that’s what you’re screaming for, right? Truth?

    Think. Don’t be manipulated–they expect you get aroused like enraged fools.

    Comment by Jan (91d17b) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:35 am

  32. The Obama “truth team” (that’s either an oxymoron or a sad indicator that it takes an entire team to ferret out the truth) has already thrown this woman under the bus, responding to the video with “The President has nothing to do with this program”.

    Comment by Icy (f5a1fc) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:44 am

  33. I guess it boils down to whether or not you think negative stereotypes about black people are harmful or not.

    What she said was stupid. Full stop. Her skin color has nothing to do with it.

    Comment by JD (191dc1) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:46 am

  34. Comment by nk — 9/28/2012 @ 9:28 am

    Just as did the lady four-years ago who was all jazzed that Obama was going to “pay (her) mortgage, buy (her) gas”.

    We elected the greatest huckster since P.T.Barnum – with the same murky history as The Piltdown Man!

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:47 am

  35. Jan – you should direct your anger at the lady in the video.

    Comment by JD (191dc1) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:48 am

  36. Facts: In 2008 the program was $700 Million. Now it is 1.6 Billion.

    Left that one out. Maybe you shouldn’t be manipulated.

    Comment by FACTS: Left out (fd7fc0) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:51 am

  37. Wow, an increase of ONLY $900,000,000.00.
    What are they giving out, Ipads?

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:58 am

  38. I’m not defending her stupidity. And she may very well represent the stupidity of all Obama supporters, even all black people. But a stereotype is something that’s created by one group about another group. And nobody created this for her. She created it herself. There is no racial, racist, female, menopausal … any kind of, stereotype, here. Just a stupid black woman talking stupid.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:58 am

  39. Oh, nk . . .

    Comment by Icy (f5a1fc) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:01 am

  40. Having written a large check to Verizon this very morning, I promise to stop being RACIST if Obama gives me a free iphone.

    “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
    John Adams, Letter, April 15, 1814

    Comment by Bugg (234f77) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:07 am

  41. As good a definition of stereotype as any, Icy. Safe. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stereotype

    “The Princess Bride”. “You keep using that word. I don’t it means what you think it means.”

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:07 am

  42. don’t *think*

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:08 am

  43. Jan – the negative for Obama seen by me is not that he created a giveaway program, but that this person is so ready to credit him with the program (in ignorance) and expresses that Obama will give her more.

    Its not the truth of the matter asserted, but *that* she asserted it and appears to sincerely believe it.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:15 am

  44. This is a stereotype. For both men. Will Rogers and Steppin Fetchit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbzYV03z9rs

    We’re long past that.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:16 am

  45. Report is that she was one of many people hired at $11.00/hr to show up. Who is more ignorant, the woman, or people who hire her to be a representative spokesperson? Does it matter?

    Yes, even before George Bush there was a program where people who “could not afford a phone” with a medical necessity could get one that was very limited in functionality, like you can call your doctor, 911, and I’m not sure just what, but nothing like “every minority on food stamps in Cleveland has an Obamaphone”.

    I will agree with Jan on one thing, that Obama is happy to take credit for anything good Bush ever did, while blaming him for his own failures.

    Yes, truth is hard.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:18 am

  46. In one way the video is funny, but I think that is more sad and embarrassing. “Bread and circuses” has been changed to “food stamps and cell phones”.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:21 am

  47. SarahW

    I wonder in all these giveaways whether Obama even likes his constiuents. After all, lets look exactly at what he’s been giving away – its not focused on what people truely need – its focused on what he thinks will get him elected.

    Bush – for better or worse – enacted programs that he felt in his heart would benefit all mankind – NCLB, medicare part D, Homeland security, The Dream Act, etc.

    Argue for or against these programs – they were designed to help (notwithstanding the costs) everyone in general.

    Such was the motivations of the man Obama blames daily.

    Comment by EPWJ (8a4ca7) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:23 am

  48. Wanna a “stereotype?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:30 am

  49. Jan..

    Facts are a bitch….

    Started in 1997….Seems to be that George Bush was not around then….and it was 11 years before his Presidency…

    Now, I know that you’ll argue that the “very specific” Lifeline program was started under Bush…so

    Facts are still a bitch…

    Since these, and several other sites, talk about “two decades” of the Lifeline program, how did it start under a president that wasn’t in office when it started?

    All this represents is another way of giving someone something that they don’t want to get on their own under the guise of “everyone else has it, so I have to as well.”

    Redistribution….

    Comment by reff (4dcda2) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:30 am

  50. Wanna a stereotype? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE34NoPgX5g

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:31 am

  51. You may pick your stereotype. Mine is that all the “high school girls” “teenagers” (who said black?) have fat behinds.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:35 am

  52. Who pays for the website ‘obamaphone.net’?

    Comment by luagha (5cbe06) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:36 am

  53. ____________________________________________

    It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush.
    -Even more–guess who originated it?

    And some of the biggest blunders associated with Republican White Houses — including Iran-Contra, or “read my lips…,” or bloated budgets (which George “compassionate-conservative” Bush never vetoed), or Nixon galore, or Hoover’s tax-and-spend of the 1930s — can be traced to when they throttled up the left-leaning side of their biases.

    That’s why I think in today’s era, more than ever before, one has to be an ultra-liberal (or ultra-ultra liberal) to be bothered by the idea of a Republican in the White House, even more so when he’d be a former governor of uber-blue Massachusetts.

    I can understand why a person in the context of the US in 2012 will be disturbed by any president being be too squishy and liberal. But to be bothered that he might be too conservative, too Republican? That he might take away abortion rights…or animal rights? That he might be a big meanie to gays who want to marry and folks who want kids in public schools to be taught about “GLBT”? Or that he might be too easygoing about companies that emit too much (horror of horrors!) carbon dioxide?

    A liberal in the context of over 50 years ago was one thing. To be a liberal in today’s era is a sign of one’s extremism and idiocy.

    Comment by Mark (6d5e0d) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:41 am

  54. Hamas.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:41 am

  55. SarahW gets right to the crux of the entirely non-racial issue upthread and it’s very simple. The You Tube lady seems to genuinely believe that Obama gave her that phone, or alternatively that only because of Obama being president does she have that phone. She appears to think that she would not have it otherwise and would likely lose it under another administration. The taxpayers or the contributory funding by cell phone providers for existing and ongoing safety net government programs had nothing whatsoever to do with it in her mind. OBAMA gave her that phone to use. I wonder how she came up with that idea don’t you? To me it’s not stupidity as much as it is evidence of her having been programmed to think that way–or something.

    Comment by elissa (f12377) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:47 am

  56. Can’t bend wire that’s not soft, elissa.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:52 am

  57. I’m not sure she’s stupid at all. I think she’s saying exactly what she has chosen to say. She’s at that rally, has a camera pointed at her, and she says what she says because she’s come there to say it. Obama is terrific, and Romney sucks.

    Those of you who think that she’s ill-informed or simpleminded are overlooking another option: she could be a lying partisan hack.

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:53 am

  58. Manipulative and deceptive welfare recipient, Pious Agnostic? Really?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:57 am

  59. Shocking to contemplate, I know, nk.

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:58 am

  60. And then the question goes, why is this lady w***** for Obama and I am not. The circle of dependence birthed by stupidity and ineducation.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:59 am

  61. OH absentee ballot requests:

    http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/27/tracking-ohios-absentee-ballot-requests/

    R running 101% of 2008, D 61%.

    Things is different.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:03 am

  62. ____________________________________________

    Just a stupid black woman talking stupid.

    And to witness a stupid white man talking stupid, take a close look at this character.

    When I try to imagine what the various liberals who post to this forum are like, I see them as being not too different from the guy in the video. The real kicker is that most of those on the left actually fall for the notion that their biases emanate from a place of great compassion, humaneness, generosity and sophistication.

    But they at least can be somewhat excused if they’re still rather young, as is the white guy who says the Libyan ambassador had it coming to him. But when they’re as old as a Barry Obama, a Chris Matthews or a George Soros, that is when their condition enters the realm of the intrinsically defective.

    Comment by Mark (6d5e0d) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:05 am

  63. “And to witness a stupid white man talking stupid, take a close look at this character.”

    Mark – I thought you were going to link to a clip of Joe Biden.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:22 am

  64. What is a stereotype, really? It’s all about | -> ))). Let me explain.

    Half a century ago I ran a stereotype machine on evening shift on the morning paper.

    I would press flat hand-set type into a flexible paper matrix. Then I’d insert that in the stereotype machine, bent around in a half-circle.
    Then I’d pour molten metal into the mold thus formed. The impressions from pressing the original flat type were filled in by the casting metal, and the net effect was a curved copy of the flat type.

    I’d cast as many stereotypes as were required to run the rotary presses.

    Comment by phunktor (ee0916) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:23 am

  65. phunktor, I wonder why they named that particular piece of technology after the racist practice of stereotyping people….

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:25 am

  66. Racists!

    Comment by The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:27 am

  67. Lovie’s nonsense never gets old.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:30 am

  68. This is the part that made me say “Oh, nk . . .”
    she may very well represent the stupidity of all Obama supporters, even all black people

    Comment by Icy (f5a1fc) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:32 am

  69. Is it me or is there something about that black woman on the video that eerily reminds one of Tracy Morgan? :)

    Comment by The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:37 am

  70. So wait a minute, in a sense Romney was referring to blacks mainly in his famous 47% speech, right?

    Comment by The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:45 am

  71. No, lovie. Who is the racist now?

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:46 am

  72. Two questions. Is Elspeth Reeve still married to fabulist Scott Beauchamp? With that fiasco on her resume how did she find work at the Atlantic?

    Comment by NC Mountain Girl (b751bc) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:49 am

  73. @jd.
    Then why use this video to try to put a face on Romney’s comment about the 47% he doesn’t care about? My understanding here is that this woman represents the type of people that would vote for Obama: poor, broke, black, dependent, dumb, victimized Americans. You cannot have it both ways.

    Comment by The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:52 am

  74. This video is about the Obama supporter, though it does highlight your leftist entitlement mentality. However, the skin color of the person has nothing to do with it. Why are leftists obsessed with skin color, as opposed to content of character? Continue on with your squirrel moments, lovie.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:56 am

  75. You cannot have it both ways

    I do not accept your false choice and your BS narrative.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:58 am

  76. See, Romney is right. The poor folk assume all the free stuff came from Obama, even if it is not true. So Romney can never buy their vote, can he?

    Comment by AZ Bob (7d2a2c) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:00 pm

  77. Two questions. Is Elspeth Reeve still married to fabulist Scott Beauchamp? With that fiasco on her resume how did she find work at the Atlantic?

    Really?! I hadn’t heard that filthy liar’s name in quite a while.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:01 pm

  78. Liberals see racism everywhere because: 1)it is their worldview, 2) they use it to manipulate minorities. I am a conservative Christian and have black friends who I love dearly. My departed Stepfather was a liberal Minn Catholic who had no black friends. He used to drive me crazy with his racist jokes. But he always voted Dem because he “felt sorry” for “them” – suffered from liberal white guilt syndrome. Hey my black brothers, get a clue; the Democrats want to use you for votes. They have since the days when they used slave votes to keep the institution of slavery alive. It’s still the same plantation – in the end it’s all about them controlling you. Look what’s going on with school lunches – it starts with a “free lunch”, then, once they have you on the dole, they control how much and what you can eat. Liberals want good looking healthy negroes…makes me sick. Conservative brown-bag because they know that everything you take from the government ends up being about control. The libs give you a free breakfast because you’re “too hungry to concentrate”, then they starve you at lunch so you’ll thank them for the free breakfast in the morning. Don’t vote skin like JayZ. Vote for what you know is right. Why are you as Christians voting for the party of abortions who removed the mention of God from their party platform and want to take prayer out of our schools?

    Comment by DJH (9c34c6) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:03 pm

  79. My understanding here is that this woman represents the type of people that would vote for Obama: poor, broke, black, dependent, dumb, victimized Americans”


    emphasis added

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:04 pm

  80. @jd
    So you are saying that the typical Obama voter is like this woman, irrespective of color? Broke, entitled, dependent on govt, victimized and uneducated? They are the Romney-47%, right?

    Comment by The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:08 pm

  81. http://www.allamericanblogger.com/23409/elspeth-reeve-is-a-lying-hack/

    But you already knew that.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:09 pm

  82. @jd
    So you are saying ….

    Classic tell. What follows is bound to be douchey.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:10 pm

  83. Well-off, educated, white, Oak Park, Wilmette, Riverside, and San Francisco too, SarahW. Obama voters, too.

    Just what kind of people do you think I hang around with, anyway? ;)

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:11 pm

  84. Engaging lovie, JD?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:13 pm

  85. The rants I would hear by suburban white doctors and bankers. Although, what came most through their salivas was race “African-American” and abortion Sarah Palin.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:18 pm

  86. You guys need to grow some balls and come out and call it the way you see it. Obama supporters are like that woman and nothing Romney does will swing them over to him because they are broke, dependent, victimized, mainly minority, entitled Americans. Stand with your candidate and call 47% of Americans what he called them. At least he has balls of steel.

    Comment by The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:19 pm

  87. This video is from this year – what was from 2009 the Detroit housing assistance applications, which I also heard replayed on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday.

    Here’s someone gushing with the news 11/4/2011 about the California version of this program:

    http://www.yelp.com/biz/california-lifeline-telephone-program-artesia

    Here is the beginning of one message:

    9/23/2010 First to Review

    Well it’s that time of the year again when it becomes necessary to renew the California Lifeline program.

    Sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission, Lifeline allows for some customers of phone services to receive discounts on basic local home phone services. I love my Lifeline!

    There are two ways to qualify for the program: To learn if you and your household qualify, you can visit the website and if your total household income in within a certain amount-you’re in! A secondary criteria is if you are receiving certain state or federal benefit programs like Social Security or free school lunches.

    If you think you might qualify for California LifeLine, contact your home phone company and tell them you want to apply for California LifeLine. Once you tell the home phone company that you qualify, it will begin the application process for you. They will send you a form letter to sign and mail back-easy as pie.

    As a matter-of-fact, September 13-19 was national “LifeLine Awareness Week.”…

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:22 pm

  88. Comment by elissa — 9/28/2012 @ 10:47 am

    OBAMA gave her that phone to use. I wonder how she came up with that idea don’t you?

    There’s no way she could think that, except that some local Democratic Party organization told her that.

    To me it’s not stupidity as much as it is evidence of her having been programmed to think that way–or something.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:26 pm

  89. The last line is not mine. It would be interesting to find out more exactly where shje came up with this idea – annd the term “Obamaphone”

    One of the comments here said she was hired for $11.50 to promote this program.

    So maybe it was the wireless carrier – telling people it’s something special could give people the idea that maybe time is limited and get people to sign up.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:28 pm

  90. This is the kind of thing that chaps my hide. Hubby and I sent ourselves through college. He even had to send money home to help his mom. We paid for it all ourselves and paid back the student loans as well. I have an autistic son in college that cannot get any assistance with his work because hubby makes too much. So the only solution is for him to live at home, work, attend college here so that I can help keep him on track. Fortunately, a new program that is perfect for him just opened at the closest Junior/Senior college. Practically in our neighborhood. He gets his AA in December and starts his junior year in spring. The point is that I do not mind that we can’t get any help for him but I do truly resent those who just want more and more free stuff paid for by the people who did the right things. Graduating from high school, waiting for children until married and staying away from drugs are the three thing that can keep you out of poverty. All of these are in the reach of the majority of citizens in this country, for FREE! Just look at all the taxes and fees on your cell bill alone. I resent all of them. Government is not providing that service but they always get their cut!

    Comment by TexasMom2012 (cee89f) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:30 pm

  91. We need more Moms like TexasMom.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 12:59 pm

  92. 82. /sarc off

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 1:09 pm

  93. At least he has balls of steel.

    Comment by The Emperor — 9/28/2012 @ 12:19 pm

    Licked them, have you, Lovie? Dodn’t lie, now. Only in your dreams, right? Better sleep than Obama’s corrugated rubber ones, I’d bet.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 1:10 pm

  94. “So wait a minute, in a sense Romney was referring to blacks mainly in his famous 47% speech, right?”

    Lovey – Racist

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/28/2012 @ 1:44 pm

  95. Nk is off his meds again. Don’t go crying to Patterico when the whiping starts.

    Comment by The Emperor (3db71b) — 9/28/2012 @ 3:32 pm

  96. What’s a “whiping”, goat molester?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 3:36 pm

  97. Yea. You are my goat and I am here to molest you!

    Comment by The Emperor (5647ed) — 9/28/2012 @ 3:46 pm

  98. A bit off topic, but what I don’t exactly understand re. the whole 47% kerfluffle is what exactly their complaint is. Wasn’t the same week that the video came out the one year anniversary of the Occupy movement. And wasn’t position that 99% of the country is a victim? And didn’t most of their expressed positions that somehow they are owed something? Someone to pay off their student loans? Someone to give them a job? Someone to provide them with a “living wage”?

    Clearly one thing we know about the Occupy movement is that they claimed to represent 99% of the country and that they felt seriously entitled. So is the complaint about Romney that he is 52% too low on his evaluation? Or what?

    Comment by malcom digest (a484b7) — 9/28/2012 @ 3:46 pm

  99. Yes, I fail at English.

    Comment by malcom digest (a484b7) — 9/28/2012 @ 3:48 pm

  100. Go peel bananas with your feet.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 3:56 pm

  101. Just to clarify for some who think that these folks are getting smartphones.

    They’re not. This is actually more of a bait and switch deal.

    The basic phone and basic service doesn’t cost the recipient anything who is on snap or other fed/state benefits due to their income level.

    However, it’s only 200 minutes and the phones are basic phones. Voice and voicemail and the other normal services for basic service. No text, no data etc. No fancy phones either.

    Here’s the bait and switch. If the recipient wants/needs more services, those have to be paid for by the recipient. Try to use more minutes during a period costs the same as for other basic no contract phone service (I know cause I had a no contract phone with Virgin and it was the same deal but I had to put in $15 every month to keep the phone active).

    Why this costs 1.6 billion, I don’t understand as this is relatively cost free as far as services rendered and the phones are cheap. (maybe it’s the administration of the program. Checking recipient eligibility and such.)

    So folks are mad at the folks who signed up for this. Why not get mad at the companies doing this to take money from taxpayers? They’re the ones benefiting the most from this program.

    I think the companies ought to offer a low low cost no text, voice only service for everyone. Pay for the phone (about $15) and allowed a few hundred minutes a month. You want more, you pay more but people will pay a lot for basic service because they think they need it and are willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to get it because they don’t understand how little it costs the phone companies to operate.

    BTW federal/state taxes, fees etc now consume almost $10 of every one’s basic service phone bill.

    Comment by Jcw46 (b4329c) — 9/28/2012 @ 4:14 pm

  102. #82… smock, smock!… teh Return of teh Whimperor

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (604e48) — 9/28/2012 @ 4:26 pm

  103. white monkey…

    Comment by The Emperor (fbdcfe) — 9/28/2012 @ 4:43 pm

  104. Jcw46 — 9/28/2012 @ 4:14 pm

    I think you are kind of missing the negatives here- which is more the voter’s attitude that “I got me free stuff from Obamy and he’s going to give me more,” however deluded the recipient might be on the point.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 9/28/2012 @ 5:43 pm

  105. Yea the point is that Obama voters like cheap free things and are dependent and broke and uneducated and love free money and phones, proving Romney’s point. But just don’t say they are black or you are gonna be called a racist.

    Comment by The Emperor (3825c3) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:01 pm

  106. With 1.3% GDP, durable goods orders falling into the abyss, well over 40 months of 8%plus unemployment, median income in the tank… hey, just because 0bama likes dogmeat, doesn’t mean the rest of America has to.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (604e48) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:06 pm

  107. “Yea the point is that Obama voters like cheap free things and are dependent and broke and uneducated and love free money and phones, proving Romney’s point.”

    Lovey – Except that’s not what Romney said. Racists like you can lie and pretend Romney was talking about black people, uneducated people, broke people, etc., because that is your knee jerk response when you think about Republicans. You are insane in your membrane.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:12 pm

  108. No I am not a racist, daley. Saying it a million times won’t make it true. But let me ask you, do you agree with Romney’s 47% revelation? Was he right?

    Comment by The Emperor (3825c3) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:19 pm

  109. SQUIRREL !!!!!!!
    SQUIRREL !!!!!!!
    SQUIRREL !!!!!!!
    SQUIRREL !!!!!!!

    Comment by JD (191dc1) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:30 pm

  110. We won’t play the race game. Not until Obama wins the NASCAR, anyway. Until then, he can make his arugula beer in the White House Brewery.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:30 pm

  111. Pizzas and thongs. Arugula, beer, and mother-in-law. If I were Romney, after winning the election, I’d have it fumigated.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:32 pm

  112. If I were Romney, after winning the election, I’d have it fumigated.

    Yea, get all that blackness flushed out of the white house…

    Comment by The Emperor (3825c3) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:38 pm

  113. 108. I believe the correct terminology is ‘exorcised’.

    “And he cast the demons into a herd of swine and they immediately rushed into the Sea and were drowned.”

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:43 pm

  114. Lovie sees everything through racism colored glasses.

    Comment by JD (191dc1) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:44 pm

  115. 104. Indiscriminate H8r.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:46 pm

  116. PA paper runs poll giving O 2 point lead, 6% undecided among likelies.

    http://triblive.com/home/2641005-74/obama-percent-romney-poll-voters-pennsylvania-leads-lee-margin-points#axzz27oZIGiiR

    O sheeet.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:52 pm

  117. JD has no racism in his blood because he is black…

    Comment by The Emperor (3825c3) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:53 pm

  118. 0bamastash o’
    babydaddymamaphones
    can you hear me now

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (604e48) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:55 pm

  119. 101. Obots aren’t uniformly dependent, stupid or feckless. They are beguiled. See aforementioned swine.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:56 pm

  120. Lovie, you’re getting nowhere here. Find friendlier trolling grounds.

    (Two minutes before the public library closes.)

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 6:59 pm

  121. Lovey:

    If you mean that 47 percent of the people won’t vote for Romney no matter what, I do agree with you. Since that’s what he was saying and all.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:03 pm

  122. BTW, Patterico, embeds really slow your site down. I’ve had the same problem (not that I have any visits), but there is a way to keep the site up to speed while letting embeds come up when they want. Tinker with the template.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:04 pm

  123. @gary, let’s keep hope alive..

    Comment by The Emperor (3825c3) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:04 pm

  124. “But let me ask you, do you agree with Romney’s 47% revelation?”

    Lovey – Your belief that it was a revelation is the problem. Romney was explaining how he would get to a majority of voters in the election. It was not a policy statement response as part of a Q&A session. You are a racist idiot.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:05 pm

  125. gary, we went through this nonsense before. The polls are very Democrat slanted. When they show 20%, I’ll still laugh.

    There are only two polls that count:

    Tuesday, November 6, for Romney.
    Wednesday, November 7, for Obama.

    I am not joking. Welfare checks come out on the first Tuesday of the month and that’s when Obama voters are cashing them at the liquor store.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:13 pm

  126. daley,
    keep twisting daley. The real idiot is the one who makes such stupid statement and the ones that think he is right. The idiocy shows in the polls that show widening margin between the two candidates because of this idiotic comment which your brain does not allow you to condemn. You are the real idiot and come Nov, your idiot candidate will lose, again.

    Comment by The Emperor (3825c3) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:13 pm

  127. Still, don’t be complacent. Go vote for the Mormon not the Moron.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:15 pm

  128. The Emperor has no clothes no brains.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:17 pm

  129. The Emperor has no identity. It is five spammers that I have counted, since 2008. Its first IP was a female schoolteacher somewhere in Africa (stolen proxy). Next it became a Christian. Thankfully, it stopped that. Then a conservative. Then a friendly commenter. Now it’s this. Ignore it or make fun of it.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:24 pm

  130. No I am not a racist, daley. Saying it a million times won’t make it true. But let me ask you, do you agree with Romney’s 47% revelation? Was he right?

    Comment by The Emperor — 9/28/2012 @ 6:19 pm

    Did Romney mention race or blacks or something in that speech? Or is 47% of the country black? Or is 47% a code for blacks? What am I missing here?

    Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:25 pm

  131. And we will not hear anymore from it, tonight. Its shift is over.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:26 pm

  132. Funny, when government requires businesses to impose a fee on consumers for a specific government purpose, liberals don’t call it a tax.

    Unless of course they are arguing before a court and it’s advantageous to call it a tax, then it is, but only in the courtroom.

    Comment by RS (736864) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:35 pm

  133. The Emperor, Obama has balls of steel too, unfortunately only Valerie Jarrett gets to wear them.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:42 pm

  134. keep twisting daley. The real idiot is the one who makes such stupid statement and the ones that think he is right. The idiocy shows in the polls that show widening margin between the two candidates because of this idiotic comment which your brain does not allow you to condemn. You are the real idiot and come Nov, your idiot candidate will lose, again.

    I love it when lovie gets pissed and it’s true colors shine through. It cannot even grasp the concept that has it so riled up, hence the stomping of the feet hissy fit.

    Comment by JD (a2ff13) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:44 pm

  135. “But let me ask you, do you agree with Romney’s 47% revelation? Was he right?”

    Lovey – Explain to me your understanding of what you believe to be Romney’s revelation and then I can tell you whether I agree or disagree.

    I vehemently disagree with your comment in #90 that “Romney was referring to blacks mainly in his famous 47% speech, right?” As Gerald points out in #126, Romney did not mention blacks, plus the math does not work out to get to 47% based on the black population, so only a racist idiot like you would conclude he was talking mainly about blacks.

    I agree with Romney that there are segments of the voting population not worth his time or money targeting to get an electoral majority. If you are eligible to vote, you are one such perfect example. With Obama’s balls firmly planted on your chin, your are one of the unreachable voters Romney was describing. The woman in the video embedded in this post is another. So is the person in the video Mark linked in #58. Whether you and those folks add up to 47%, I have no idea, but you are living proof unreachable voters are out there.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:46 pm

  136. Sigh.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:55 pm

  137. Its bizarre that The Emperor thinks that there is anything embarrassing about Romney’s point.

    There isn’t.

    Quoting Glenn Reynolds:

    I TOLD YOU MY POSITION WOULD SELL: Poll: 79% Say All Americans Should Pay Income Taxes. Even 71% of Democrats agree. #Reynolds2016. Related: The Fiscal Costs of Nontaxpayers. “Aside from the revenue impact of not having 58 million Americans pay income taxes, economists worry about the social and political effects of having so many people disconnected from the cost of government—a phenomenon known as fiscal illusion. The concern is that when people perceive the cost of government to be cheaper than it really is, they will demand ever more government benefits because they either don’t feel the cost directly or believe that others will be paying those costs.”

    Glenn is no conservative, no racist, no “right wing” extremist. He’s a guy with centrist ideology and common sense.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:56 pm

  138. OT. If you care about the Second Amendment. Safe. http://www.saysuncle.com/2012/09/28/otis-mcdonald-hospitalized/

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 7:58 pm

  139. Nk is just mad because I called him an ass sniffer. He hates the truth.

    Comment by The Emperor (5647ed) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:05 pm

  140. @Daley read this and tell me your candid (if that is possible) opinion. “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney said on the video.

    He added these people 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.”
    The Republican presidential candidate also said, “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

    Who is he referring to here? And do you believe he is right and has a winning argument?

    Comment by The Emperor (9ae02a) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:09 pm

  141. The Emperor, I’m pretty sure the last time you got nk mad, his doctor just recommended a stool softener.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:09 pm

  142. @SPQR. So Romney is right to write off 47 percent of Americans not considering that among this 47 he categorized are Republicans who would vote for him? Right. No wonder he’s doing so well in all the polls. Not!

    Comment by The Emperor (5647ed) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:16 pm

  143. MORE SQUIRRELS !!!!!!!!

    Comment by JD (a2ff13) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:19 pm

  144. The Emperor, Romney is doing fine at the polls. The polls show him “tied” with outrageously large oversampling of Democrats. He’s beating Obama handily.

    And among those “47%” are twits like the subject of this post. Who think Obama is going to give them more free shit.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:20 pm

  145. Otis McDonald would have been brought to Resurrection Talcott, if he had his incident at O’Hare, but as of five minutes ago he was not in the visiting system. He may be in ER, OR, or ICU, and nobody should try to send him or the family calls.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:20 pm

  146. The Emperor, Romney is doing fine at the polls. The polls show him “tied” with outrageously large oversampling of Democrats. He’s beating Obama handily.

    And among those “47%” are twits like the subject of this post. Who think Obama is going to give them more free sh**.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:21 pm

  147. 119. There is no hope for BootBlack. He’ll be retired to Oahu, leaving divots at Turtle Bay, B4 Xmas.

    190 Electoral Votes max.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:22 pm

  148. nk, I’ll toss in a prayer for Mr. McDonald.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:25 pm

  149. The average OH poll sample is D+8.3. 2004 it was D+0 and Booosh won by 3.

    Like I said, Dims aren’t uniformly stupid, just current company.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:25 pm

  150. And I figure that Obama will lose at least 5% in Colorado on Wednesday night, given the Secret Service’s outrageous stunt in shutting down I25 for five hours over rush hour.

    Colorado won’t be in play on Thursday, it will be solid Romney.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:27 pm

  151. Look how quickly the Obama admin reacts in embarrassment over the free phone stuff.

    We are inside Obama’s head. We own his cortex. He is toast.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:29 pm

  152. 136. Cornyn is convinced Akin cannot win so he won’t get any blame or credit, Huckster and DeMint are.

    This election won’t be on the GOP, rather Amerikkka will get the credit.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:31 pm

  153. nk, I’ll toss in a prayer for Mr. McDonald.

    Comment by SPQR — 9/28/2012 @ 8:25 pm

    Guns and Money, citing the Examiner. Pinch of salt. Hopefully.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:32 pm

  154. Pipe dreams…

    Comment by The Emperor (fc6588) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:37 pm

  155. ==So Romney is right to write off 47 percent of Americans not considering that among this 47 he categorized are Republicans who would vote for him?
    Comment by The Emperor — 9/28/2012 @ 8:16 pm==

    One of our other visiting trolls posted this same not very brilliant “observation” a few days ago–in a sentence written almost word for word. (As if anyone on the planet still needed proof that these are manufactured pre-fab talking points sent out in bulk to the slobbering O-bots).

    Comment by elissa (e815c3) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:38 pm

  156. 145. Agreed. Like someone said, Undecideds at this point have decided not to vote Obuggerer. Those that show up to vote will not give him a second thought.

    ‘Other’ is at this point polling 3%. That leaves Romany and ‘None of the Above’ to split the last minute deciders.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:39 pm

  157. The Emperor, the “pipe dream” is anyone thinking that the massive and utter failure that is Obama is really competitive for reelection.

    That’s the pipe dream – literally in many cases, being as “pipe dream” is a reference to opium smokers.

    Worst President in modern times, and rapidly heading for the worst US President in history.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:44 pm

  158. First couple of weeks of October the bulk of the polling outfits will do their affiliation polling. Rasmussen was way early finishing by the end of August.

    The swing will begin two weeks before the general but it won’t be until the last weekend that the Ministry of Truth gives up the game.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:47 pm

  159. Obama has lost SNL …

    He’s toast.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:47 pm

  160. @elissa. Forget the troll talk and give an honest answer to the damn question. Who are these 47? Are they just die-hard obamabots or could there be Republicans there? And if so was he right to say it? Straightforward answers would do.

    Comment by The Emperor (3db71b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:49 pm

  161. hey, just because 0bama likes dogmeat, doesn’t mean the rest of America has to.
    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 9/28/2012 @ 6:06 pm

    A local radio station has a blurb in the voice of Homer Simpson, “Obama wants prosperity for everyone, a dog in every pot”.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:52 pm

  162. The Emperor, why should other people answer your loaded questions? You won’t answer the basic question of whether or not he has a point – that its troubling that such a large fraction of the US population has no Federal tax obligation at all.

    (Because of the Bush admin tax rates originally by the way)

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:52 pm

  163. Lovey – So are you conceding that less than 47% of the country is going to vote for Obama or are you agreeing that Romney is right? What exactly is the point you are trying to make

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:54 pm

  164. ______________________________________________

    The Republican presidential candidate also said, “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

    Who is he referring to here? And do you believe he is right and has a winning argument?

    He’s referring to the rabid liberals throughout urban America in particular who — no matter how screwed up their communities are, no matter how bad their local schools are, no matter how messed up their local business climate and local crime rates are — will go to the election booth and blindly, stupidly, religiously and predictably pluck a chad or pull the lever for the liberal politician or the liberal policy on the ballot.

    That’s worth mentioning and being astonished (and disgusted) by because there really is no conservative counterpart to that. Namely, there is no community that I’m aware of that’s really screwed up and full of various forms of dysfunction — going back decades — yet where most of its voters blindly, nonsensically and idiotically favor the conservative politician, favor the conservative policy on the ballot.

    Comment by Mark (6d5e0d) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:55 pm

  165. Considering Obama’s ancestry, it would be a missionary in every pot.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 8:59 pm

  166. I learned how to eat small green chili peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.

    Human meat, next.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:03 pm

  167. 157. And obviously a good number of these people don’t consider themselves dependent, many would rather be earning enough to be obliged to pay in.

    The point is this radically progressive state of affairs is comparatively recent. When I was a kid bailing hay I had to pay in.

    The problem is that a significant fraction of the population can check out on the issue of spending because they don’t feel at risk.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:04 pm

  168. @Daley. My point is he is dead wrong. That number though may be accurate still doesn’t represent just the obama voters. Republicans are also in that 47. So he is saying that these republicans are among those he can’t win over who will vote for obama no matter what he does. This is why he has been critized by even fellow republicans for that stupid comment. The fact that you guys can’t admit to that is actually the problem here. Just imagine what you would be saying here if the roles were reversed. Oh but you have defend your man; whether right or wrong. That’s sad.

    Comment by The Emperor (9ae02a) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:06 pm

  169. 163. No what’s sad is that you’re fighting for a steaming POS that lies every time he opens his piehole.

    He’s a pretender, a con artiste, a Chauncy Gardner, a fractured figurehead, and you hope somehow, to make the difference between 47% and a more accurate number, say 43% or 40% or 37%, into an error of significance rivalling a dead Ambassador and 300,000 jobs net over 4 years, on and on,..

    Poor, poor, pitable Gollum.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:17 pm

  170. A near as I can tell, the Emperor and its ilk are thoroughly baffled that Republican and Libertarian types in general just don’t hear the same grave and provocative “insult” that the leftists seem to when they listen to Romney’s statement. Oh well, if the shoe fits…..

    Comment by elissa (e815c3) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:17 pm

  171. Oh but you have defend your man; whether right or wrong. That’s sad.

    Said without a hint of irony.

    Comment by JD (a2ff13) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:26 pm

  172. ____________________________________________

    Just imagine what you would be saying here if the roles were reversed.

    You mean if Obama said that there are people out there who are embarrassed to be needy and dependent, ashamed at the idea of being on the public dole, not proud of acting like mooches, who dislike the attitude of self-entitlement, who feel guilty about supporting the idea of “what can government do for me, me, me!!,” disdain political correctness up the yin-yang — who see cities like Detroit and countries like Greece or France and are appalled — and therefore will never vote for him, for a hard-core liberal/Democrat?

    Uh, well, yea, duh, Obama!

    Comment by Mark (6d5e0d) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:31 pm

  173. “@Daley. My point is he is dead wrong.”

    Lovey – One more time, so are you conceding that less than 47% of the country is going to vote for Obama or you are agreeing that Romney is right and should not pursue their vote? It can’t be both. You need to make up your mind, sport.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/28/2012 @ 9:56 pm

  174. “Sport”. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sport+(biology) Well called, daleyrocks.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:02 pm

  175. By the way, you can’t get into the presidential debate on Wednesday eve at Denver University unless you have an invitation … and government issued photo ID.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2012 @ 10:45 pm

  176. My understanding here is that this woman represents the type of people that would vote for Obama

    – Your complete and utter LACK of understanding represents nothing.

    Comment by Icy (807cf2) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:37 pm

  177. My understanding here

    Well that was a pretty good clue right there, Icy.

    Comment by JD (b00b22) — 9/29/2012 @ 7:14 am

  178. Hey, isn’t there an old folksong about this?

    Comment by tek (69e72d) — 9/29/2012 @ 7:25 am

  179. Heh, tek.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/29/2012 @ 7:27 am

  180. -The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.

    I know truth is hard. But that’s what you’re screaming for, right? Truth?

    Think. Don’t be manipulated–they expect you get aroused like enraged fools.

    Comment by Jan — 9/28/2012 @ 9:35 am
    _____________________________

    You’re the fool, Jan. The phone program is NOT paid for by telecommunications companies; the program is paid for by telecommunications companies’ PAYING CUSTOMERS who have a “universal” tax added onto their bills every month.

    And as other commenters have pointed out, the Lifeline program was started under Bush, but it has been greatly expanded under Obama — at enormous cost to consumers. And the program is now rife with fraud, according to every analyst who has examined it.

    Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with some actual TRUTH before you get on your high-horse and spew demonstrably-false Democratic talking points at other commenters here, you sanctimonious hypocrite.

    Comment by Bystander (b1c63e) — 9/29/2012 @ 8:32 am

  181. Bravo, Bystander. Well said.

    Comment by JD (b00b22) — 9/29/2012 @ 8:43 am

  182. I hope that after he’s defeated on November 6th, 0bama decides to retire to Texas, where they grow balls on trees…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (4e6a37) — 9/29/2012 @ 8:47 am

  183. 1932: “Brother, can you spare a dime ?”

    2012: “If you don’t want to pay for my free phone, then you must be; A) racist B) greedy C) a jerk D) all of the above “

    Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/29/2012 @ 8:47 am

  184. Cleveland used to rock.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (4e6a37) — 9/29/2012 @ 8:52 am

  185. … now they just roll teh taxpayer

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (4e6a37) — 9/29/2012 @ 8:53 am

  186. “Is the Obama administration effectively paying a company to advertise the free cell phones as Obama Phones? Or was the administration aware of the practice, and have they done anything to stop it? I’m sure the mainstream media are hard on the case, investigating the Obama administration in that relentless way they do.”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/09/28/the-shady-ethics-of-the-obama-phon/

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (4e6a37) — 9/29/2012 @ 9:03 am

  187. And as other commenters have pointed out, the Lifeline program was started under Bush

    Yep. ‘Nuff said. Of course, it is the conservative tradition to claim that their current losing candidate (Romney), or any previous office holder who failed miserably (Bush) is/was not a ‘true conservative’.

    Comment by Innocent Bystander (8d5189) — 9/29/2012 @ 11:28 am

  188. Concern trolls are so cute.

    Comment by JD (b00b22) — 9/29/2012 @ 11:46 am

  189. Which side are you on JD? Are you going to claim Romney as a true conservative now and risk the electorate repudiating such a candidate or will you hedge your bet?

    Comment by Innocent Bystander (8d5189) — 9/29/2012 @ 11:52 am

  190. Your concern is touching.

    Comment by JD (b00b22) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:01 pm

  191. I am a conservative. Rob from the poor; give to the rich. All that jazz. Rah Rah. Go Team.

    Comment by Innocent Bystander (8d5189) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:03 pm

  192. You are a dishonest troll. Shocka. Your concern is noted.

    Comment by JD (b00b22) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:10 pm

  193. So Althouse thinks Rush showing the dipwad black women ecstatic about her free obama phone is racist? Over 600 posts on the one thread where the independent/dumb c*nt/cruelly neutral/law professor says Republican racism forces her to vote for obama again? People who buy into the sandra fluke bs are themselves clueless oafs. How many of the old bags are a two issues voter? Yes, I feel good about myself if I vote for a black man who is brilliant and eye candy and I don’t want Rethugs taking away my reproductive rights, even though I am past childbirth age (bilk the taxpayers for all sorts of crap like $3k for birth control, supporting the artist who created the crucifix in piss “art”/ help pay the salaries of loons like Bill Moyers and the rest of the PBS/NPR/NEA crowd.
    How much longer will those of us who are opposed to Obama’s policies be able to complain online? Executive order coming to accomplish what could not pass in the senate. This at the urging of another asshole Joe Lieberman. Does he speak for his constituents? Anyone here from Conn. with a clue where he is coming from?

    Comment by Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:11 pm

  194. Love it… Lovey/Sleeeepy/misc. trolls would approve.
    http://www.obamaphone.net/obama-phone

    Why doesn’t the obama campaign just give silly idiot worshippers of the cult of personality some cheap thrills by selling dildos with the look of the original pissant obama pecker?

    Comment by Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:19 pm

  195. Any so-called stereotype is based on reality.

    Comment by DN (7fc565) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:46 pm

  196. 88.

    Comment by elissa — 9/28/2012 @ 10:47 am

    OBAMA gave her that phone to use. I wonder how she came up with that idea don’t you?

    There’s no way she could think that, except that some local Democratic Party organization told her that.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 9/28/2012 @ 12:26 pm

    89. The last line is not mine. It would be interesting to find out more exactly where shje came up with this idea – annd the term “Obamaphone”

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 9/28/2012 @ 12:28 pm

    Instead of overanalyzing things, Sammy, did it occur to you to just Google “Obama phone plan?”

    You’ll come up with a page that looks like this:

    Ads related to obama phone plan

    Obama Phone Plan – Free Phone & 250 Min.
    http://www.budgetmobile.com/Obama_Phones
    Government Assisted Cell Plans. Activate Now!

    Assurance® Wireless(888) 505-4665
    http://www.assurancewireless.com/
    See if You Qualify for the Lifeline Assistance Program. Learn More!
    Learn About Assurance Wireless – Check Your Application Status – Apply Now

    Safelink Wireless | SafeLinkWireless.com
    http://www.safelinkwireless.com/
    Free Government Cell Phone Program With Free Monthly Minutes!
    No Bills – No Contracts – No Credit Checks – No Hidden Fees

    They’re called “Obamaphones” because they’re advertised that way. And they’re advertised that way (or at least searchable as “Obamaphones”) because that’s what they are popularly known as.

    The short version is you couldn’t get a free phone, free minutes, and other free services until after Obama was in office. I’ll explain why in a separate post to avoid a wall-O-text in this comment.

    The wall-O-text will be my next one, with links. Feel free to skip it.

    Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:47 pm

  197. The fact of the matter is that, per my reading of the GAO report, “Improved Management Can Enhance FCC Decision Making for the Universal Service Fund Low-Income Program,” until 2009 the program only offered discounted service to low income people. Under Obama, you could actually get a free phone with free services. The relevant sections begin on page 15 (or page 10 as numbered on the actual document) of the 74 page PDF file. Starting on page 15 we get an explanation of how the program worked through 2008:

    The Low-Income Program provides support for low-income consumers through three mechanisms: (1) Lifeline, (2) Link Up, and (3) Toll Limitation Service.

    Lifeline reimburses ETCs for discounting eligible customers’ monthly bill for basic telephone service. The discount is available for only one telephone connection per household.31 Lifeline support is distributed in four tiers with varying discounts.32 According to our survey responses, in 2010, the maximum monthly Lifeline discount available to consumers—federal and intrastate discount combined—ranged from $7 to $38.50 per month; the average maximum discount was $14.43 per month.33

    Link Up reimburses ETCs for discounting either wireline or wireless service connection charges incurred when an eligible consumer starts service for the first time or at a new address.34 An eligible consumer may only receive the Link Up discount once, unless that consumer moves to a new residence; consecutive discounts at the same address are not allowed. Eligible consumers pay one-half of the customary telephone connection charge with a maximum discount amount of $30; an additional discount is available to eligible residents of tribal lands. Further, all eligible consumers can pay the balance of the connection fee on a deferred payment schedule.35

    Toll Limitation Service (TLS) reimburses ETCs for providing toll blocking or toll control to eligible consumers at no cost to the customer. Toll blocking allows consumers to order a service that prevents the completion of outgoing toll calls. Toll control allows consumers to specify a limit on the amount of toll charges that can be incurred per billing cycle.36

    To provide Lifeline and Link Up, carriers must be designated as ETCs by their state commissions or FCC.37 States have the primary responsibility for designating ETCs. In a situation where the telecommunications carrier is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission, FCC may designate the carrier as an ETC. In the states that do not have or choose not to assert jurisdiction over wireless carriers, FCC has the authority to designate wireless carriers as ETCs.

    ETCs are “Eligible Telecommunications Carriers,” and note that it’s the Federal Communications Commission that certifies wireless companies as such.

    The report goes on to explain the evolution of the program, and finally on page 21 we get to why they’re called “Obamaphones” in low income areas:

    The Addition of Prepaid Wireless as an Eligible Service Was the Primary Factor to Increased Participation and Payments in 2009

    According to USAC and FCC officials and other stakeholders, such as the Florida Public Service Commission, increases in Lifeline in 2009 were primarily due to the addition of free, prepaid wireless cell service by TracFone. Instead of discounting a monthly telephone bill for Lifeline service, TracFone’s Lifeline service (SafeLink Wireless) converts the total amount of the USF subsidy into an allotment of free minutes each month. The company provides a free handset and offers an option of three calling plans that provide from 68 to 250 usage minutes per month with no contracts, recurring fees, or monthly charges.48 Consumers may purchase additional usage minutes for $0.20 per minute.49

    In 2009, TracFone provided Lifeline service in 19 states and the District of Columbia, all of which experienced an increase in their estimated Lifeline participation rate. In addition, TracFone served 9 of the 12 states (including the District of Columbia) that had a more than 10 percent increase in their estimated Lifeline participation rate. During 2009, TracFone received $189.7 million in Low-Income support payments, accounting for approximately 18 percent of total Low-Income support payments and more than 90 percent of the increase in disbursements from 2008 to 2009.50 According to TracFone officials, the company has always considered low-income consumers its customer base and, thus, has experience advertising and marketing to this population. They also told us that while other ETCs may advertise the availability of Lifeline services to comply with the program’s requirements, TracFone’s participation in the Lifeline program is an integral part of the company’s business model and enrolling low-income customers is in the company’s interest.51 Therefore, the company aggressively advertises SafeLink Wireless. According to TracFone officials, the company spent approximately $2.4 million to advertise its Lifeline service in January 2010.

    You couldn’t get an “Obamaphone” before Obama. And then Tracfone aggressively advertised them to low income people.

    Hence the Obamaphone.

    Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:49 pm

  198. Thing is, these aren’t “Obama” phones. The program under which these phones are provided was created by Reagan. That program was extended to wireless phones under the Clinton administration. Obama has nothing to do with it.

    The phones are paid for by the paying customers of the telephone company that issues them, not by federal taxes.

    What these people need to understand is that Obama did not give them that phone. Reagan and Clinton did.

    Comment by crosspatch (6adcc9) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:57 pm

  199. No, crosspatch. You’re wrong.

    Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/29/2012 @ 12:59 pm

  200. Thanks Steve57. It really is pushed as an Obama giveaway – FREE FREE FREE!, and this FREE FREE FREE-ness is strictly Obama-era.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 9/29/2012 @ 1:53 pm

  201. @197 what we see is that technological advances have pushed the per user cost of a phone and minimal service plan to a point below the subsidy payment so rather than “discounted” service, they can offer “free” service and they are capitalizing on that.

