Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
IRS arrogance
87 views
Skip to first unread message
la...@pivotforpower.com
Jun 6, 2013, 12:26:56 PM6/6/13
to
2600 IRS "supervisors" traveled to Anaheim, CA for a conference. They stayed in the Marriott, the Hilton, and the Sheraton, the most expensive hotels in the area. They paid the HIGHEST room rates with upgrades in amenities. Some of them stayed in the Presidential Suites, paying $1500+ per night. They had professional quality videos made of their parodies and fun, but not their important business purpose for the conference. The Star Trek parody alone cost $50k! And now the IRS can't even produce the receipts and other verification of the expenses. THIS IS THE IRS! They REQUIRE us to produce receipts.
And several IRS employees who reside in the Anaheim area ALSO stayed in the expensive hotels. They were given meals and amenities worth serious money, yet the IRS didn't report that significant gift as income to those employees; no 1099 was issued. The IRS committed tax evasion! YET, the IRS would have considered such a failure by a commercial employer to be almost criminal, big fines and penalties would have accrued.
And it turns out the IRS diverted funds appropriated for the hiring of important enforcement personnel to this $4 Million conference expense.
Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this. Elija Cummings, ranking member of the Oversight Committee, was so angry he could hardly talk!
Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
Larry
And several IRS employees who reside in the Anaheim area ALSO stayed in the expensive hotels. They were given meals and amenities worth serious money, yet the IRS didn't report that significant gift as income to those employees; no 1099 was issued. The IRS committed tax evasion! YET, the IRS would have considered such a failure by a commercial employer to be almost criminal, big fines and penalties would have accrued.
And it turns out the IRS diverted funds appropriated for the hiring of important enforcement personnel to this $4 Million conference expense.
Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this. Elija Cummings, ranking member of the Oversight Committee, was so angry he could hardly talk!
Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
Larry
Alan Baker
Jun 6, 2013, 12:58:32 PM6/6/13
to
In article <ba2d8975-0e9d-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
Hmmm...
You know what would have sealed all this?
A good reference to the original source...
...but not one to some wingnut publication.
:-)
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
You know what would have sealed all this?
A good reference to the original source...
...but not one to some wingnut publication.
:-)
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Lloyd
Jun 6, 2013, 1:08:45 PM6/6/13
to
In article <ba2d8975-0e9d-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
Lloyd
Jun 6, 2013, 1:09:14 PM6/6/13
to
In article <alangbaker-16FEA...@news.shawcable.net>,
Since it was from a few years back, he didn't feel the urge... :)
Horva...@net.net
Jun 6, 2013, 1:11:20 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:26:56 -0700 (PDT), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote this crap:
charge of Obamacare. Your wife will be rotting in a nursing home
because she can't get a hip replacement while the IRS will be partying
on your money.
This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote this crap:
>
>And it turns out the IRS diverted funds appropriated for the
> hiring of important enforcement personnel to this $4 Million
>conference expense.
>
>Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this.
> Elija Cummings, ranking member of the Oversight Committee,
> was so angry he could hardly talk!
>
>Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
>
>Larry
I'm with ya, Larry. And just think, these are the people who will in
>And it turns out the IRS diverted funds appropriated for the
> hiring of important enforcement personnel to this $4 Million
>conference expense.
>
>Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this.
> Elija Cummings, ranking member of the Oversight Committee,
> was so angry he could hardly talk!
>
>Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
>
>Larry
charge of Obamacare. Your wife will be rotting in a nursing home
because she can't get a hip replacement while the IRS will be partying
on your money.
This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe
Horva...@net.net
Jun 6, 2013, 1:37:54 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:08:45 -0500, Lloyd <lloydp...@me.com> wrote
this crap:
>In article <ba2d8975-0e9d-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
> "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>> 2600 IRS "supervisors" traveled to Anaheim, CA for a conference. They stayed
>> in the Marriott, the Hilton, and the Sheraton, the most expensive hotels in
>> the area. They paid the HIGHEST room rates with upgrades in amenities. Some
>> of them stayed in the Presidential Suites, paying $1500+ per night. They had
>> professional quality videos made of their parodies and fun, but not their
>> important business purpose for the conference. The Star Trek parody alone
>> cost $50k! And now the IRS can't even produce the receipts and other
>> verification of the expenses. THIS IS THE IRS! They REQUIRE us to produce
>> receipts.
>>
>
But I think the IRS is doing a splendid job, (if they're reading
this.) They deserve these opulent conferences because of the hard
work they do. It is wrong of us to criticize them.
this crap:
>In article <ba2d8975-0e9d-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
> "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>> 2600 IRS "supervisors" traveled to Anaheim, CA for a conference. They stayed
>> in the Marriott, the Hilton, and the Sheraton, the most expensive hotels in
>> the area. They paid the HIGHEST room rates with upgrades in amenities. Some
>> of them stayed in the Presidential Suites, paying $1500+ per night. They had
>> professional quality videos made of their parodies and fun, but not their
>> important business purpose for the conference. The Star Trek parody alone
>> cost $50k! And now the IRS can't even produce the receipts and other
>> verification of the expenses. THIS IS THE IRS! They REQUIRE us to produce
>> receipts.
>>
>
>And when did those things happen? And have they been curtailed since?
I saw it on Fox News last night. They even showed the youtube videos.
But I think the IRS is doing a splendid job, (if they're reading
this.) They deserve these opulent conferences because of the hard
work they do. It is wrong of us to criticize them.
jay birdsong
Jun 6, 2013, 1:54:20 PM6/6/13
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-16FEA...@news.shawcable.net...
Nothing - but the stalking of Larry drones on.
You are a Loser, Alwin.
Moderate
Jun 6, 2013, 2:01:17 PM6/6/13
to
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
You don't get news that far north? How is it possible you haven't
heard this already?
--
heard this already?
--
Lloyd
Jun 6, 2013, 2:12:10 PM6/6/13
to
In article <10i1r8hnqaot51pfv...@4ax.com>,
story. Just the righties looking for anything and everything to slam
Obama. Of course, this time they have some things to really bitch
about, though they are making more of some of it than it should be
Horva...@net.net wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:08:45 -0500, Lloyd <lloydp...@me.com> wrote
> this crap:
>
> >In article <ba2d8975-0e9d-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 2600 IRS "supervisors" traveled to Anaheim, CA for a conference. They
> >> stayed
> >> in the Marriott, the Hilton, and the Sheraton, the most expensive hotels
> >> in
> >> the area. They paid the HIGHEST room rates with upgrades in amenities.
> >> Some
> >> of them stayed in the Presidential Suites, paying $1500+ per night. They
> >> had
> >> professional quality videos made of their parodies and fun, but not their
> >> important business purpose for the conference. The Star Trek parody alone
> >> cost $50k! And now the IRS can't even produce the receipts and other
> >> verification of the expenses. THIS IS THE IRS! They REQUIRE us to
> >> produce
> >> receipts.
> >>
> >
> >And when did those things happen? And have they been curtailed since?
>
> I saw it on Fox News last night. They even showed the youtube videos.
>
You might have seen it on Fox News last night, but it was a very old
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:08:45 -0500, Lloyd <lloydp...@me.com> wrote
> this crap:
>
> >In article <ba2d8975-0e9d-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 2600 IRS "supervisors" traveled to Anaheim, CA for a conference. They
> >> stayed
> >> in the Marriott, the Hilton, and the Sheraton, the most expensive hotels
> >> in
> >> the area. They paid the HIGHEST room rates with upgrades in amenities.
> >> Some
> >> of them stayed in the Presidential Suites, paying $1500+ per night. They
> >> had
> >> professional quality videos made of their parodies and fun, but not their
> >> important business purpose for the conference. The Star Trek parody alone
> >> cost $50k! And now the IRS can't even produce the receipts and other
> >> verification of the expenses. THIS IS THE IRS! They REQUIRE us to
> >> produce
> >> receipts.
> >>
> >
> >And when did those things happen? And have they been curtailed since?
>
> I saw it on Fox News last night. They even showed the youtube videos.
>
story. Just the righties looking for anything and everything to slam
Obama. Of course, this time they have some things to really bitch
about, though they are making more of some of it than it should be
golfbum18
Jun 6, 2013, 2:56:49 PM6/6/13
to
On Jun 6, 12:26 pm, "la...@pivotforpower.com"
Now if you think this didn't go on in the Dark Days of Dubya era,
you're more naive and uninformed than most other fox noise network
addicts. Then again, if you believe this is isolated to just now, you
really did just fall off the back of the beet truck. Another
embarrassing post by larry at pivot (which is just another way of
saying "spinning") for power. Even the false addy reeks of hollow
machismo.
you're more naive and uninformed than most other fox noise network
addicts. Then again, if you believe this is isolated to just now, you
really did just fall off the back of the beet truck. Another
embarrassing post by larry at pivot (which is just another way of
saying "spinning") for power. Even the false addy reeks of hollow
machismo.
golfbum18
Jun 6, 2013, 3:07:52 PM6/6/13
to
On Jun 6, 2:12 pm, Lloyd <lloydpars...@me.com> wrote:
> In article <10i1r8hnqaot51pfvtgamik803ascgo...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:08:45 -0500, Lloyd <lloydpars...@me.com> wrote
Amazing how the right wing moonbats become so righteous when their guy
isn't in there screwin' the pooch. We've still heard nothing about how
this "scandal" comes anywhere close to killing off 4300 Americans,
spending trillions, and lending to an economic downturn for years, as
occurred when their dope cheated his way into the Oval Office. But,
history is carving out its special little niche in history hell for
the bushturd....and of course, the righties know and realize this
which makes drives them nuts.
> In article <10i1r8hnqaot51pfvtgamik803ascgo...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:08:45 -0500, Lloyd <lloydpars...@me.com> wrote
isn't in there screwin' the pooch. We've still heard nothing about how
this "scandal" comes anywhere close to killing off 4300 Americans,
spending trillions, and lending to an economic downturn for years, as
occurred when their dope cheated his way into the Oval Office. But,
history is carving out its special little niche in history hell for
the bushturd....and of course, the righties know and realize this
which makes drives them nuts.
golfbum18
Jun 6, 2013, 3:08:36 PM6/6/13
to
golfbum18
Jun 6, 2013, 3:10:00 PM6/6/13
to
you're like the kid that hands out candy on the playground so that the
other boys will be his "friends." Pitiful lump of pus.
golfbum18
Jun 6, 2013, 3:12:05 PM6/6/13
to
On Jun 6, 1:37 pm, Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:08:45 -0500, Lloyd <lloydpars...@me.com> wrote
Proof. The Faux news network at it again, throwing shit at a wall to
see if anybody will catch it. Resident shit catchers on here eat it
right up. Way to go boys....now go brush your teeth. ;-)
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:08:45 -0500, Lloyd <lloydpars...@me.com> wrote
see if anybody will catch it. Resident shit catchers on here eat it
right up. Way to go boys....now go brush your teeth. ;-)
MNMikeW
Jun 6, 2013, 3:47:37 PM6/6/13
to
the douche.
Alan Baker
Jun 6, 2013, 3:54:02 PM6/6/13
to
In article <b1c7aq...@mid.individual.net>,
Nope. I'm pointing out that Larry makes outrageous statements, and guys
like you eat them up:
"Fox is the ONLY thing between us and tyranny"
like you eat them up:
"Fox is the ONLY thing between us and tyranny"
jay birdsong
Jun 6, 2013, 4:08:22 PM6/6/13
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
Larry's posts, or mine, Douchebag. Get a life, you worthless Loser
errrr.......... "computer hhehehehARHARHAR, consultant".
A "computer consultant" without a website !!?? That’s rich.
snip dumb cunt sig.
Alan Baker
Jun 6, 2013, 4:14:49 PM6/6/13
to
In article <koqpv1$q8p$1...@dont-email.me>,
No one is forcing you to read or reply to mine, Michael.
And you reply to a greater percentage of mine than I do to Larry's.
:-)
>
> A "computer consultant" without a website !!?? That’s rich.
Who says I don't have a website?
:-)
And you reply to a greater percentage of mine than I do to Larry's.
:-)
>
> A "computer consultant" without a website !!?? That’s rich.
:-)
jay birdsong
Jun 6, 2013, 5:16:12 PM6/6/13
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
>And you reply to a greater percentage of mine than I do to Larry's.
>:-)
>
> A "computer consultant" without a website !!?? That’s rich.
>Who says I don't have a website?
And, your POS newsreader is breaking text. Can't a "computer
consultant" without a website or life, like you, fix it?
snip dumb cunt sig.
KenPitts
Jun 6, 2013, 5:57:30 PM6/6/13
to
On Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:08:45 PM UTC-5, Lloyd wrote:
>
> And when did those things happen? And have they been curtailed since?
Same time as the GSA was spending expense money like it was free. On Hussein's watch.
>
> And when did those things happen? And have they been curtailed since?
Ken
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-gsa-scandal-employees-massive-bonuses-top-lavish-conference-spending-article-1.1126949
KenPitts
Jun 6, 2013, 6:06:33 PM6/6/13
to
On Thursday, June 6, 2013 2:07:52 PM UTC-5, golfbum18 wrote:
>
>
> Amazing how the right wing moonbats become so righteous when their guy
>
> isn't in there screwin' the pooch. We've still heard nothing about how
>
> this "scandal" comes anywhere close to killing off 4300 Americans,
>
> spending trillions, and lending to an economic downturn for years, as
>
> occurred when their dope cheated his way into the Oval Office. But,
>
> history is carving out its special little niche in history hell for
>
> the bushturd....and of course, the righties know and realize this
>
> which makes drives them nuts.
I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam Hussein eventually anyway. And Google "regime change 1998". Lots of tough talking Dems and some legislation that specified that we were to remove Saddam Hussein. The economic down turn was caused by liberal Dems like Frank and Dodd. The economy was on an uptick until January 2007 when Dems took over.
>
>
> Amazing how the right wing moonbats become so righteous when their guy
>
> isn't in there screwin' the pooch. We've still heard nothing about how
>
> this "scandal" comes anywhere close to killing off 4300 Americans,
>
> spending trillions, and lending to an economic downturn for years, as
>
> occurred when their dope cheated his way into the Oval Office. But,
>
> history is carving out its special little niche in history hell for
>
> the bushturd....and of course, the righties know and realize this
>
> which makes drives them nuts.
And of course there is this. The Clintons directed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to loosen up mortgage requirements. How did that work for us? The bailout was predicted in this NY Times piece in 1999.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
Idiots like you will be blaming Bush 50 years from now.
I'm sure a panty wearing twerp like you would not have even responded in Afghanistan. That absolutely had to be done.
Ken
KenPitts
Jun 6, 2013, 6:18:48 PM6/6/13
to
NY Times is off the bandwagon!
Ken
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
Ken
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
Horva...@net.net
Jun 6, 2013, 6:58:22 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
wrote this crap:
>NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>
>Ken
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
This explains why those obamaphones were given out to anyone who
wanted one.
wrote this crap:
>NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>
>Ken
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
wanted one.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Jun 6, 2013, 7:54:14 PM6/6/13
to
Larry
Carbon
Jun 6, 2013, 7:55:26 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:06:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
> I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam Hussein
> eventually anyway.
So why not waste a couple trillion doing it in the stupidest way
> I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam Hussein
> eventually anyway.
imaginable.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Jun 6, 2013, 7:59:24 PM6/6/13
to
And the White House and/or Treasury department had no intention of disciplining them--because they have used the IRS as a weapon against Republicans since Obama was originally elected, 4 years! And it worked! The IRS probably changed the outcome of the 2012 election by stalling the formation of hundreds of non-profit entities that would have contributed big bucks to counter the big bucks that came from unions to help Obama.
I hope Congress puts the worst of them in jail.
Larry
Moderate
Jun 6, 2013, 8:26:00 PM6/6/13
to
Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
Why do you deliberately lie about the cost of the war?
--
--
BAR
Jun 6, 2013, 8:28:56 PM6/6/13
to
In article <pan.2013.06...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
says...
You do realize that knocking off Saddam was being tried for many decades prior to our second
war with him.
says...
war with him.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 6, 2013, 8:33:14 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:26:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:
Why are you deliberately stupid?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
Alan Baker
Jun 6, 2013, 8:38:01 PM6/6/13
to
In article <81ef71c1-07b9-46f1...@googlegroups.com>,
break from working on my Formula Ford open wheel racing car...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_faLq9Ey5no>
For a broke, unemployed person, I do manage to have some fun.
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this. Elija Cummings,
> >
> > > ranking member of the Oversight Committee, was so angry he could hardly
> > > talk!
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> >
> >
> > You know what would have sealed all this?
> >
> >
> >
> > A good reference to the original source...
> >
> >
> >
> > ...but not one to some wingnut publication.
> >
> >
> > > Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this. Elija Cummings,
> >
> > > ranking member of the Oversight Committee, was so angry he could hardly
> > > talk!
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> >
> >
> > You know what would have sealed all this?
> >
> >
> >
> > A good reference to the original source...
> >
> >
> >
> > ...but not one to some wingnut publication.
> >
> NO American taxpayer cares a wit what an unemployed Canadian thinks about the
> IRS. You don't earn money. You didn't finish school. You are unemployed and
> broke. You don't pay taxes. STFU and go away!!
>
> Larry
It is particularly amusing to reply to this diatribe while taking a
> IRS. You don't earn money. You didn't finish school. You are unemployed and
> broke. You don't pay taxes. STFU and go away!!
>
> Larry
break from working on my Formula Ford open wheel racing car...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_faLq9Ey5no>
For a broke, unemployed person, I do manage to have some fun.
Moderate
Jun 6, 2013, 8:40:32 PM6/6/13
to
bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
I am not deliberately stupid. I am smart enough to look at the
actual spending.
Too bad you aren't. This study reminds me of the Pew report on
Iraq casualties. Bunk.
--
actual spending.
Too bad you aren't. This study reminds me of the Pew report on
Iraq casualties. Bunk.
--
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 6, 2013, 8:45:13 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:40:32 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
Google it dumb ass.
The numbers run from a low of 1 up to 6 trillion, after . You think
you know it all. As usual, you don't. Scum.
The numbers run from a low of 1 up to 6 trillion, after . You think
you know it all. As usual, you don't. Scum.
jay birdsong
Jun 6, 2013, 8:48:44 PM6/6/13
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
In article <81ef71c1-07b9-46f1...@googlegroups.com>,
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this. Elija
> > > Cummings,
> >
> > > ranking member of the Oversight Committee, was so angry he could
> > > hardly
> > > talk!
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> >
> >
> > You know what would have sealed all this?
> >
> >
> >
> > A good reference to the original source...
> >
> >
> >
> > ...but not one to some wingnut publication.
> >
> NO American taxpayer cares a wit what an unemployed Canadian thinks
> about the
> IRS. You don't earn money. You didn't finish school. You are
> unemployed and
> broke. You don't pay taxes. STFU and go away!!
>
> Larry
>It is particularly amusing to reply to this diatribe while taking a
>break from working on my Formula Ford open wheel racing car...
cheap thrill, that you overpaid by thrice for. The wheels on my toy,
cost more than your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" and your
little red 20 YO Miata, combined.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_faLq9Ey5no>
>For a broke, unemployed person, I do manage to have some fun.
Why don't you go soak your head, Loser.
snip dumb cunt sig.
Carbon
Jun 6, 2013, 9:02:34 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:32 -0500, Moderate wrote:
> bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:26:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:06:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam
>>>>> Hussein eventually anyway.
>>>>
>>>> So why not waste a couple trillion doing it in the stupidest way
>>>> imaginable.
>>>
>>> Why do you deliberately lie about the cost of the war?
>>
>> Why are you deliberately stupid?
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
>
> I am not deliberately stupid. I am smart enough to look at the actual
> spending.
I suppose no one is deliberately stupid. Anyway, the total cost so far is
> bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:26:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:06:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam
>>>>> Hussein eventually anyway.
>>>>
>>>> So why not waste a couple trillion doing it in the stupidest way
>>>> imaginable.
>>>
>>> Why do you deliberately lie about the cost of the war?
>>
>> Why are you deliberately stupid?
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
>
> I am not deliberately stupid. I am smart enough to look at the actual
> spending.
1.7 trillion, with another 490 billion owed to veterans. The final cost
will obviously be much higher, once long-term healthcare costs and
interest are factored in.
The truth is Bush and his handlers thought the war would be much shorter
and much less expensive than it turned out to be. Of course apologists
like yourself will never admit that they just fucked the whole thing up.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 6, 2013, 9:44:55 PM6/6/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 01:02:34 GMT, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:32 -0500, Moderate wrote:
>> bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:26:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:06:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam
>>>>>> Hussein eventually anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why not waste a couple trillion doing it in the stupidest way
>>>>> imaginable.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you deliberately lie about the cost of the war?
>>>
>>> Why are you deliberately stupid?
>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
>>
>> I am not deliberately stupid. I am smart enough to look at the actual
>> spending.
>
>I suppose no one is deliberately stupid.
It's deliberate when you have the ability to check the figures but
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:32 -0500, Moderate wrote:
>> bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:26:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:06:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam
>>>>>> Hussein eventually anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why not waste a couple trillion doing it in the stupidest way
>>>>> imaginable.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you deliberately lie about the cost of the war?
>>>
>>> Why are you deliberately stupid?
>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
>>
>> I am not deliberately stupid. I am smart enough to look at the actual
>> spending.
>
>I suppose no one is deliberately stupid.
don't.....and then criticize without having a clue.
>Anyway, the total cost so far is
>1.7 trillion, with another 490 billion owed to veterans. The final cost
>will obviously be much higher, once long-term healthcare costs and
>interest are factored in.
tens of thousands wounded. The estimates of civilians killed go from
112,000 to 136,000.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Jun 6, 2013, 9:57:44 PM6/6/13
to
AND, anyone here with the integrity and intelligence to listen to briefings of the facts would have done nearly exactly what he did. Obama for instance, got himself elected by saying he would NOT do what Bush did, but when he heard the facts, he was obliged to continue nearly every Bush policy. The world situation simply dictated that an American President do ugly things to protect his country--as he had sworn to do.
Larry
Alan Baker
Jun 6, 2013, 10:08:01 PM6/6/13
to
In article <koracn$d5j$1...@dont-email.me>,
Because you found one online listing for an RF89 that had been screwed
up, it negates the dozens of others that are more than what I paid for:
the car,
the bespoke custom trailer,
the spares
the body molds...
LOL
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_faLq9Ey5no>
>
> >For a broke, unemployed person, I do manage to have some fun.
>
> Yeah, a $15 buck entry fee!! WOW!!! You sure are wealthy.
$15? Where've you been racing? Because I'd like to go there and pay $15
for two practice sessions, one qualification and three races. Sadly,
back in the real world, the weekend cost me $350 for the entry fee (and
another $130 for the friday practice day) plus the rental of a tow
vehicle.
But you and reality aren't well acquainted.
"jay birdsong" <jaybi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > NO American taxpayer cares a wit what an unemployed Canadian thinks
> > about the
> > IRS. You don't earn money. You didn't finish school. You are
> > unemployed and
> > broke. You don't pay taxes. STFU and go away!!
> >
> > Larry
>
> >It is particularly amusing to reply to this diatribe while taking a
> >break from working on my Formula Ford open wheel racing car...
>
> Your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" is nothing more than a very
> cheap thrill, that you overpaid by thrice for. The wheels on my toy,
> cost more than your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" and your
> little red 20 YO Miata, combined.
Riiiiiight.
> > NO American taxpayer cares a wit what an unemployed Canadian thinks
> > about the
> > IRS. You don't earn money. You didn't finish school. You are
> > unemployed and
> > broke. You don't pay taxes. STFU and go away!!
> >
> > Larry
>
> >It is particularly amusing to reply to this diatribe while taking a
> >break from working on my Formula Ford open wheel racing car...
>
> Your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" is nothing more than a very
> cheap thrill, that you overpaid by thrice for. The wheels on my toy,
> cost more than your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" and your
> little red 20 YO Miata, combined.
Because you found one online listing for an RF89 that had been screwed
up, it negates the dozens of others that are more than what I paid for:
the car,
the bespoke custom trailer,
the spares
the body molds...
LOL
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_faLq9Ey5no>
>
> >For a broke, unemployed person, I do manage to have some fun.
>
> Yeah, a $15 buck entry fee!! WOW!!! You sure are wealthy.
for two practice sessions, one qualification and three races. Sadly,
back in the real world, the weekend cost me $350 for the entry fee (and
another $130 for the friday practice day) plus the rental of a tow
vehicle.
But you and reality aren't well acquainted.
Alan Baker
Jun 6, 2013, 10:22:44 PM6/6/13
to
In article <3ac6e142-d915-4b86...@googlegroups.com>,
You're utterly wrong... ...but that's no surprise.
Such spending at the IRS has been reduced by nearly a factor of 10 since
then.
"The IRS and the Treasury Department reduced conference spending in
subsequent years and implemented new policies on travel and video
productions. The IRS spent less than $5 million on large conferences in
2012, compared with about $37.6 million in fiscal 2010."
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/two-irs-officials-said-to-be-on
-leave-over-free-food-at-event.html>
But I guess you have to be "broke and unemployed" to be able to find out
these things rather than just lie about them.
Such spending at the IRS has been reduced by nearly a factor of 10 since
then.
"The IRS and the Treasury Department reduced conference spending in
subsequent years and implemented new policies on travel and video
productions. The IRS spent less than $5 million on large conferences in
2012, compared with about $37.6 million in fiscal 2010."
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/two-irs-officials-said-to-be-on
-leave-over-free-food-at-event.html>
But I guess you have to be "broke and unemployed" to be able to find out
these things rather than just lie about them.
Alan Baker
Jun 6, 2013, 10:23:44 PM6/6/13
to
In article <koqtu7$ipa$1...@dont-email.me>,
So your premise is flawed then.
Now run off and look up "premise" before you reply.
:-)
>
>
> >:-)
>
> >
> > A "computer consultant" without a website !!?? That’s rich.
>
> >Who says I don't have a website?
>
> You don't.
You're right: I don't say I don't have a website.
Now run off and look up "premise" before you reply.
