Nanny state's cell service is an outrage

  • Follow Letters

On Sept. 16, on Page 8A of The Chronicle, an advertisement offered free cell phone service if you are eligible. A toll-free recorded message stated that anyone is eligible if they receive food stamps; are on Medicaid; live in Section 8 housing; receive Supplementary Security Income; receive a heating fuel subsidy; or receive any other state or federal giveaways.

This is the nanny state on steroids!

It is an in-your-face example of Marxism: “From each, according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Learn to like it!

Sadly, most taxpayers won’t see the ad. The involuntary taking of their money, if done in public, is called armed robbery. When government does it, it’s called “fairness” or “wealth redistribution.” These destructive policies are being jammed down our throats while Congress and the news media remain strangely silent.

As for the “takers” in society, the following “rant” is illustrative of their mind-set. It is from The Chronicle, published June 5, 2008: “This is a rant for all the rich, high-class folks. Get your guns and get ready to fight to keep your food, because the poor will do whatever needs to be done to feed their families. Bad times are on the way.”

Notice that the word “work” was never used! This is America in 2011.

Comments (48) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Little Lamb
48027
Points
Little Lamb 09/29/11 - 12:11 pm
0
0
bjphysics wrote, “. . . .

bjphysics wrote, “. . . . because, pursuant to the Constitution:

Article II, Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Section 3:

“…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”

Obama can try to have the LAW changed but until it is he is bound by oath to faithfully execute existing LAW.”

You should not have brought this up, BJ, because he certainly is not faithfully executing the immigration laws!

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 12:13 pm
0
0
I was just about to post the

I was just about to post the same thing, Little Lamb.

Little Lamb
48027
Points
Little Lamb 09/29/11 - 12:17 pm
0
0
Great minds think alike,

Great minds think alike, KSL!

:-)

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 09/29/11 - 12:29 pm
0
0
Telecommunications Act of

Telecommunications Act of 1996 – Vote Record

104th United States Congress; Senate Majority: Republican Party; House Majority: Republican Party

All Republicans in the House voted for the bill (230-234), while all votes against the House bill (16) were from Democrats, total House
Democrats in favor 184-178; bill passed with 95% overall approval.

In the Senate 51 Republicans voted in favor joined by 41 Democrats; 4 Democrats voted against the bill joined by John McCain; bill passes with 95% approval (97 vote, 92 in favor).

I guess the 104th Republican controlled Congress was chalk full of Socialists judging from the comments on this thread.

Voting Against Passage
US Senate - 5
Russell Feingold (D, WI)
Patrick Leahy (D, VT)
Paul Wellstone (D, MN)
Paul Simon (D, IL)
John McCain (R, AZ)
US House of Representatives - 16
Neil Abercrombie (D, HI)
Fortney Pete Stark (D, CA)
Earl Hilliard (D, AL)
Peter DeFazio (D, OR)
Tim Johnson (D, SD)
Pat Williams (D, MT)
Patricia Schroder (D, CO)
Harold Volkmer (D, MO)
John Conyers, Jr. (D, MI)
Barney Frank (D, MA)
Maurice Hinchey (D, NY)
Jerrold Nader (D, NY)
Collin Peterson (D, MN)
Sidney Yates (D, IL)
Lane Evans (D, IL)
Bernard Sanders (I,VT)
Not Voting
US Senate - 3
Christopher Dodd (D, CI)
Phil Gramm (R, TX)
John D.Rockefeller (D, WV)
US House of Representatives - 4
John Bryant (D,TX)
Jim Chapman (D, TX)
Bob Filner (D, CA)
Charlie Rose (D, NC)

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 09/29/11 - 12:44 pm
0
0
“Analysis: Obama deportations

“Analysis: Obama deportations raise immigration policy questions

President Barack Obama says he backs immigration reform, announcing last month an initiative to ease deportation policies, but he has sent home over 1 million illegal immigrants in 2-1/2 years -- on pace to deport more in one term than George W. Bush did in two.

The Obama administration had deported about 1.06 million as of September 12, against 1.57 million in Bush's two full presidential
terms.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-obama-immigration-idUSTRE78...

Therefore, Bush averaged 196,250 deports/year while Obama’s current average is 424,000 deports/years or 2.16 times more annually.

I’m not for Obama; I’m against liars and purveyors of dis-information.

Haki
31
Points
Haki 09/29/11 - 12:49 pm
0
0
Bjphysics, go on with your

Bjphysics, go on with your facts! The regulars here don't care about the truth. They just want the socialist black guy removed. They even ignore the fact that the socialist black guy is nowhere near being a socialist and in fact has too many conservative views for the average citizen. I didn't grow up in the 60s, but it seems you didn't have to guess what folk were thinking. They had the gonads to say it.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 09/29/11 - 12:53 pm
0
0
Speaking of obama immigration

Speaking of obama immigration reform. I am pleased to announce that the Dept of Homeland Security has FINALLY decided to do something about all the illegals & terrorists streaming across our border.

Yes folks. They are, with about 95% certainty, going to build the fence.

But here's the catch (it's obama, so you knew there had to be one, right?)

The fence will be built on our Canadian Border! Bwaaahahahahaha!

I kid you not.

caljac51
0
Points
caljac51 09/29/11 - 01:02 pm
0
0
heed the warning and the

heed the warning and the advice given by the ranter. He stated the situation and the appropriate response.

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 01:04 pm
0
0
Why do you folks always go

Why do you folks always go back to the Bush administration? Of course he didn't do enough to stem illegal immigration and deport the ones already here. But Bush is no longer President and Obama is. We have every right to complain about the job he is or isn't doing.

Trying to get conservatives to have to defend the President they elected in the past instead of intelligently discussing the current occupant of the office is pathetic.

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 01:14 pm
0
0
Bj, because Republicans voted

Bj, because Republicans voted for it does not necessarily mean they supported the minor aspect of it having to deal with the topic at hand, that is, the supplying for free cell phones and minutes to the poor. After all, it was a telecommunications act, the first major overhaul in 62 years. Think of all of the changes that had occurred in 62 years. Just throwing up who voted for it really is quite disappointing coming from someone who has the word "physics" in his name.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 09/29/11 - 01:19 pm
0
0
Lets hear obama's take on

Lets hear obama's take on deportations. IN HIS OWN WORDS so that there is no reporting bias or spin.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-pander-the-statistics-are-actu...

Telling Latino leaders - "Don't worry, we are not actually deporting more illegals than Bush". He says his deportations have been just turning away folks at the border, not rounding up folks & sending them home (not technically a deportation then!). He also says that he wants a "path to citizenship" for those who are already here. He also says this. "Uh. The statistics are uh uh uh actually uh a little bit deceptive...."

Sorry, but this guy is Bush on steroids. In many ways.

Cassandra Harris
-3
Points
Cassandra Harris 09/29/11 - 01:17 pm
0
0
"...because Republicans voted

"...because Republicans voted for it does not necessarily mean they supported the minor aspect of it having to deal with the topic at hand, that is, the supplying for free cell phones and minutes to the poor."

What??? So republicans that voted for it voted either in spite of the fact that they didn't support it or voted for it in spite of the fact that they didn't fully read what they were voting for? Way to go repubs!

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 01:31 pm
0
0
Cassandra, you know durned

Cassandra, you know durned well what I'm talking about. Need I remind you that as far as the extension of funding for the government, many Republicans voted yes recently despite there being things they opposed in it? You know well it's called compromise. Go back and re-read my post or look up the Act and stop trying to start an argument.

harley_52
25117
Points
harley_52 09/29/11 - 02:40 pm
0
0
The "great society" is a term

The "great society" is a term coined by LBJ in the late sixties to describe a sweeping and pervasive plan to bring "the poor" out of poverty and into the mainstream. It was clearly a democrat program which was expanded to a greater and greater number of collateral programs eventually spreading even to labor laws and environmental issues. Trillions of dollars were "invested" in the "great society" programs which, by any honest review, have all failed miserably.

Does any part of it have Republican fingerprints on it too? Yes...Republicans were called all sorts of evil names whenever they attempted to get hold of the runaway spending or audit the results against promises. Many of us watched entire housing developments bulldozed because people were given "free" housing along with all sorts of "free" programs that were perhaps well intended in design, but miserable failures in practice.

The result was four decades and a couple of generations of people we taught that low achievement was the path to a reasonably good lifestyle and that society owed them a living just for breathing.

If you've never heard the term "great society" you haven't been listening.

Look it up.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 09/29/11 - 02:37 pm
0
0
KSL: “Just throwing up who

KSL: “Just throwing up who voted for it really is quite disappointing coming from someone who has the word 'physics' in his name.”

One of the most important things in science, especially in physics are metrics: a method of quantifying objectively. If we can’t use a recorded vote count to objectively quantify an act of Congress what can we use?

CorporalGripweed
0
Points
CorporalGripweed 09/29/11 - 02:56 pm
0
0
Liberals define compassion by

Liberals define compassion by how many are on welfare. Conservatives define compassion by how many people no longer need it.

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 03:00 pm
0
0
Well politics is not an exact

Well politics is not an exact science bj, and you know it. But if you want to choose your candidate based strictly on voting record, that's fine. I stand by what I said, just because someone votes for something, it doesn't mean they agree with everything the candidate believes in or every aspect of an act or law.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 09/29/11 - 03:30 pm
0
0
KSL: “Bj, because Republicans

KSL: “Bj, because Republicans voted for it does not necessarily mean they supported the minor aspect of it having to deal with the topic at hand, that is, the supplying for free cell phones and minutes to the poor.”

KSL: “…just because someone votes for something, it doesn't mean they agree with everything the candidate believes in or every aspect of an act or law.”

Ok, what evidence do you have that Republicans OPPOSED the “free cell phones and minutes to the poor” but voted for the bill based on the nebulous “grand compromise” you allude to?

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 03:34 pm
0
0
About as much as you have

About as much as you have that they favored it when you posted the voting record. Your insinuation was clear and I called you on it.

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 04:49 pm
0
0
Typical. When all else fails,

Typical. When all else fails, resort to insults.

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 04:59 pm
0
0
You assume, once again.

You assume, once again.

KSL
140564
Points
KSL 09/29/11 - 05:03 pm
0
0
And I doubt you meant it as a

And I doubt you meant it as a compliment.

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 09/29/11 - 05:12 pm
0
0
Watch how you use that term
Unpublished

Watch how you use that term "slaves". The national association against caucasian people will call you a racist.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs