or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The "Obamaphone" was yet another last minute repeat of a classic Republican lie.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "Obamaphone" was yet another last minute repeat of a classic Republican lie.

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 

This lie was debunked in 2009!

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

 

The truth won't stop certain people from latching on to this lie as one of the many reasons Obama won reelection.

post #2 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This lie was debunked in 2009!

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

 

The truth won't stop certain people from latching on to this lie as one of the many reasons Obama won reelection.

 

But the Obama campaign and administration is all too willing to let their supporters believe he's behind it to win their votes.

 

 

Looks like both sides tried to benefit from this lie.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This lie was debunked in 2009!

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

 

The truth won't stop certain people from latching on to this lie as one of the many reasons Obama won reelection.

 

But the Obama campaign and administration is all too willing to let their supporters believe he's behind it to win their votes.

 

 

Looks like both sides tried to benefit from this lie.


Looks more like a lady who had no clue where her phone really came from, except that it came while Obama was president, which was good enough evidence for her to attribute it to someone she supported anyway.

post #4 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Looks more like a lady who had no clue where her phone really came from, except that it came while Obama was president, which was good enough evidence for her to attribute it to someone she supported anyway.

 

That video went viral. Millions of voters heard a lady say she got a free phone because of Obama and that was a major reason she was voting for him. Has there been an official statement from the Obama campaign clarifying that he was not responsible for the free phone program? Of course not. They obviously believed this lie would result in a net gain in votes for Obama. And it probably did.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #5 of 22

Factcheck.org isn't credible.

 

Almost every program at the Federal was begun elsewhere or is a continuation of another program.

 

The fact that something existed prior is never a reason to ignore massive growth or fraud within a program.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Factcheck.org isn't credible.

 

Almost every program at the Federal was begun elsewhere or is a continuation of another program.

 

The fact that something existed prior is never a reason to ignore massive growth or fraud within a program.

 

Did you read their assessment of this issue, which concludes both that this is not tax-funded and that it has been in place for over a decade? Or are you disputing their conclusions? Or are you just dismissing anything they say on the assumption that they are not credible?

post #7 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Looks more like a lady who had no clue where her phone really came from, except that it came while Obama was president, which was good enough evidence for her to attribute it to someone she supported anyway.

 

That video went viral. Millions of voters heard a lady say she got a free phone because of Obama and that was a major reason she was voting for him. Has there been an official statement from the Obama campaign clarifying that he was not responsible for the free phone program? Of course not. They obviously believed this lie would result in a net gain in votes for Obama. And it probably did.

 

Wait, so now you're saying that people voted FOR Obama because they saw a video (a Republican attack piece) that someone else got a free phone! And that more people (people who didn't actually get a free phone themselves) voted for him because of this issue than against him because of this issue? 1eek.gif

 

Seriously!?

 

You're no MJ, that's for sure.

post #8 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Factcheck.org isn't credible.

 

Almost every program at the Federal was begun elsewhere or is a continuation of another program.

 

The fact that something existed prior is never a reason to ignore massive growth or fraud within a program.

 

Did you read their assessment of this issue, which concludes both that this is not tax-funded and that it has been in place for over a decade? Or are you disputing their conclusions? Or are you just dismissing anything they say on the assumption that they are not credible?

 

LOL. Don't expect to get an honest response from him. He's just had his ass (or at least part of it) handed to him on a platter showing exactly how gullible he is, and he's in denial mode.

post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

 

Wait, so now you're saying that people voted FOR Obama because they saw a video (a Republican attack piece) that someone else got a free phone! And that more people (people who didn't actually get a free phone themselves) voted for him because of this issue than against him because of this issue? 1eek.gif

 

Seriously!?

 

You're no MJ, that's for sure.

 

I think many Obama supporters have an entitlement mentality and expect the government to take care of them in one way or another, so yes, I think this video backfired on the Republicans and resulted in more votes for Obama, not less.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "you're no MJ, that's for sure", but in a literal sense you are correct. We are not the same individual.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Did you read their assessment of this issue, which concludes both that this is not tax-funded and that it has been in place for over a decade? Or are you disputing their conclusions? Or are you just dismissing anything they say on the assumption that they are not credible?

 

I made myself clear. The rationales were distractions. They were credible. If a program has massively grown outside what it was intended to do and is filled with fraud, the point that it is funded by tax dollars or by mandates related to private dollars is not relevant. Likewise a well-intended program can be started by someone else and altered and changed by someone else and that doesn't mean the party that made the alternations or changes isn't responsible because "They didn't start it."

 

The questions themselves and the "fact check" of them in no form or fashion addresses the real concerns. Any person can have a real concern about transfer programs, entitlements, mandates and fraud without worrying about who started it

 

The email isn't signed or attributed to anyone. It could be a completely made up strawman to knock down.

 

Articles like this address all the facts related to the video mentioned and note the growth as well. They aren't knocking down emails. They are presenting the news and the facts. As usual, the problem isn't that a program exists or that someone might have a need for it. It is that the qualifications are thrown open and that the growth is well beyond what is historic or recession related.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

LOL. Don't expect to get an honest response from him. He's just had his ass (or at least part of it) handed to him on a platter showing exactly how gullible he is, and he's in denial mode.

 

 I had my ass handed to me because I predicted Obama would lose and he didn't. I assure you there will be a loss there. Perhaps the date was wrong, but the outcome won't be. I'm sure many Democrats won't enjoy how much he will have damaged the brand come 2016. The victory was a pyrrhic victory at best.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Did you read their assessment of this issue, which concludes both that this is not tax-funded and that it has been in place for over a decade? Or are you disputing their conclusions? Or are you just dismissing anything they say on the assumption that they are not credible?

 

I made myself clear. The rationales were distractions. They were credible. If a program has massively grown outside what it was intended to do and is filled with fraud, the point that it is funded by tax dollars or by mandates related to private dollars is not relevant. Likewise a well-intended program can be started by someone else and altered and changed by someone else and that doesn't mean the party that made the alternations or changes isn't responsible because "They didn't start it."

 

The questions themselves and the "fact check" of them in no form or fashion addresses the real concerns. Any person can have a real concern about transfer programs, entitlements, mandates and fraud without worrying about who started it

 

The email isn't signed or attributed to anyone. It could be a completely made up strawman to knock down.

 

Articles like this address all the facts related to the video mentioned and note the growth as well. They aren't knocking down emails. They are presenting the news and the facts. As usual, the problem isn't that a program exists or that someone might have a need for it. It is that the qualifications are thrown open and that the growth is well beyond what is historic or recession related.

 

Well not really - you started by saying that factcheck.org is not credible, without bothering to back up that claim. Whether or not they addressed your "real" concerns is irrelevant to whether they credibly assessed the misleading claims that were made in the video, which, as far as I can see, they did. The Fox News article does not refute any of that, although it does portray the program as taxpayer-funded rather than Telecoms-funded, which is not accurate.

 

In any case, the provenance of the email is irrelevant since those exact claims were made in reference to the video. It was an obviously misleading attempt to mischaracterize the program and its origins, and factcheck.org pointed that out. Were you actually trying to defend the content of the video, or, if not, what point were you trying to make?

post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Well not really - you started by saying that factcheck.org is not credible, without bothering to back up that claim. Whether or not they addressed your "real" concerns is irrelevant to whether they credibly assessed the misleading claims that were made in the video, which, as far as I can see, they did. The Fox News article does not refute any of that, although it does portray the program as taxpayer-funded rather than Telecoms-funded, which is not accurate.

 

In any case, the provenance of the email is irrelevant since those exact claims were made in reference to the video. It was an obviously misleading attempt to mischaracterize the program and its origins, and factcheck.org pointed that out. Were you actually trying to defend the content of the video, or, if not, what point were you trying to make?

 

There should be some basis in their credibility. Are you saying your accord all groups and organizations credibility equally and regardless of whether a cited action or article presents itself in a credible manner?

 

They are knocking down an uncited and unsigned email. Why should I accord that credibility? What about that sourcing lends itself to credibility?

 

Second, the Supreme Court ruling for Obama was clear, a mandate is a tax. It doesn't matter if it is titled a tax or not. You are mandated to pay the fees that pay for this program even if those fees are not gathered and redistributed through Washington D.C.

 

This is the claim in the first post by Tonton.

 

The truth won't stop certain people from latching on to this lie as one of the many reasons Obama won reelection.

 

The program grew more in the Obama first term than it had in the entire history, almost doubling the amount of money spent and people served. This is true of a number of similar transfer programs as well. It is completely credible to say that Obama won reelection because he gave the working or nonworking poor food, phones, and other types of assistance. The woman stated that she voted for him because she got a phone from the program he administrated. If someone claimed no such program would exist under a Republican president, then they wouldn't be credible. No one claimed for example that a Republican president wouldn't have people on food stamps. They stated that the food stamp program had the criteria to qualify for it changed, that it had been widened in terms of what it could be spent on to become no different than cash assistance and that record numbers of people were on it.