    So the subsidy program needs to be changed from a fixed payment to a reimbursement model.

    Comment by crosspatch (6adcc9) — 9/29/2012 @ 2:24 pm

  202. So basically, Romney’s people need to get people out there wearing Romney shirts singing people up for the TracFone service so they can have RomneyPhones.

    Comment by crosspatch (6adcc9) — 9/29/2012 @ 2:25 pm

  203. So basically, Romney’s people need to get people out there wearing Romney shirts singing people up for the TracFone service so they can have RomneyPhones.

    No, that is a lousy idea.

    Comment by JD (b00b22) — 9/29/2012 @ 2:52 pm

  204. I realize that most were concerned about the woman’s attitude and not the program but I saw a few comments that hinted at the idea that these phones were smartphones or other higher end service.

    As to the addition of cellphones to the mix. It’s been noted for a few years now that landline use has gone down and is actually more expensive for the carriers. The ETC’s jumped at the chance to sign up users for wireless rather than a landline and the give away of a phone highlights that fact.

    they get reimbursed for the minimum minutes (which as I noted a minimum minute plan costs about $5 a month) so the actual cost of the plan per user hasn’t really gone up.

    What has gone up is the program has attracted more users AND their are more qualified to get one now that the SNAP program has gotten so huge with people being laid off or having to take part time work but have full time size families.

    There’s also advertising. The Obama regime hasn’t been shy about pasting his name on any and all programs or faux improvements so why would we expect them to give any credit to any other Pres. for the existence of this program.

    Want to stop all the so called handouts? Be my guest but think about where are the jobs to make up the difference for those folks. A lot of people who have questionable motives try to claim there’s massive fraud but the reality is that it’s difficult (and expensive) to find for the most part and it’s also less than everyone would like to see. They want to think that all the cost of these programs goes to the undeserving so that they can feel comfortable about lobbying for the programs reduction or elimination.

    Truth is that these programs are in many cases the only thing keeping some folks from the street or from not having adequate food, shelter, medical care or retraining. And it’s going to get worse unless we can start generating jobs.

    This is the failure of Obama’s regime; the strangulation of the economy by regulation and in many cases by fiat of executive order. There’s also the uncertainty of the future in re business owners not knowing what the programs will cost (such as Obamacare) and what programs will be pushed onto the business world by the Democrats and their willing accomplices, the Republican House under John Boehner.

    That climate and the climbing costs of trying to keep everyone afloat has stifled any innovation, enlargement of facilities and an increase in jobs.

    The only reason to elect Romney is his potential ability to correct this uncertainty. Whether he can or will do that is unknown but we do know what Obama has planned.

    Let’s concentrate on that first before chopping the legs out from under our neighbors.

    Comment by Jcw46 (b4329c) — 9/29/2012 @ 3:42 pm

  205. Gateway is reporting 1 million Obama phones in OH is costing state $100 Million per year.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/29/2012 @ 4:01 pm

  206. Chavez will be the first of teh banana republic-styled dictators to fall… 0bama will be the next.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/philip-sherwell/9576153/Venezuelas-marathon-man-looks-to-run-down-Chavez.html

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (03109c) — 9/29/2012 @ 4:14 pm

  207. Jcw46, your last comment was just incoherent nonsense.

    Who’s chopping the legs out from under their neighbors?

    The people with their entitlement mentality who think that someone else with a job ought to pay for their goodies.

    That’s who.

    And pushing back against them is not only good public policy but good campaign strategy. That’s why Gov. Walker and his policies won in a landslide in Wisconsin. Three times.

    Smart parasites do not kill the host. We do not have smart parasites in this country.

    The host is the private sector. The parasites are the bloated public sector, public sector rent-seekers (sometimes known as crony capitalists, although it’s a complete perversion of the word to call them capitalists of any sort), and public sector clients. Like Julia, Sandra Fluke, and Ms. Obamaphone, to pick three examples.

    We can not begin to address job growth until we’ve addressed that problem. Because as long as the parasites band together and vote themselves a living at private sector expense, the private sector will not invest a dime (in this country) nor create a job. No one will create wealth so that President “I believe in redistribution” can take it and spread it around to his constituents.

    Obama creates uncertainty with this kind of crap: the Obama eCard for Women.

    “Dear Mom,” the card reads. “Mitt Romney says he would repeal the Affordable Care Act. So here’s a quick question: Can I borrow $18,000 to help pay for my birth control? Thanks!”

    A lot of people have commented on that eCard. What I haven’t seen mentioned is that it never crosses Obama’s mind (I know he didn’t write it personally but it reflects his philosophy perfectly) that the little skank out to, at some point, get a job and pay for her own birth control.

    If the taxpayers aren’t going to do it, then mom needs to foot the bill for her recreational sex for the rest of her life. That’s the premise that note rests on, given that the $18k figure is supposed to represent a lifetime supply.

    We not only have a culture of dependency, but one of aggressive (sometimes hostile) entitlement. That’s what Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech was intended to encourage. He’s got some of his cronies masquerading as entrepreneurs who’ve made a pretty penny through corruption to stand up and say the rich should pay more. If the others don’t follow suit, then you (he was speaking to public sector employees) have the right to vote to take it. Because they didn’t “build that” it’s not their money; you’re entitled to it.

    It’s what his new “economic patriotism” is all about. It’s now “patriotic” to recognize the collective has prior claim on any money the private sector thinks it made. We’ve seen it before; that’s how the Bolsheviks looked at it when they stripped everyone of their wealth.

    I’ll let you concentrate on the wrong thing. When we point out the entitlement mentality we aren’t “chopping the legs out from out from under our neighbors.”

    Seriously, do you actually believe that free cell phones, an EBT card that can be used at strip clubs and liquor stores, and free birth control for life “are in many cases the only thing keeping some folks from the street?”

    Well, it isn’t. It’s the mindset that is the cause of the uncertainty. Obama will do more of it. All Romney has to do is promise to cut that nonsense out and you’ll see investment and jobs.

    Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/29/2012 @ 4:20 pm

  208. This website http://obamaphone.net/ which looks like a blog and has some errors and whose lasts posts are from December, 2011 explains this thing but tries to debunk the idea that this is because f Obama.

    This is the website pointed to by another website that said the picture changed – it used to have a picture of Obama.

    I knew about this free cellphone program (which is actually Lifeline adapted for cell phones) and Obama’s name was never mentioned in connection with this, in mail, in calls, anywhere, but who knows what’s been going on in some places.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/29/2012 @ 8:26 pm

  209. June 15, 2009 New York Times story about free cellphones

    John Cobb, 59, a former commercial fisherman who is disabled with cirrhosis of the liver and emphysema, lives in a studio apartment in Greensboro, N.C., on a fixed monthly income of $674. He has been hoping to receive more government assistance, and in February, he did.

    February, 2009 is much too soon in Obama’s Presidency (he was inaugurated Jan. 20, 2009) for him to have had anything to do with it.

    Tracfone began providing its service, called SafeLink, in Tennessee in August and now does so in 16 states, including New York, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, according to its Web site. Each time it enters a market — which generally requires state approval — it runs television ads telling people how easy it is to get a free Motorola phone, like Mr. Cobb’s.

    In August, 2008, George W. Bush was President.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/29/2012 @ 8:36 pm

  210. This whole extension of the Lifeline program to cellphones – while maintaining the condition that a recipient can only have one phone – undermines some of the premises behind Lifeline.

    There’s a difference between a landline and a
    cellphone. The two things are not the same.

    For emergencies, a landline is better.

    A cellphone is not in a fixed place. It can get lost. If it is turned off, or lost its power, even calling the number from some other phone won’t find it. If two or more people are living together, and the “Lifeline” phone is the only phone, the phone may be off the premises when it is needed. If the emergency is in the street, there’ll be people around. A landline phone (if it’s not a hypermodern imitation cellphone) does not need to be plugged in or recharged, and it works during electrical power blackouts.

    How could anyone imagine the two things are identical??

    In California, there was an assembyman who realized they are not.

    From the same New York Times article I quoted before:

    The Greenlining Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group for low-income residents, has lobbied the state to “move the California Lifeline program into the 21st century,” according to public documents provided for the hearing on Thursday.

    But State Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, who represents a district in Los Angeles, says the California legislature should ask some tough questions before moving ahead — particularly if people contemplate making wireless their only form of communication. Chiefly, he wants to know whether wireless service satisfies crucial aspects needed in lifeline, like reliability in an emergency.

    “What if the phone isn’t charged, or junior doesn’t know how to use it?” Mr. Fuentes asked.

    This modification of the program could be the result of somebody lobbying.

    Of course, it’s also cheaper – there’s no installation fee. Now, it’s true that a person needs a telephone for reasons other than emergencies and that was also part of the idea behind it..

    A person needs to (or should be able to) keep in contact with family. A person should be reachable – and for that a cellphone is actually better, provided it doesn’t get lost or misplaced, but an answering machine or answering service as part of a phone package, can take care of that too for most purposes.

    (if someone is trying to get advice while shopping from a member of the family, a landline won’t do, but you need two phones. If someone is trying to meet someone you might see some advantages in a cell phone versus a landline, but for secured continuity of service, and guaranteed availability over a period of a day or so, a landline is better. Landlines don’t get lost or left behind, or break very often.)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/29/2012 @ 9:07 pm

  211. 197. Comment by Steve57 — 9/29/2012 @ 12:49 pm

    You couldn’t get an “Obamaphone” before Obama.

    Not true. In Tennessee, this started as early as August, 2008.

    (In California, it hadn’t yet been approved by June, 2009)

    The subsidy money comes from a tax applied to phone bills. Carriers seeking eligibility for it apply to state utility commissions, though several states have ceded their jurisdiction in the matter to the F.C.C.

    The issue has created controversy in some states over how and even whether to subsidize wireless service. In California, for example, the public utilities commission plans to debate on Thursday a proposal to extend Lifeline services to wireless — a matter backed by companies like AT&T and Sprint and T-Mobile.

    And then Tracfone aggressively advertised them to low income people.

    The June 15, 2009 says like this:

    nce November, the number of customers receiving free or subsidized wireless service has doubled to 1.4 million, he said. To be eligible for the program, known as Lifeline, a person must meet federal low-income guidelines or qualify for one of a handful of social service programs, including food stamps or Medicaid.

    The opportunity has prompted interest from the nation’s biggest carriers, including Sprint Nextel and AT&T. But at the forefront is a much smaller company, Tracfone, a Florida provider of prepaid mobile service that has become the face of the fledgling subsidized cellphone.

    It also says that was possible since 1996 (but perhaps state approval was needed too?)

    It says:

    Telecommunications industry analysts said the program, while in its infancy, could benefit mobile phone carriers, who face a steep challenge of their own: most Americans already own a cellphone, so the poor represent a last untapped market.

    The program is still in its infancy”

    But it also says:

    ccording to the Federal Communications Commission, Lifeline service was started in 1984 to ensure that everyone had telephone service for emergencies. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened competition to new wireline and wireless providers.

    Did that merely extend this beyond the Baby Bells and before that it was limited to the baby Bells – the people who owned the actual wires??

    I’ll have to dig deeper to find out when and how this got started.

    And also when and where this started being called an Obamaphone.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/29/2012 @ 9:23 pm

  212. What the FCC it seems like now wants to do is drop the whole portion of the program that pays for installation costs for landlines in most places – and at the same time extend this to broadband Internet, although that can only be done on a pilot program. (How would that be delivered? Not DSL maybe. Cable?)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/29/2012 @ 9:27 pm

  213. Sammy Finkelman @ 209,

    If you go back and read my earlier comments you’ll see that I never asserted these changes took place because of the Obama administration. I simply pointed out the effects were felt during the Obama administration.

    Although I freely confess I have no doubt Obama had no trouble taking credit for it if he thought it would buy him votes.

    My earlier posts were about why these are called “Obamaphones.” There’s a reason.

    Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/29/2012 @ 9:28 pm

  214. ” it would be interesting to find out more exactly where she came up with this idea – and the term “Obamaphone”

    - Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 9/28/2012 @ 12:28 pm

    Comment by Steve57 — 9/29/2012 @ 12:47 pm

    Instead of overanalyzing things, Sammy, did it occur to you to just Google “Obama phone plan?”

    No. I knew there was no such thing as an “Obamaphone” And I knew what this was: Lifeline, adapted for cell phones..

    It did not occur to me that the use of this term “Obamaphone” could be widespread. I thought it would be hard to find some clue.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/29/2012 @ 9:34 pm

  215. Another Finkelman MEGO attack.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/29/2012 @ 9:46 pm

  216. omment by Steve57 — 9/29/2012 @ 9:28 pm

    If you go back and read my earlier comments you’ll see that I never asserted these changes took place because of the Obama administration.

    That’s right. But you said it started in 2009 – during he Obama Administration.

    Actually the PDF file you cite seems to indicate Tracfone was lobbying for some time. In 2005, they got an exemption from some requirement. This didn’t just happen, they must have been lobbying. But the FCC didn’t actually approve their plan until 2008 (one concern was that a family might get two Lifeline services at the same time – it’s easier to avoid with land lines)

    By June 2010 this was available in 48 states, although in some states the subsidy was less.

    I simply pointed out the effects were felt during the Obama administration.

    You said that it started then. Actually it started in the second half of 2008, but it became available in different states at different times.

    It seems to have started taking off just about the time of the November 2008 election since the Jun 2009 New York Times article uses that month as a baseline.

    I was right – this really pre-dated Obama – just by a little, but it did. He inherited this, just like the recession.

    Although I freely confess I have no doubt Obama had no trouble taking credit for it if he thought it would buy him votes.

    It looks like somebody decided to give him credit for this, at least in some states, at least in Cleveland, Ohio. Maybe they used that in areas that had voted heavily for Obama in 2008.

    You know what this means: that woman is not so stupid. She’s been told this stuff.

    I tend to see the hand of a politician in her idea that this is in any way targeted at minorities, like they’re getting something special, although she says when asked who’s eligible, anybody on Food Stamps, anybody getting some kind of government assistance, anybody with low enough income. But she also says any person who is a minority is getting (or can get or should get) their Obamaphone.

    My earlier posts were about why these are called “Obamaphones.” There’s a reason.

    Somebody’s misleading people. That’s why. There is a reason that’s possible. At least in some areas.

    The fact of the matter is that, per my reading of the GAO report, “Improved Management Can Enhance FCC Decision Making for the Universal Service Fund Low-Income Program,” until 2009 the program only offered discounted service to low income people. Under Obama, you could actually get a free phone with free services.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/29/2012 @ 10:06 pm

  217. 214. It did not occur to me that the use of this term “Obamaphone” could be widespread. I thought it would be hard to find some clue.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 9/29/2012 @ 9:34 pm

    I don’t know what you New Yorkers consider wide spread, but I’ve heard the term from Oak Cliff in Dallas to Oakland, CA. I hear the woman from Cleveland using it that video, it just doesn’t strike me as odd.

    We can quibble over months; maybe you’re right, the first free prepaid phones started edging up over the eastern horizon in August 2008. But the vast majority of people using these phones didn’t get them until after Obama was inaugurated, and they’re convinced this is just part of the payback for voting for him. Now they don’t have to worry about paying the mortgage, the rent, for filling their gas tank, the phone bill, etc.

    In any case, Sammy, I enjoy reading your comments. Just in case there was any doubt that I appreciate what you write, and I honestly do try to read every word.

    Comment by Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/29/2012 @ 10:15 pm

  218. It is perfect time to make some plans for the longer term and it is time to be happy. I have learn this publish and if I could I desire to counsel you few interesting issues or tips. Maybe you could write subsequent articles referring to this article. I want to read even more issues about it!

    Comment by yonex badminton (551075) — 10/7/2012 @ 12:37 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4626 secs.