And thereby demonstrate that they are real people who can communicate with other real people. People know about the ObamaPhone giveaways. They don't know about the "Lifeline Assistance" and "Lifeline Link-Up" programs. Why is the government-approved doublespeak name better than the name everyone knows? Because.... partisanship? The ability to communicate is now partisanship. So everyone shut up and stop being so partisan.
This is bullshit. There are very few "phone only" services. If there actually are phone only services (and you're not simply making that up), then either make them not phone only, or tell the people without phones to spend their days and nights thinking carefully about how to periodically get access to a phone to get their other government freebies. Borrow a phone to make a call. Get a charity to buy you a cheap pre-paid phone. Or just go without. There's no need to spend billions of dollars a year to buy free phones for people.
We should keep throwing away money because: - it's more than 10 years old? - it was started under Ronald Reagan? - it's not officially called ObamaPhone by government officials who tell us what we can and can't call things?
How about if we stop wasting money on this program regardless of when it started and regardless of what it might be called? How about if we don't hire the government to take our neighbors' money to provide for free mobile phones?
This is a specific example, only offered because a specific example was requested. There are lots of possible examples. This is one of them.
Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs. And once you start cutting programs you run into the problem that SOMEONE thinks that that particular is not "excessive".
Don't link to generalities. Show the specifics. What to cut and by how much.
This is you spouting generalities. "Taxes" is a generality. "Someone" is a generality.
Here's a specific:
How about if we cut the free ObamaPhone program by 100%? If you want a mobile phone, buy one. If you need a charity-provided mobile phone, go get one from a charity. Don't hire your government to tax your neighbors' paychecks or your neighbors' phone bills so you can free-ride.
"Excessive taxes" include every cent used to pay for the ObamaPhone program. If this program were eliminated, taxes would be tiny bit less "excessive" because there would be less obvious waste and abuse.
(Watch now. Someone will argue that we should keep this program because someone else is getting other freebies: "the big corporate/defense/whoever people get to steal, why shouldn't the little guy get his share of the loot too?". )
How about we stop locking up innocent kids together with the people who hurt them in government schools? When someone is nasty to me, I avoid them. When someone is nasty to a kid at school, how does the kid escape? How can a kid be absolutely sure his bullying problem will be solved?
So you suggest that we punish everyone (in a certain group) because of some bullies and an imaginary epidemic.
Just like we do with alcohol, tobacco, firearms, pot, and not buying overpriced health insurance. Can we all finally agree that it's wrong to have the government punish the innocent?
This is the closest to correct. Remember all those outrageously outrageous things that outraged "the public" in the past? They outraged "the public" because that's the way the news was reported.
The news media do more covering-up than covering the news these days. When their party's candidate is in charge, all is forgiven. Look no further than the IRS scandal coverage for confirmation of this. High level administration officials broke the law, forwarded private tax returns to the press and to political activists, sent taxpayers' information using private (i.e. unmonitored) email accounts, and systematically manipulated the process for setting up advocacy organizations to shut down free speech for one viewpoint. There are new revelations every week or so. How much continuing coverage do you see?
NSA spying is not an outrage in the news because the news reporters almost all voted for the guy overseeing the NSA spying.
Every individual defense program is a tiny fraction of the whole budget. You can slice anything up enough so it's a tiny fraction. We should stop spending so many tiny fractions.
Funding for space exploration may be good for a country that isn't $17 Trillion in debt. Or a country with a balanced budget. Or a rich country with a healthy economy. For a country like the US, it's just part of the problem -- albeit only a tiny fraction of the problem.
I'm sure no one will get sick between now and then. And if they do, it won't matter. Because when government hurts people, government always gets a pass.
We shouldn't have "legal" consequences for everything someone might object to. Use of government power should be for emergency situations, not for whenever someone is sad about something.
Slashdot Mirror
And thereby demonstrate their partisanship.
And thereby demonstrate that they are real people who can communicate with other real people. People know about the ObamaPhone giveaways. They don't know about the "Lifeline Assistance" and "Lifeline Link-Up" programs. Why is the government-approved doublespeak name better than the name everyone knows? Because .... partisanship? The ability to communicate is now partisanship. So everyone shut up and stop being so partisan.
Why should you control for that? Where do non-white people and non-male people think science knowledge comes from?
Doctors are evil and you should hate them. Because they make more money than you. Let the spirit of envy guide you.
Besides, what did doctors ever do to help anyone?
This is bullshit. There are very few "phone only" services. If there actually are phone only services (and you're not simply making that up), then either make them not phone only, or tell the people without phones to spend their days and nights thinking carefully about how to periodically get access to a phone to get their other government freebies. Borrow a phone to make a call. Get a charity to buy you a cheap pre-paid phone. Or just go without. There's no need to spend billions of dollars a year to buy free phones for people.
That's what people call it.
We should keep throwing away money because:
- it's more than 10 years old?
- it was started under Ronald Reagan?
- it's not officially called ObamaPhone by government officials who tell us what we can and can't call things?
How about if we stop wasting money on this program regardless of when it started and regardless of what it might be called? How about if we don't hire the government to take our neighbors' money to provide for free mobile phones?
This is a specific example, only offered because a specific example was requested. There are lots of possible examples. This is one of them.
Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs. And once you start cutting programs you run into the problem that SOMEONE thinks that that particular is not "excessive".
Don't link to generalities. Show the specifics. What to cut and by how much.
This is you spouting generalities. "Taxes" is a generality. "Someone" is a generality.
Here's a specific:
How about if we cut the free ObamaPhone program by 100%? If you want a mobile phone, buy one. If you need a charity-provided mobile phone, go get one from a charity. Don't hire your government to tax your neighbors' paychecks or your neighbors' phone bills so you can free-ride.
"Excessive taxes" include every cent used to pay for the ObamaPhone program. If this program were eliminated, taxes would be tiny bit less "excessive" because there would be less obvious waste and abuse.
(Watch now. Someone will argue that we should keep this program because someone else is getting other freebies: "the big corporate/defense/whoever people get to steal, why shouldn't the little guy get his share of the loot too?". )
How about we stop locking up innocent kids together with the people who hurt them in government schools? When someone is nasty to me, I avoid them. When someone is nasty to a kid at school, how does the kid escape? How can a kid be absolutely sure his bullying problem will be solved?
So you suggest that we punish everyone (in a certain group) because of some bullies and an imaginary epidemic.
Just like we do with alcohol, tobacco, firearms, pot, and not buying overpriced health insurance. Can we all finally agree that it's wrong to have the government punish the innocent?
Not "screaming bloody murder" is not the same as "compromise".
Some "privacy advocates" are just lawyers (or activists supported by lawyers) looking for a way to sue a company and get a payday.
But the one with the D cares about me and has an intriguing skin color and/or gender.
This is the closest to correct. Remember all those outrageously outrageous things that outraged "the public" in the past? They outraged "the public" because that's the way the news was reported.
The news media do more covering-up than covering the news these days. When their party's candidate is in charge, all is forgiven. Look no further than the IRS scandal coverage for confirmation of this. High level administration officials broke the law, forwarded private tax returns to the press and to political activists, sent taxpayers' information using private (i.e. unmonitored) email accounts, and systematically manipulated the process for setting up advocacy organizations to shut down free speech for one viewpoint. There are new revelations every week or so. How much continuing coverage do you see?
NSA spying is not an outrage in the news because the news reporters almost all voted for the guy overseeing the NSA spying.
Every individual defense program is a tiny fraction of the whole budget. You can slice anything up enough so it's a tiny fraction. We should stop spending so many tiny fractions.
Funding for space exploration may be good for a country that isn't $17 Trillion in debt. Or a country with a balanced budget. Or a rich country with a healthy economy. For a country like the US, it's just part of the problem -- albeit only a tiny fraction of the problem.
I'm sure no one will get sick between now and then. And if they do, it won't matter. Because when government hurts people, government always gets a pass.
Is there a gene variant for always having to express ideas in terns of cliches, idioms, colloquialisms, metaphors, and/or pop-culture references?
When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?
are the most useful thing I learned in the last 5 years.
And mobsters call extortion payments "taxes". So what?
When hurting people is someone's job, the people who get hurt can never be called victims?
Why did the government treat Aaron Swartz like Al Capone? Should we have a government that does that?
He's the victim of government prosecution.
We shouldn't have "legal" consequences for everything someone might object to. Use of government power should be for emergency situations, not for whenever someone is sad about something.
A lot of us want to live in a society where the "naive" aren't driven to suicide by the government.
Blaming the victim isn't super helpful, even when you maybe, sort-of have a point
Edward Snowden could have sent information anonymously to the EFF.
Are you really trying to say Edward Snowden wouldn't have been caught if he did that? Really?
If he'd done what you suggest, he'd be in jail or worse.
to protect the position and privilege of those currently in power.
Be careful what you say about politicians.