:-)
>
>
> >:-)
>
> >
> > A "computer consultant" without a website !!?? That’s rich.
>
> >Who says I don't have a website?
>
> You don't.
Alan Baker
Jun 7, 2013, 12:35:43 AM6/7/13
to
In article <3eedfc09-3dbd-4056...@googlegroups.com>,
Let me help you:
"20012009 (George W. Bush (R) presidency)[edit]
Executive branch[edit]
Courtney Stadd, Chief of Staff to NASA, was sentenced to 41 months in
prison for conspiracy. (2012)[5]
Scott Bloch was appointed by George W. Bush to head the United States
Office of Special Counsel and was sentenced to one month in prison for
Contempt of Congress and sentenced to one year of un-supervised
probation. Bloch had hired Geeks on Call to scrub his computer of files
before they could be examined by Congress. (2010)[6]
Lewis Libby (R) Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney (R).
'Scooter' was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the
Plame Affair on March 6, 2007 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison
and fined $250,000. His sentence was commuted by George W. Bush (R) on
July 1, 2007. The felony remains on Libby's record though the jail time
and fine were commuted.[7]
Lester Crawford (R) Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration,
resigned after 2 months. Pleaded guilty to conflict of interest and
received 3 years suspended sentence and fined $90,000. (2006) [8]
Claude Allen (R) Advisor to President Bush on Domestic Policy, Allen was
arrested for a series of felony thefts in retail stores such as Target.
(2006) He was convicted on one count and resigned soon after.[9]
Darleen Druyun (D) Principal Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition, Druyun pleaded guilty to inflating the price of the
contract to favor her future employer and to passing information on the
competing Airbus A330 MRTT bid (from EADS). In October 2004, she was
sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption, fined $5,000, given
three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service.
She began her prison term on January 5, 2005.[10]
Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal involves the efforts of Abramoff to influence
Congress concerning U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws. See
Legislative branch convictions. Convictions within the Bush
administration include:
David Safavian GSA (General Services Administration) Chief of Staff,[11]
found guilty of blocking justice and lying, [12] and sentenced to 18
months[13]
Roger Stillwell Staff in the Department of the Interior under George W.
Bush. Pleaded guilty and received two years suspended sentence. [12]
Susan B. Ralston Special Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor
to Karl Rove, resigned October 6, 2006 after it became known that she
accepted gifts and passed information to her former boss Jack
Abramoff.[14]
J. Steven Griles Deputy Secretary of the Interior pleaded guilty to
obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 10 months.[15]
Italia Federici staff to the Secretary of Interior, and President of the
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, pleaded guilty to tax
evasion and obstruction of justice. She was sentenced to four years
probation.[16][17][18]
Jared Carpenter Vice-President of the Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, was discovered during the Abramoff investigation
and pleaded guilty to income tax evasion. He got 45 days, plus 4 years
probation.[19]
Mark Zachares staff in the Department of Labor, bribed by Abramoff,
guilty of conspiracy to defraud. [20]
Robert E. Coughlin Deputy Chief of Staff, Criminal Division of the
Justice Department pleaded guilty to conflict of interest after
accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff. (2008) [17]"
"20012009 (George W. Bush (R) presidency)[edit]
Executive branch[edit]
Courtney Stadd, Chief of Staff to NASA, was sentenced to 41 months in
prison for conspiracy. (2012)[5]
Scott Bloch was appointed by George W. Bush to head the United States
Office of Special Counsel and was sentenced to one month in prison for
Contempt of Congress and sentenced to one year of un-supervised
probation. Bloch had hired Geeks on Call to scrub his computer of files
before they could be examined by Congress. (2010)[6]
Lewis Libby (R) Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney (R).
'Scooter' was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the
Plame Affair on March 6, 2007 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison
and fined $250,000. His sentence was commuted by George W. Bush (R) on
July 1, 2007. The felony remains on Libby's record though the jail time
and fine were commuted.[7]
Lester Crawford (R) Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration,
resigned after 2 months. Pleaded guilty to conflict of interest and
received 3 years suspended sentence and fined $90,000. (2006) [8]
Claude Allen (R) Advisor to President Bush on Domestic Policy, Allen was
arrested for a series of felony thefts in retail stores such as Target.
(2006) He was convicted on one count and resigned soon after.[9]
Darleen Druyun (D) Principal Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition, Druyun pleaded guilty to inflating the price of the
contract to favor her future employer and to passing information on the
competing Airbus A330 MRTT bid (from EADS). In October 2004, she was
sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption, fined $5,000, given
three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service.
She began her prison term on January 5, 2005.[10]
Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal involves the efforts of Abramoff to influence
Congress concerning U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws. See
Legislative branch convictions. Convictions within the Bush
administration include:
David Safavian GSA (General Services Administration) Chief of Staff,[11]
found guilty of blocking justice and lying, [12] and sentenced to 18
months[13]
Roger Stillwell Staff in the Department of the Interior under George W.
Bush. Pleaded guilty and received two years suspended sentence. [12]
Susan B. Ralston Special Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor
to Karl Rove, resigned October 6, 2006 after it became known that she
accepted gifts and passed information to her former boss Jack
Abramoff.[14]
J. Steven Griles Deputy Secretary of the Interior pleaded guilty to
obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 10 months.[15]
Italia Federici staff to the Secretary of Interior, and President of the
Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, pleaded guilty to tax
evasion and obstruction of justice. She was sentenced to four years
probation.[16][17][18]
Jared Carpenter Vice-President of the Council of Republicans for
Environmental Advocacy, was discovered during the Abramoff investigation
and pleaded guilty to income tax evasion. He got 45 days, plus 4 years
probation.[19]
Mark Zachares staff in the Department of Labor, bribed by Abramoff,
guilty of conspiracy to defraud. [20]
Robert E. Coughlin Deputy Chief of Staff, Criminal Division of the
Justice Department pleaded guilty to conflict of interest after
accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff. (2008) [17]"
jay birdsong
Jun 7, 2013, 8:12:52 AM6/7/13
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
Hmmmmm....I thought I said END?
Oh well.
END
jay birdsong
Jun 7, 2013, 8:13:59 AM6/7/13
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
Hmmmm.....I thought I said END?
No?
Oh well.
END
Moderate
Jun 7, 2013, 9:04:09 AM6/7/13
to
Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:32 -0500, Moderate wrote:
>> bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:26:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:06:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam
>>>>>> Hussein eventually anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why not waste a couple trillion doing it in the stupidest way
>>>>> imaginable.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you deliberately lie about the cost of the war?
>>>
>>> Why are you deliberately stupid?
>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
>>
>> I am not deliberately stupid. I am smart enough to look at the actual
>> spending.
>
> I suppose no one is deliberately stupid. Anyway, the total cost so far is
> 1.7 trillion, with another 490 billion owed to veterans. The final cost
> will obviously be much higher, once long-term healthcare costs and
> interest are factored in.
>
> The truth is Bush and his handlers thought the war would be much shorter
> and much less expensive than it turned out to be. Of course apologists
> like yourself will never admit that they just fucked the whole thing up.
>
We get it. Not only are you bad at math, you are gullible.
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:32 -0500, Moderate wrote:
>> bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 19:26:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:06:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I will always believe that we would have had to remove Saddam
>>>>>> Hussein eventually anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why not waste a couple trillion doing it in the stupidest way
>>>>> imaginable.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you deliberately lie about the cost of the war?
>>>
>>> Why are you deliberately stupid?
>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
>>
>> I am not deliberately stupid. I am smart enough to look at the actual
>> spending.
>
> I suppose no one is deliberately stupid. Anyway, the total cost so far is
> 1.7 trillion, with another 490 billion owed to veterans. The final cost
> will obviously be much higher, once long-term healthcare costs and
> interest are factored in.
>
> The truth is Bush and his handlers thought the war would be much shorter
> and much less expensive than it turned out to be. Of course apologists
> like yourself will never admit that they just fucked the whole thing up.
>
--
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 10:38:04 AM6/7/13
to
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 10:40:26 AM6/7/13
to
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 10:40:59 AM6/7/13
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 10:46:14 AM6/7/13
to
"Obamaphone" was initially offered in the Reagan years, and has just
continued.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 10:55:50 AM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:40:59 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
this crap:
>Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>> wrote this crap:
>>
>>> NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
>>
>> This explains why those obamaphones were given out to anyone who
>> wanted one.
>>
>>
>"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 10:59:58 AM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:46:14 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:40:59 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote this crap:
>>>
>>>> NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
>>>
>>> This explains why those obamaphones were given out to anyone who
>>> wanted one.
>>>
people were to have phones to call 911. Today almost anyone can get
one and you get 250 free minutes and text messaging.
crap:
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:40:59 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote this crap:
>>>
>>>> NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
>>>
>>> This explains why those obamaphones were given out to anyone who
>>> wanted one.
>>>
>>"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>
>Amazing that some don't realize that the program now called
>"Obamaphone" was initially offered in the Reagan years, and has just
>continued.
It's been expanded greatly. Under Reagan, homeless people and retired
>
>Amazing that some don't realize that the program now called
>"Obamaphone" was initially offered in the Reagan years, and has just
>continued.
people were to have phones to call 911. Today almost anyone can get
one and you get 250 free minutes and text messaging.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 11:33:17 AM6/7/13
to
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
Towards the bottom this shows the exact time-line of the cell phone
program, how it grew and under whose administrations. It also gives a
list of who qualifies for the program and I doubt that you're on it.
In fact, I'm sure that you're offering another one of your
terminological inexactitudes.
Bottom line though. It's another ultra[-right lie to blame it on the
present administration.
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 11:37:28 AM6/7/13
to
spending, ect.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 11:45:24 AM6/7/13
to
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 12:30:43 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:33:17 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:55:50 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:40:59 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
>>this crap:
>>
>>>Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote this crap:
>>>>
>>>>> NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
>>>>
>>>> This explains why those obamaphones were given out to anyone who
>>>> wanted one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>
>>I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>
>
>Then you aren't as well-off as you suggest.
>
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
>
>Towards the bottom this shows the exact time-line of the cell phone
>program, how it grew and under whose administrations.
No it doesn't and I scrolled all the way down.
> It also gives a
>list of who qualifies for the program and I doubt that you're on it.
>In fact, I'm sure that you're offering another one of your
>terminological inexactitudes.
Those were dated Oct. 2009. There is another link to some updated
information. I qualify under several of those programs.
>Bottom line though. It's another ultra[-right lie to blame it on the
>present administration.
No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
program.
crap:
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:55:50 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:40:59 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
>>this crap:
>>
>>>Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote this crap:
>>>>
>>>>> NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
>>>>
>>>> This explains why those obamaphones were given out to anyone who
>>>> wanted one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>
>>I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>
>
>Then you aren't as well-off as you suggest.
>
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
>
>Towards the bottom this shows the exact time-line of the cell phone
>program, how it grew and under whose administrations.
> It also gives a
>list of who qualifies for the program and I doubt that you're on it.
>In fact, I'm sure that you're offering another one of your
>terminological inexactitudes.
information. I qualify under several of those programs.
>Bottom line though. It's another ultra[-right lie to blame it on the
>present administration.
program.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 12:34:43 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:45:24 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>>>>>
link for updates in effect since Oct 2012. Who was president in 2012?
Even the link you provided is good from 2009. Who was president in
2009?
crap:
>>>>>
>>>> "We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>>
>>> Amazing that some don't realize that the program now called
>>> "Obamaphone" was initially offered in the Reagan years, and has just
>>> continued.
>>>
>>And ballooned under Obama.
>
>Wrong, but then your closed mind won't allow you to read the article.
>>Just like his domestic spying, the debt,
>>spending, ect.
No. Look at your own link. Scroll to the bottom where there is a
>>>
>>> Amazing that some don't realize that the program now called
>>> "Obamaphone" was initially offered in the Reagan years, and has just
>>> continued.
>>>
>>And ballooned under Obama.
>
>Wrong, but then your closed mind won't allow you to read the article.
>>Just like his domestic spying, the debt,
>>spending, ect.
link for updates in effect since Oct 2012. Who was president in 2012?
Even the link you provided is good from 2009. Who was president in
2009?
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 12:42:06 PM6/7/13
to
But that isnt ballooning, LOL!!
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 12:48:51 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:30:43 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:33:17 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>crap:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:55:50 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:40:59 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
>>>this crap:
>>>
>>>>Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote this crap:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
>>>>>
>>>>> This explains why those obamaphones were given out to anyone who
>>>>> wanted one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>>
>>>I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>>mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>>
>>
>>Then you aren't as well-off as you suggest.
>>
>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
>>
>>Towards the bottom this shows the exact time-line of the cell phone
>>program, how it grew and under whose administrations.
>
>No it doesn't and I scrolled all the way down.
>
It certainly does. The paragraph starts; The LifeLine program
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:33:17 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>crap:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:55:50 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:40:59 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
>>>this crap:
>>>
>>>>Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote this crap:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NY Times is off the bandwagon!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
>>>>>
>>>>> This explains why those obamaphones were given out to anyone who
>>>>> wanted one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>>
>>>I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>>mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>>
>>
>>Then you aren't as well-off as you suggest.
>>
>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
>>
>>Towards the bottom this shows the exact time-line of the cell phone
>>program, how it grew and under whose administrations.
>
>No it doesn't and I scrolled all the way down.
>
originated in 1984....
>> It also gives a
>>list of who qualifies for the program and I doubt that you're on it.
>>In fact, I'm sure that you're offering another one of your
>>terminological inexactitudes.
>
>Those were dated Oct. 2009. There is another link to some updated
>information. I qualify under several of those programs.
Really? Name one. Oh, then your income is 135% at or below federal
>>list of who qualifies for the program and I doubt that you're on it.
>>In fact, I'm sure that you're offering another one of your
>>terminological inexactitudes.
>
>Those were dated Oct. 2009. There is another link to some updated
>information. I qualify under several of those programs.
Poverty Guidelines.
>
>>Bottom line though. It's another ultra-right lie to blame it on the
>>present administration.
>
>No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
>program.
>
Wrong again. You really need to learn to read. The only change in
>
>No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
>program.
>
2012 was because of administering the program causing the FCC to
revamp it to eliminate waste, etc.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312210A1.pdf
Also the program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but by a fee
to the telecommunications companies, which may or may not be passed on
to their customers.
It's did not originate ore grow with the present administration.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 12:54:35 PM6/7/13
to
purposefully by this administration and that's patently false. Most
of the costs are attributed to the big move to cellular services.
That's why the FCC overhauled the program in 2012.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312210A1.pdf
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 1:00:30 PM6/7/13
to
the timeline. A time line is history, and the last date this history
mentions states that TracFone cellular service began in 2008, UNDER
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Learn to read.
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 1:37:27 PM6/7/13
to
was in 2012.
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 1:39:42 PM6/7/13
to
>
> It's did not originate ore grow with the present administration.
>
Or grow? LOL!!!!
> It's did not originate ore grow with the present administration.
>
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 1:43:42 PM6/7/13
to
through those years and what the FCC attributes them to. The
inference is, as usual when you're aiming at Obama, lame.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 1:45:38 PM6/7/13
to
your silliness just is getting out of hand. Everything can't be
blamed on one person to anyone with a brain....but you're pushing
that.
John B.
Jun 7, 2013, 2:42:18 PM6/7/13
to
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 3:06:53 PM6/7/13
to
is blame Bush.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 3:24:29 PM6/7/13
to
everything that has transpired in the last 5 years,and also silly to
blame Obama for anything that happens. I fully expect some of the
ultras to say that he's responsible for the bad weather.
I'm unhappy with some things he's done, but for God's sake everything
doesn't come from his office. A couple of things that are ticking me
off is that there isn't a hard push to settle the IRS thing, and not
holding Holder's feet to the fire about the email warrant until all
the facts are presented.
Yeah, I know....it's on his watch but I just don't see him responsible
for mistakes like that which would bring him so much criticism. He's
not dumb.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 3:53:37 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:00:30 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
You learn to read. That link was for the updates. You can see how
the program was expanded under the current resident.
the program was expanded under the current resident.
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 4:00:53 PM6/7/13
to
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/07/%E2%80%9Cuhhh%E2%80%A6uh%E2%80%A6uhhh%E2%80%A6people%E2%80%9D-obama-total-loss-words-when-staff-forgets-his-speech
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 4:05:44 PM6/7/13
to
percentage of low-income households with phone service has increased
from 80% in 1985, when Lifeline began, to nearly 92% last year, (2011)
But the program faces real challenges, including rules that have
failed to keep pace as consumers increasingly choose wireless phone
service, and that create perverse incentives for some carriers".
That's why the FC revamped the program.
That expansion would have happened under any administration but you
want to show it as something specific to this one.
But then you're semi-illiterate.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 4:06:08 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:42:18 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>> >"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>
>>
>>
>> I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>
>> mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>>
>You're a lying sack of shit.
I'm always up for constructive criticism. Please inform me where I
was incorrect, or where I was holding feces.
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>> >"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>
>>
>>
>> I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>
>> mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>>
>You're a lying sack of shit.
was incorrect, or where I was holding feces.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 4:12:02 PM6/7/13
to
left. :-)
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=bush+obama+photo&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS530US531&q=bush+obama+photo&gs_l=hp...0l2j0i22i30l3.0.0.1.98426...........0.aZAiwf4b6IE
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 4:13:17 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:06:08 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:42:18 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
><john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>>>
>>> >"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>>
>>> mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>>>
>>You're a lying sack of shit.
>
>I'm always up for constructive criticism. Please inform me where I
>was incorrect, or where I was holding feces.
>
That would be ineffective. You'd misread it.
>On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:42:18 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
><john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>>>
>>> >"We all have an Obamaphone now" LOL!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>>
>>> mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>>>
>>You're a lying sack of shit.
>
>I'm always up for constructive criticism. Please inform me where I
>was incorrect, or where I was holding feces.
>
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 4:21:03 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:48:51 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>>>>
>>>Bottom line though. It's another ultra-right lie to blame it on the
>>>present administration.
>>
>>No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
>>program.
>>
>Wrong again. You really need to learn to read. The only change in
>2012 was because of administering the program causing the FCC to
>revamp it to eliminate waste, etc.
>
>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312210A1.pdf
>
>Also the program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but by a fee
>to the telecommunications companies, which may or may not be passed on
>to their customers.
It's funded by an unauthorized user fee, which is another way of
describing an unauthorized tax. And the telecommunications companies
must pass this on to their customers if they want to keep making a
profit.
>It's did not originate ore grow with the present administration.
It started under the Reagan administration. I was a communications
officer for the military and I saw immediately how it could grow and
be susceptible to huge amounts of waste and fraud. I was correct.
It started out as a program by bleeding heart liberals to give cell
phones to homeless people so they could call 911. Only an
idiot/liberal would not see that they would trade the phones for crack
cocaine. Who ever hear of a homeless person calling 911 anyway? What
are they going to report? "Help police. Someone broke into my
cardboard box and stole all my old newspapers, and my weed, and my
liquor."
crap:
>>>>
>>>>I checked yesterday. I qualify for an obamaphone even though I own a
>>>>mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you aren't as well-off as you suggest.
>>>
>>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
>>>
>>>Towards the bottom this shows the exact time-line of the cell phone
>>>program, how it grew and under whose administrations.
>>
>>No it doesn't and I scrolled all the way down.
>>
>It certainly does. The paragraph starts; The LifeLine program
>originated in 1984....
>>> It also gives a
>>>list of who qualifies for the program and I doubt that you're on it.
>>>In fact, I'm sure that you're offering another one of your
>>>terminological inexactitudes.
>>
>>Those were dated Oct. 2009. There is another link to some updated
>>information. I qualify under several of those programs.
>
>Really? Name one. Oh, then your income is 135% at or below federal
>Poverty Guidelines.
Of course it is. Technically I have no income.
>>>>mansion and a yacht and I am a retired military officer.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you aren't as well-off as you suggest.
>>>
>>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
>>>
>>>Towards the bottom this shows the exact time-line of the cell phone
>>>program, how it grew and under whose administrations.
>>
>>No it doesn't and I scrolled all the way down.
>>
>It certainly does. The paragraph starts; The LifeLine program
>originated in 1984....
>>> It also gives a
>>>list of who qualifies for the program and I doubt that you're on it.
>>>In fact, I'm sure that you're offering another one of your
>>>terminological inexactitudes.
>>
>>Those were dated Oct. 2009. There is another link to some updated
>>information. I qualify under several of those programs.
>
>Really? Name one. Oh, then your income is 135% at or below federal
>Poverty Guidelines.
>>>Bottom line though. It's another ultra-right lie to blame it on the
>>>present administration.
>>
>>No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
>>program.
>>
>Wrong again. You really need to learn to read. The only change in
>2012 was because of administering the program causing the FCC to
>revamp it to eliminate waste, etc.
>
>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312210A1.pdf
>
>Also the program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but by a fee
>to the telecommunications companies, which may or may not be passed on
>to their customers.
describing an unauthorized tax. And the telecommunications companies
must pass this on to their customers if they want to keep making a
profit.
>It's did not originate ore grow with the present administration.
officer for the military and I saw immediately how it could grow and
be susceptible to huge amounts of waste and fraud. I was correct.
It started out as a program by bleeding heart liberals to give cell
phones to homeless people so they could call 911. Only an
idiot/liberal would not see that they would trade the phones for crack
cocaine. Who ever hear of a homeless person calling 911 anyway? What
are they going to report? "Help police. Someone broke into my
cardboard box and stole all my old newspapers, and my weed, and my
liquor."
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 4:28:20 PM6/7/13
to
BS in the face of facts.
So it started out under the Reagan administration. I was unaware that
he and his administration could be called bleeding heart liberals. LOL
You put your foot in it again....but it was sure to happen.
Alan Baker
Jun 7, 2013, 4:30:56 PM6/7/13
to
In article <b1e9ic...@mid.individual.net>,
MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-301AF...@news.datemas.de...
> >
> > In article <81ef71c1-07b9-46f1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > > Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this. Elija >
> >> > Cummings,
> >> >
> >> > > ranking member of the Oversight Committee, was so angry he could >
> >> > hardly
> >> > > talk!
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > > Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > > Larry
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hmmm...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You know what would have sealed all this?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > A good reference to the original source...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ...but not one to some wingnut publication.
> >> >
> >> NO American taxpayer cares a wit what an unemployed Canadian thinks
> >> about the
> >> IRS. You don't earn money. You didn't finish school. You are
> >> unemployed and
> >> broke. You don't pay taxes. STFU and go away!!
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >> It is particularly amusing to reply to this diatribe while taking a
> >> break from working on my Formula Ford open wheel racing car...
> >
> > Your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" is nothing more than a very
> > cheap thrill, that you overpaid by thrice for. The wheels on my toy,
> > cost more than your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" and your little
> > red 20 YO Miata, combined.
> >
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_faLq9Ey5no>
> >
> >> For a broke, unemployed person, I do manage to have some fun.
> >
> > Yeah, a $15 buck entry fee!! WOW!!! You sure are wealthy.
> >
> > Why don't you go soak your head, Loser.
> >
> > snip dumb cunt sig.
>
> The vagina from Vancouver showing his insecurity yet again.
LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-301AF...@news.datemas.de...
> >
> > In article <81ef71c1-07b9-46f1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > > Wow! Even Democrats in Congress are outraged over this. Elija >
> >> > Cummings,
> >> >
> >> > > ranking member of the Oversight Committee, was so angry he could >
> >> > hardly
> >> > > talk!
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > > Lets disband the IRS and put these morons on unemployment.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > > Larry
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hmmm...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You know what would have sealed all this?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > A good reference to the original source...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ...but not one to some wingnut publication.
> >> >
> >> NO American taxpayer cares a wit what an unemployed Canadian thinks
> >> about the
> >> IRS. You don't earn money. You didn't finish school. You are
> >> unemployed and
> >> broke. You don't pay taxes. STFU and go away!!
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >> It is particularly amusing to reply to this diatribe while taking a
> >> break from working on my Formula Ford open wheel racing car...
> >
> > Your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" is nothing more than a very
> > cheap thrill, that you overpaid by thrice for. The wheels on my toy,
> > cost more than your "Formula Ford open wheel racing car" and your little
> > red 20 YO Miata, combined.
> >
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_faLq9Ey5no>
> >
> >> For a broke, unemployed person, I do manage to have some fun.
> >
> > Yeah, a $15 buck entry fee!! WOW!!! You sure are wealthy.
> >
> > Why don't you go soak your head, Loser.
> >
> > snip dumb cunt sig.
>
> The vagina from Vancouver showing his insecurity yet again.
LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
Jun 7, 2013, 4:31:38 PM6/7/13
to
In article <b1e9mq...@mid.individual.net>,
MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> KenPitts wrote:
> > NY Times is off the bandwagon!
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?page
> > wanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
> >
> Sort of.
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/new-york-times-quietly-changes-published-edi
> torial-to-make-it-less-damning-of-obama/
"Founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran journalist, and
Neil Patel, former chief policy advisor to Vice President Cheney,..."
MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> KenPitts wrote:
> > NY Times is off the bandwagon!
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?page
> > wanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
> >
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/new-york-times-quietly-changes-published-edi
> torial-to-make-it-less-damning-of-obama/
"Founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran journalist, and
Neil Patel, former chief policy advisor to Vice President Cheney,..."
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 4:52:53 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:05:44 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>>
program was expanded. obama has put more people on welfare and food
stamps than any other president in history and these are the people
who qualify for obamaphones.
crap:
>>
>>You learn to read. That link was for the updates. You can see how
>>the program was expanded under the current resident.
>
>The link states specifically that the costs were added because "the
>percentage of low-income households with phone service has increased
>from 80% in 1985, when Lifeline began, to nearly 92% last year, (2011)
>But the program faces real challenges, including rules that have
>failed to keep pace as consumers increasingly choose wireless phone
>service, and that create perverse incentives for some carriers".
>
>That's why the FC revamped the program.
>
>That expansion would have happened under any administration but you
>want to show it as something specific to this one.
Are you blind or stupid or both? It specifically says that the
>>the program was expanded under the current resident.