 

If Factcheck.org produces some unsigned email that make claims about the origin of food stamps I'll ignore them there as well. If they want to address the real concerns about the growth of transfer and entitlement programs then I'll give them the time of day.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Looks more like a lady who had no clue where her phone really came from, except that it came while Obama was president, which was good enough evidence for her to attribute it to someone she supported anyway.

 

That video went viral. Millions of voters heard a lady say she got a free phone because of Obama and that was a major reason she was voting for him. Has there been an official statement from the Obama campaign clarifying that he was not responsible for the free phone program? Of course not. They obviously believed this lie would result in a net gain in votes for Obama. And it probably did.

But just because the many viewed doesn't make true or right. Right?1wink.gif This is just like you want us to view the world so don't try to use the " many " tactic on us please. Besides it's a video on the internet so once again please.1oyvey.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But just because the many viewed doesn't make true or right. Right?1wink.gif This is just like you want us to view the world so don't try to use the " many " tactic on us please.

 

Holy crap. Are you, "jim 'and I'm not the only one who thinks this' mac," going for a record in irony this week?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But just because the many viewed doesn't make true or right. Right?1wink.gif This is just like you want us to view the world so don't try to use the " many " tactic on us please.

 

Holy crap. Are you, "jim 'and I'm not the only one who thinks this' mac," going for a record in irony this week?

Only the polarized ones.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #16 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Did you read their assessment of this issue, which concludes both that this is not tax-funded and that it has been in place for over a decade? Or are you disputing their conclusions? Or are you just dismissing anything they say on the assumption that they are not credible?

 

 

Romney's campaign stated:  We won't let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers. 

 

Facts aren't highly valued, especially if they go against the predetermined narrative.

 

People or sites who relate these facts are therefore blankly dismissed as not credible, liberal, elite or various other phrases aimed at dividing the populace and causing some excitement amongst the base.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Facts aren't highly valued, especially if they go against the predetermined narrative.

 

Politicians are especially good at ignoring facts.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Well not really - you started by saying that factcheck.org is not credible, without bothering to back up that claim. Whether or not they addressed your "real" concerns is irrelevant to whether they credibly assessed the misleading claims that were made in the video, which, as far as I can see, they did. The Fox News article does not refute any of that, although it does portray the program as taxpayer-funded rather than Telecoms-funded, which is not accurate.

 

In any case, the provenance of the email is irrelevant since those exact claims were made in reference to the video. It was an obviously misleading attempt to mischaracterize the program and its origins, and factcheck.org pointed that out. Were you actually trying to defend the content of the video, or, if not, what point were you trying to make?

 

There should be some basis in their credibility. Are you saying your accord all groups and organizations credibility equally and regardless of whether a cited action or article presents itself in a credible manner?

 

They are knocking down an uncited and unsigned email. Why should I accord that credibility? What about that sourcing lends itself to credibility?

 

I disagree - as with all information sources I prefer to base my judgement on the accuracy of the article rather than on some other subjective measure of credibility. And you are still focussing on the email as if that were the issue. They are fact-checking the video content. I didn't see a definitive statement in your answer, but my impression is that you are defending it. The rest of the discussion is interesting and relevant to the larger issue of welfare, but is not the issue in question, which is that the thesis of the video is incorrect. 

 

Are you quoting the Supreme Court ruling that the health care non-compliance penalty is a tax to support the assertion that the Telecoms' support of this program is a tax, and hence the program is taxpayer-funded?

post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I disagree - as with all information sources I prefer to base my judgement on the accuracy of the article rather than on some other subjective measure of credibility. And you are still focussing on the email as if that were the issue. They are fact-checking the video content. I didn't see a definitive statement in your answer, but my impression is that you are defending it. The rest of the discussion is interesting and relevant to the larger issue of welfare, but is not the issue in question, which is that the thesis of the video is incorrect. 

 

Are you quoting the Supreme Court ruling that the health care non-compliance penalty is a tax to support the assertion that the Telecoms' support of this program is a tax, and hence the program is taxpayer-funded?

 

I gave my criteria for why Factcheck.org wasn't credible in this particular instance. Factcheck.org was not cited though as an information source and this part of the problem. They were used as an appeal to authority. By dismissing them, what I'm really doing is not recognizing that authority. If they had addressed the real concerns raised by the email then I would have said they were credible. The concerns were about growth of entitlement and transfer programs. The email, real or imagined since it is anonymous, is the only issue addressed by Factcheck.org

 

 

Jazz posted the video. The concerns when it went viral were the growth of entitlements and transfer programs. They were not that some woman in a video misunderstands the origin of the program that gave her the phone. However Jazz, in noting the nature of the fallacy put foward by the strange anonymous email cited by Factcheck.org stated that if the concern really were about the nature of who started the program, that there were plenty of Obama supporters expressing their belief that it was an Obama program and that he was responsible for what it had provided. He was noting that Obama did nothing to change that perception and did not disavow the websites and programs that were calling them Obamaphones.

 

I am quoting the Supreme Court ruling. The government claim was that it was merely regulating a market and that since almost everyone will have to use that market (healthcare) at some point, it was permitted for them to demand they participate in it including the transfer programs.

 

The reasoning is the same. The basis of these phone programs is that you cannot get by in the modern world without a phone. The lifeline fees, which are mandatory when you purchase phone services pay for those who cannot pay but still must participate in the phone market to get by in modern life.

 

I'd argue the two are very analogous because it is government mandating you participate in a regulated private market and also mandating the private market provide for low or no income people. The courts are clear. Mandated fees are taxes.

 

Factcheck.org was not addressing the video at all.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I disagree - as with all information sources I prefer to base my judgement on the accuracy of the article rather than on some other subjective measure of credibility. And you are still focussing on the email as if that were the issue. They are fact-checking the video content. I didn't see a definitive statement in your answer, but my impression is that you are defending it. The rest of the discussion is interesting and relevant to the larger issue of welfare, but is not the issue in question, which is that the thesis of the video is incorrect. 

 

Are you quoting the Supreme Court ruling that the health care non-compliance penalty is a tax to support the assertion that the Telecoms' support of this program is a tax, and hence the program is taxpayer-funded?

 

I gave my criteria for why Factcheck.org wasn't credible in this particular instance. Factcheck.org was not cited though as an information source and this part of the problem. They were used as an appeal to authority. By dismissing them, what I'm really doing is not recognizing that authority. If they had addressed the real concerns raised by the email then I would have said they were credible. The concerns were about growth of entitlement and transfer programs. The email, real or imagined since it is anonymous, is the only issue addressed by Factcheck.org

 

 

Jazz posted the video. The concerns when it went viral were the growth of entitlements and transfer programs. They were not that some woman in a video misunderstands the origin of the program that gave her the phone. However Jazz, in noting the nature of the fallacy put foward by the strange anonymous email cited by Factcheck.org stated that if the concern really were about the nature of who started the program, that there were plenty of Obama supporters expressing their belief that it was an Obama program and that he was responsible for what it had provided. He was noting that Obama did nothing to change that perception and did not disavow the websites and programs that were calling them Obamaphones.

 

I am quoting the Supreme Court ruling. The government claim was that it was merely regulating a market and that since almost everyone will have to use that market (healthcare) at some point, it was permitted for them to demand they participate in it including the transfer programs.

 

The reasoning is the same. The basis of these phone programs is that you cannot get by in the modern world without a phone. The lifeline fees, which are mandatory when you purchase phone services pay for those who cannot pay but still must participate in the phone market to get by in modern life.

 

I'd argue the two are very analogous because it is government mandating you participate in a regulated private market and also mandating the private market provide for low or no income people. The courts are clear. Mandated fees are taxes.

 

Factcheck.org was not addressing the video at all.

 

Fair points, but I would still argue that you are focussing to much on the issues legitimately raised by the video than by the campaign use of the video. One other thing: given that the Republican campaign used the video to try to discredit Obama, is it really fair to criticize Obama for not setting the record straight when that backfired?

post #21 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Fair points, but I would still argue that you are focussing to much on the issues legitimately raised by the video than by the campaign use of the video. One other thing: given that the Republican campaign used the video to try to discredit Obama, is it really fair to criticize Obama for not setting the record straight when that backfired?

 

Legitimately raised? You'll have to clarify because all I saw was a woman saying she was voting for Obama because he gave her a phone and Mitt Romney sucks. I'm not aware of any campaign actively using the video. It was viral as Jazz mentioned and much of the blogosphere chatted about it just as we are doing here.

 

As for whether it is legitimate to criticize Obama or not, we are talking about private companies using the name of the President to sell something. It seems a very legitimate reason to set the record straight regardless of whether or not there is a campaign going on.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 22

Just to drive the point home "ObamaPhone" is paid for by a tax on telecoms. So, yea, it does come from taxes.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The "Obamaphone" was yet another last minute repeat of a classic Republican lie.