>
>The link states specifically that the costs were added because "the
>percentage of low-income households with phone service has increased
>from 80% in 1985, when Lifeline began, to nearly 92% last year, (2011)
>But the program faces real challenges, including rules that have
>failed to keep pace as consumers increasingly choose wireless phone
>service, and that create perverse incentives for some carriers".
>
>That's why the FC revamped the program.
>
>That expansion would have happened under any administration but you
>want to show it as something specific to this one.
program was expanded. obama has put more people on welfare and food
stamps than any other president in history and these are the people
who qualify for obamaphones.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 5:03:20 PM6/7/13
to
expanded the program, and it wasn't fault of any administration, but
your pea brain won't let you understand it. You're an idiot.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 5:10:51 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:28:20 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
I have no idea what you're talking about.
>So it started out under the Reagan administration. I was unaware that
>he and his administration could be called bleeding heart liberals. LOL
Reagan was a demoncrat before he became a republican. There were
plenty of bleeding heart liberals in his administration.
>You put your foot in it again....but it was sure to happen.
What are you talking about? The program was started under Reagan's
people but it was only for homeless people. It's only been recently
that almost anyone could qualify for it. Your own link shows how much
it's now costing taxpayers.
>So it started out under the Reagan administration. I was unaware that
>he and his administration could be called bleeding heart liberals. LOL
plenty of bleeding heart liberals in his administration.
>You put your foot in it again....but it was sure to happen.
people but it was only for homeless people. It's only been recently
that almost anyone could qualify for it. Your own link shows how much
it's now costing taxpayers.
MNMikeW
Jun 7, 2013, 5:26:31 PM6/7/13
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 5:26:28 PM6/7/13
to
telcos not only do not pass on the user fee but actually give phones
that are completely free, which they are not expected to do.
>>>
>>>
>>>It started under the Reagan administration. I was a communications
>>>officer for the military and I saw immediately how it could grow and
>>>be susceptible to huge amounts of waste and fraud. I was correct.
>>>
>>>It started out as a program by bleeding heart liberals to give cell
>>>phones to homeless people so they could call 911. Only an
>>>idiot/liberal would not see that they would trade the phones for crack
>>>cocaine. Who ever hear of a homeless person calling 911 anyway? What
>>>are they going to report? "Help police. Someone broke into my
>>>cardboard box and stole all my old newspapers, and my weed, and my
>>>liquor."
>>
>>My, my. You changed the goal posts. That happens when you run out of
>>BS in the face of facts.
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about.
That has been obvious from the beginning.
>>>
>>>It started under the Reagan administration. I was a communications
>>>officer for the military and I saw immediately how it could grow and
>>>be susceptible to huge amounts of waste and fraud. I was correct.
>>>
>>>It started out as a program by bleeding heart liberals to give cell
>>>phones to homeless people so they could call 911. Only an
>>>idiot/liberal would not see that they would trade the phones for crack
>>>cocaine. Who ever hear of a homeless person calling 911 anyway? What
>>>are they going to report? "Help police. Someone broke into my
>>>cardboard box and stole all my old newspapers, and my weed, and my
>>>liquor."
>>
>>My, my. You changed the goal posts. That happens when you run out of
>>BS in the face of facts.
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>>So it started out under the Reagan administration. I was unaware that
>>he and his administration could be called bleeding heart liberals. LOL
>
>Reagan was a demoncrat before he became a republican. There were
>plenty of bleeding heart liberals in his administration.
LOL. That won't fly at all.
>>So it started out under the Reagan administration. I was unaware that
>>he and his administration could be called bleeding heart liberals. LOL
>
>Reagan was a demoncrat before he became a republican. There were
>plenty of bleeding heart liberals in his administration.
>
>>You put your foot in it again....but it was sure to happen.
>
>What are you talking about? The program was started under Reagan's
>people but it was only for homeless people. It's only been recently
>that almost anyone could qualify for it. Your own link shows how much
>it's now costing taxpayers.
There are no taxes used to pay for this program. That is stated
>>You put your foot in it again....but it was sure to happen.
>
>What are you talking about? The program was started under Reagan's
>people but it was only for homeless people. It's only been recently
>that almost anyone could qualify for it. Your own link shows how much
>it's now costing taxpayers.
specifically and you admit that the telcos pay for it from user fees.
It's telling when you dispute yourself in posts.
>
You never stated just how you qualify for this program. Have you
entered it?
BAR
Jun 7, 2013, 5:59:25 PM6/7/13
to
In article <sbe4r894428k73kb6...@4ax.com>, Horva...@net.net says...
Bobbie is such a twit. Anyone can make up a timeline.
John B.
Jun 7, 2013, 6:00:23 PM6/7/13
to
BAR
Jun 7, 2013, 6:03:05 PM6/7/13
to
In article <1ae592bd-61dd-4253...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...
Again, your analytical skills are useless.
says...
John B.
Jun 7, 2013, 6:03:31 PM6/7/13
to
that started before he took office did that.
John B.
Jun 7, 2013, 6:06:14 PM6/7/13
to
for people whose income fell below a certain threshold.
Alan Baker
Jun 7, 2013, 6:09:17 PM6/7/13
to
In article <MPG.2c1c21c49...@news.giganews.com>,
Anyone can, it's true.
Got any proof that anyone DID in this case?
Got anything...
...for once?
Got any proof that anyone DID in this case?
Got anything...
...for once?
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 6:12:21 PM6/7/13
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 6:14:18 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:03:05 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>In article <1ae592bd-61dd-4253...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
>says...
>In article <1ae592bd-61dd-4253...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
>says...
>> I've never heard Obama blame Bush for anything.
>
>Again, your analytical skills are useless.
OK Mr. "upper crust" then show us yours and where Obama has blamed
>
>Again, your analytical skills are useless.
Bush for something.
Crickets to follow from the Shallow One.
BAR
Jun 7, 2013, 6:35:56 PM6/7/13
to
In article <6c4fc433-6f6c-4250...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...
With "The Beast", the chopper and the plane comes the blame for anything that goes wrong.
That is what he signed up for and that is what he is stuck with.
says...
That is what he signed up for and that is what he is stuck with.
BAR
Jun 7, 2013, 6:36:36 PM6/7/13
to
In article <80173e71-81e7-49ed...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...
Why should we pay for someone's cell phone?
says...
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 6:45:26 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:36:36 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
>Why should we pay for someone's cell phone?
You may not. They aren't supported by tax money, and if you had read
>
>Why should we pay for someone's cell phone?
any of the earlier posts you'd know that.
Check with your telco because they pay for this with usage fees from
their clients. You might get them to stop charging you.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 6:45:54 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:26:28 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>>>>>>>present administration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
>>>>>>program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong again. You really need to learn to read. The only change in
>>>>>2012 was because of administering the program causing the FCC to
>>>>>revamp it to eliminate waste, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312210A1.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>Also the program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but by a fee
>>>>>to the telecommunications companies, which may or may not be passed on
>>>>>to their customers.
>>>>
>>>>It's funded by an unauthorized user fee, which is another way of
>>>>describing an unauthorized tax. And the telecommunications companies
>>>>must pass this on to their customers if they want to keep making a
>>>>profit.
>
>You're insane. It is absolutely authorized and not a tax. Some
A user fee is just another name for a tax.
>telcos not only do not pass on the user fee but actually give phones
>that are completely free, which they are not expected to do.
Duh! They give away the phone so people will use them. They get
reimbursed by the gubmint for the usage. So they actually make money
by giving away a free phone if you sign up.
>
>>>>
>>>>It started under the Reagan administration. I was a communications
>>>>officer for the military and I saw immediately how it could grow and
>>>>be susceptible to huge amounts of waste and fraud. I was correct.
>>>>
>>>>It started out as a program by bleeding heart liberals to give cell
>>>>phones to homeless people so they could call 911. Only an
>>>>idiot/liberal would not see that they would trade the phones for crack
>>>>cocaine. Who ever hear of a homeless person calling 911 anyway? What
>>>>are they going to report? "Help police. Someone broke into my
>>>>cardboard box and stole all my old newspapers, and my weed, and my
>>>>liquor."
>>>
>>>My, my. You changed the goal posts. That happens when you run out of
>>>BS in the face of facts.
>>
>>I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>That has been obvious from the beginning.
>>
>>>So it started out under the Reagan administration. I was unaware that
>>>he and his administration could be called bleeding heart liberals. LOL
>>
>>Reagan was a demoncrat before he became a republican. There were
>>plenty of bleeding heart liberals in his administration.
>
>LOL. That won't fly at all.
It's the truth.
>>>You put your foot in it again....but it was sure to happen.
>>
>>What are you talking about? The program was started under Reagan's
>>people but it was only for homeless people. It's only been recently
>>that almost anyone could qualify for it. Your own link shows how much
>>it's now costing taxpayers.
>
>There are no taxes used to pay for this program. That is stated
>specifically and you admit that the telcos pay for it from user fees.
>It's telling when you dispute yourself in posts.
A user fee is a tax.
>You never stated just how you qualify for this program. Have you
>entered it?
No, I have not entered it.
crap:
>>>>>>>present administration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
>>>>>>program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong again. You really need to learn to read. The only change in
>>>>>2012 was because of administering the program causing the FCC to
>>>>>revamp it to eliminate waste, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312210A1.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>Also the program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but by a fee
>>>>>to the telecommunications companies, which may or may not be passed on
>>>>>to their customers.
>>>>
>>>>It's funded by an unauthorized user fee, which is another way of
>>>>describing an unauthorized tax. And the telecommunications companies
>>>>must pass this on to their customers if they want to keep making a
>>>>profit.
>
>You're insane. It is absolutely authorized and not a tax. Some
>telcos not only do not pass on the user fee but actually give phones
>that are completely free, which they are not expected to do.
reimbursed by the gubmint for the usage. So they actually make money
by giving away a free phone if you sign up.
>
>>>>
>>>>It started under the Reagan administration. I was a communications
>>>>officer for the military and I saw immediately how it could grow and
>>>>be susceptible to huge amounts of waste and fraud. I was correct.
>>>>
>>>>It started out as a program by bleeding heart liberals to give cell
>>>>phones to homeless people so they could call 911. Only an
>>>>idiot/liberal would not see that they would trade the phones for crack
>>>>cocaine. Who ever hear of a homeless person calling 911 anyway? What
>>>>are they going to report? "Help police. Someone broke into my
>>>>cardboard box and stole all my old newspapers, and my weed, and my
>>>>liquor."
>>>
>>>My, my. You changed the goal posts. That happens when you run out of
>>>BS in the face of facts.
>>
>>I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>That has been obvious from the beginning.
>>
>>>So it started out under the Reagan administration. I was unaware that
>>>he and his administration could be called bleeding heart liberals. LOL
>>
>>Reagan was a demoncrat before he became a republican. There were
>>plenty of bleeding heart liberals in his administration.
>
>LOL. That won't fly at all.
>>>You put your foot in it again....but it was sure to happen.
>>
>>What are you talking about? The program was started under Reagan's
>>people but it was only for homeless people. It's only been recently
>>that almost anyone could qualify for it. Your own link shows how much
>>it's now costing taxpayers.
>
>There are no taxes used to pay for this program. That is stated
>specifically and you admit that the telcos pay for it from user fees.
>It's telling when you dispute yourself in posts.
>You never stated just how you qualify for this program. Have you
>entered it?
BAR
Jun 7, 2013, 6:47:43 PM6/7/13
to
In article <b1e9mq...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/new-york-times-quietly-changes-published-editorial-to-make-it-less-damning-of-obama/
They most likely were threatened with an audit by the IRS.
>
> KenPitts wrote:
> > NY Times is off the bandwagon!
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
> >
> Sort of.
> KenPitts wrote:
> > NY Times is off the bandwagon!
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&
> >
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/new-york-times-quietly-changes-published-editorial-to-make-it-less-damning-of-obama/
They most likely were threatened with an audit by the IRS.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 6:51:13 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:45:54 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:26:28 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>crap:
>
>>>>>>>>present administration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
>>>>>>>program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong again. You really need to learn to read. The only change in
>>>>>>2012 was because of administering the program causing the FCC to
>>>>>>revamp it to eliminate waste, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312210A1.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also the program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but by a fee
>>>>>>to the telecommunications companies, which may or may not be passed on
>>>>>>to their customers.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's funded by an unauthorized user fee, which is another way of
>>>>>describing an unauthorized tax. And the telecommunications companies
>>>>>must pass this on to their customers if they want to keep making a
>>>>>profit.
>>
>>You're insane. It is absolutely authorized and not a tax. Some
>
>A user fee is just another name for a tax.
Does idiocy run in your family? That is one of the more stupid things
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:26:28 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>crap:
>
>>>>>>>>present administration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it's not. The obama administration has greatly expanded the
>>>>>>>program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong again. You really need to learn to read. The only change in
>>>>>>2012 was because of administering the program causing the FCC to
>>>>>>revamp it to eliminate waste, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312210A1.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also the program is not directly subsidized by taxpayers but by a fee
>>>>>>to the telecommunications companies, which may or may not be passed on
>>>>>>to their customers.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's funded by an unauthorized user fee, which is another way of
>>>>>describing an unauthorized tax. And the telecommunications companies
>>>>>must pass this on to their customers if they want to keep making a
>>>>>profit.
>>
>>You're insane. It is absolutely authorized and not a tax. Some
>
>A user fee is just another name for a tax.
you've ever said.
There are user fees at banks, telcos, insurance carriers, etc. etc.
etc.
A user fee is not a tax. Taxes are levied by a government only.
Dolt.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 6:59:33 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>> program was expanded. obama has put more people on welfare and food
>>
>> stamps than any other president in history and these are the people
>>
>> who qualify for obamaphones.
>>
>Obama hasn't put anyone on food stamps or welfare. A severe recession
>that started before he took office did that.
That's your opinion.
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>> program was expanded. obama has put more people on welfare and food
>>
>> stamps than any other president in history and these are the people
>>
>> who qualify for obamaphones.
>>
>Obama hasn't put anyone on food stamps or welfare. A severe recession
>that started before he took office did that.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 7:01:22 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:06:14 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
yourself, you shouldn't have it. Now it's considered an entitlement.
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>It was not only for homeless people. It was, and still is,
>for people whose income fell below a certain threshold.
IMO those are the people who DON'T need them. If you can't pay for it
>for people whose income fell below a certain threshold.
yourself, you shouldn't have it. Now it's considered an entitlement.
Horva...@net.net
Jun 7, 2013, 8:56:55 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:51:13 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>>>>>>
>>>
doesn't matter what you call it or what you think of it. It's a tax.
crap:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>You're insane. It is absolutely authorized and not a tax. Some
>>
>>A user fee is just another name for a tax.
>
>Does idiocy run in your family? That is one of the more stupid things
>you've ever said.
>
>There are user fees at banks, telcos, insurance carriers, etc. etc.
>etc.
>
>A user fee is not a tax. Taxes are levied by a government only.
>
>Dolt.
When the gubmint puts a user fee on something it *is* a tax. It
>>
>>A user fee is just another name for a tax.
>
>Does idiocy run in your family? That is one of the more stupid things
>you've ever said.
>
>There are user fees at banks, telcos, insurance carriers, etc. etc.
>etc.
>
>A user fee is not a tax. Taxes are levied by a government only.
>
>Dolt.
doesn't matter what you call it or what you think of it. It's a tax.
Carbon
Jun 7, 2013, 9:20:14 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:04:09 -0500, Moderate wrote:
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> The truth is Bush and his handlers thought the war would be much
>> shorter and much less expensive than it turned out to be. Of course
>> apologists like yourself will never admit that they just fucked the
>> whole thing up.
>
> We get it. Not only are you bad at math, you are gullible.
QED.
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> The truth is Bush and his handlers thought the war would be much
>> shorter and much less expensive than it turned out to be. Of course
>> apologists like yourself will never admit that they just fucked the
>> whole thing up.
>
> We get it. Not only are you bad at math, you are gullible.
QED.
bkn...@conramp.net
Jun 7, 2013, 9:49:01 PM6/7/13
to
applied by the telcos.
Blather away windbag.
Lloyd
Jun 7, 2013, 9:55:47 PM6/7/13
to
In article <7a35r850q7jm331e0...@4ax.com>,
The gov't certainly did put the fee into place and most of the telcos
just passed it right along in the form of a user fee. It really is
bogus for them to do it as all of them don't.
Verizon and AT&T both show them as a separate fee, but T-Mobile didn't.
With TM it was all in the single bill you paid. IOW, a $50/month plan
cost you $50, not $50 plus a bunch of cost of business things broken out
into separate fees.
But it all means just one thing. If you have a phone that you actually
pay for, the gov't is very much taxing you to support those that make
something below a figure pulled out of the air. That many that fall
into that group are lazy, drunks or dopers doesn't seem to matter.
I'm of the opinion that if you cannot afford a phone, tough shit! Do
without, it isn't a necessity.
just passed it right along in the form of a user fee. It really is
bogus for them to do it as all of them don't.
Verizon and AT&T both show them as a separate fee, but T-Mobile didn't.
With TM it was all in the single bill you paid. IOW, a $50/month plan
cost you $50, not $50 plus a bunch of cost of business things broken out
into separate fees.
But it all means just one thing. If you have a phone that you actually
pay for, the gov't is very much taxing you to support those that make
something below a figure pulled out of the air. That many that fall
into that group are lazy, drunks or dopers doesn't seem to matter.
I'm of the opinion that if you cannot afford a phone, tough shit! Do
without, it isn't a necessity.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages