Obama cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant pay for Obamacare

[S.J.]

when political leaders like Obama are full of bullshit it's pretty tough NOT to post on bullshit...

Not the point at all.

The bullshit point is not what the POTUS does; the bullshit point is the OP misrepresenting what the POTUS does.

This is why certain posters here have no credibility; they lie, misrepresent and just plain make shit up. Then any grain of truth they might have been able to make in their argument is lost as coming from an unreliable source.

the op never said the government is 'going to take away' anybody's cellphone or cable (although that could be next).......Obama DID mention cellphones and cable bills and said people need to priortize....essentially implying that it would be better to pay that $300 to Obamacare before paying your cellphone or cable bill...

Yet we give free cell phones for low income .. He tells the middle class to give up stuff for his agenda and we are giving people free the stuff he told us to give up. How is this fair ??Obamacare's too expensive for ya? Cancel your cable, peasant! | The Daily Caller

here's Obama....

The irony of what Obama is saying in that clip is that the guy he is saying should give up his cell phone or tv probably could have afforded healthcare before the Obamacare clusterfuck became law.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yet we give free cell phones for low income .. He tells the middle class to give up stuff for his agenda and we are giving people free the stuff he told us to give up. How is this fair ??Obamacare's too expensive for ya? Cancel your cable, peasant! | The Daily Caller

So cable tv is more important than healthcare?

Well it is NOT for mental defectives that believe as YOU probably do that Obamacare was to help the 46 million get health insurance right?
I mean when you in reality subtract as OBAMA NOW has the 10 million because they are illegals (which he counted in the 46 million figure) how many are left? OK I am sure math is not your strong suit so that leaves 36 million.

NOW how do you feel about 14 million people that are either too lazy or ignorant that at their income level are eligible for Medicaid YET they are counted as
part of Obama's 36 million (less the 10 million illegals).. that leaves 22 million. Again the inefficiencies of CMS NOT being able to enroll these 14 million doesn't seem to concern Obamacare supporters that didn't need the ACA but should have been done under pre-ACA Medicaid!

Now explain to me why you and Obama want to force 18 million people that have gotten along so far without their employers' health plans as they
are under 34 so they don't use health services and if they do they make $50,000 or more and pay their services out of pocket!
SO why are we forcing THESE 18 million to buy health insurance?
That leaves 4 million that truly need but can't get health insurance.

SO the simple solution is Pay these uninsureds health costs BUT do it correctly!
Tax the millionaire ambulance chasing lawyers that physicians say cost the PAYERS i.e. Medicare/Ins.cos etc. $850 billion more then necessary .. "defensive medicine"!
With a similar 10% tax that ACA did on tanning salons since tanning causes cancer, tax the $270 billion lawyers make and use that to pay the claims!

SIMPLE...

What's the number of times you've posted some variation of this very post. I'm putting the over/under at 200. Who wants to place bets?

 

[RDD_1210]

Let me put it in words you can understand.

My subscription to cable TV to me is more important then your subscription to your healthcare.

Isn't this the Conservative Slogan?

Let me put your words in to a more digestible, yet still highly accurate format.

"MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

You cant turn my words into anything then they are already.

All those who do have cable TV and don't have health care insurance while expecting from me to pay for it saying exactly that: MEEEEEEE!

Then you agree with Obama, those people should give those things up for health insurance.

Good for you, you're making progress.

Now, don't go off and kill yourself that you agreed with Obama on something. I know you'll probably have your membership card revoked, but you're better off now that you've figured out how to use at least a portion of your brain for critical thought.

 

[Antares]

Isn't this the Conservative Slogan?

Let me put your words in to a more digestible, yet still highly accurate format.

"MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

You cant turn my words into anything then they are already.

All those who do have cable TV and don't have health care insurance while expecting from me to pay for it saying exactly that: MEEEEEEE!

Then you agree with Obama, those people should give those things up for health insurance.

Good for you, you're making progress.

Now, don't go off and kill yourself that you agreed with Obama on something. I know you'll probably have your membership card revoked, but you're better off now that you've figured out how to use at least a portion of your brain for critical thought.

The bigger point is that YOU agree with Obama, we the people should pay for everything for everybody.

 

[Pogo]

when political leaders like Obama are full of bullshit it's pretty tough NOT to post on bullshit...

Not the point at all.

The bullshit point is not what the POTUS does; the bullshit point is the OP misrepresenting what the POTUS does.

This is why certain posters here have no credibility; they lie, misrepresent and just plain make shit up. Then any grain of truth they might have been able to make in their argument is lost as coming from an unreliable source.

the op never said the government is 'going to take away' anybody's cellphone or cable (although that could be next)

Don't think so? Read it again:

Obama cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant pay for Obamacare

Obviously as written it makes little grammatical sense but it looks like it wants to say "Obama will cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare" or "Obama cancels cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare"

Maybe we need Englishcare more than Obamacare, but it looks to me like this is a deliberate misrepresentation to push a perception that does not exist in the real world, rather than the ignorance of how to write a sentence in English. This is a power of suggestion tactic designed to float a myth, plain and simple. It is in fact why I clicked in here, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that, to see how the **** a POTUS could take people's cellphones away.

In fact the poster could have posted honestly and still pushed his same agenda with the addition of a simple colon and quotes:

"Obama: "Cancel your cell phones and cable if you can't pay for Obamacare"

That would have accurately represented what actually happens in the video. But accuracy was not what he was going for, was it?

This is what I mean by tossing credibility overboard like so much ballast. It undermines the poster's point and makes him an unreliable source. He fancies himself a mythmaker. By next week he'll have casual readers believing they thought they read "O'bama is taking cellphones away" just like they thought they read "Al Gore invented the internet".

I continue to wonder why, armed with legitimate points, posters feel the need to shoot their own credibility in the foot with misleading language like this.

 

[Amelia]

Not the point at all.

The bullshit point is not what the POTUS does; the bullshit point is the OP misrepresenting what the POTUS does.

This is why certain posters here have no credibility; they lie, misrepresent and just plain make shit up. Then any grain of truth they might have been able to make in their argument is lost as coming from an unreliable source.

the op never said the government is 'going to take away' anybody's cellphone or cable (although that could be next)

Don't think so? Read it again:

Obama cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant pay for Obamacare

Obviously as written it makes little grammatical sense but it looks like it wants to say "Obama will cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare" or "Obama cancels cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare"

Maybe we need Englishcare more than Obamacare, but it looks to me like this is a deliberate misrepresentation to push a perception that does not exist in the real world, rather than the ignorance of how to write a sentence in English. This is a power of suggestion tactic designed to float a myth, plain and simple. It is in fact why I clicked in here, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that, to see how the **** a POTUS could take people's cellphones away.

In fact the poster could have posted honestly and still pushed his same agenda with the addition of a simple colon and quotes:

"Obama: "Cancel your cell phones and cable if you can't pay for Obamacare"

That would have accurately represented what actually happens in the video. But accuracy was not what he was going for, was it?

This is what I mean by tossing credibility overboard like so much ballast. It undermines the poster's point and makes him an unreliable source. He fancies himself a mythmaker. By next week he'll have casual readers believing they thought they read "O'bama is taking cellphones away" just like they thought they read "Al Gore invented the internet".

I continue to wonder why, armed with legitimate points, posters feel the need to shoot their own credibility in the foot with misleading language like this.

There was clearly a grammatical difficulty with the title. It's not misleading language. It's a poorly crafted title. Your credibility suffers at least as much as Lovebears' when you run with an incorrect interpretation. You could ask a polite question for clarification.

 

[Pogo]

the op never said the government is 'going to take away' anybody's cellphone or cable (although that could be next)

Don't think so? Read it again:

Obama cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant pay for Obamacare

Obviously as written it makes little grammatical sense but it looks like it wants to say "Obama will cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare" or "Obama cancels cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare"

Maybe we need Englishcare more than Obamacare, but it looks to me like this is a deliberate misrepresentation to push a perception that does not exist in the real world, rather than the ignorance of how to write a sentence in English. This is a power of suggestion tactic designed to float a myth, plain and simple. It is in fact why I clicked in here, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that, to see how the **** a POTUS could take people's cellphones away.

In fact the poster could have posted honestly and still pushed his same agenda with the addition of a simple colon and quotes:

"Obama: "Cancel your cell phones and cable if you can't pay for Obamacare"

That would have accurately represented what actually happens in the video. But accuracy was not what he was going for, was it?

This is what I mean by tossing credibility overboard like so much ballast. It undermines the poster's point and makes him an unreliable source. He fancies himself a mythmaker. By next week he'll have casual readers believing they thought they read "O'bama is taking cellphones away" just like they thought they read "Al Gore invented the internet".

I continue to wonder why, armed with legitimate points, posters feel the need to shoot their own credibility in the foot with misleading language like this.

There was clearly a grammatical difficulty with the title. It's not misleading language. It's a poorly crafted title. Your credibility suffers at least as much as Lovebears' when you run with an incorrect interpretation. You could ask a polite question for clarification.

Yeah I did that. I got no objection that there was something I missed, so we're left to conclude it was deliberate.

Now how does my credibility suffer? Is my grammatical analysis wrong or not?

 

[Amelia]

Don't think so? Read it again:



Obviously as written it makes little grammatical sense but it looks like it wants to say "Obama will cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare" or "Obama cancels cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare"

Maybe we need Englishcare more than Obamacare, but it looks to me like this is a deliberate misrepresentation to push a perception that does not exist in the real world, rather than the ignorance of how to write a sentence in English. This is a power of suggestion tactic designed to float a myth, plain and simple. It is in fact why I clicked in here, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that, to see how the **** a POTUS could take people's cellphones away.

In fact the poster could have posted honestly and still pushed his same agenda with the addition of a simple colon and quotes:

"Obama: "Cancel your cell phones and cable if you can't pay for Obamacare"

That would have accurately represented what actually happens in the video. But accuracy was not what he was going for, was it?

This is what I mean by tossing credibility overboard like so much ballast. It undermines the poster's point and makes him an unreliable source. He fancies himself a mythmaker. By next week he'll have casual readers believing they thought they read "O'bama is taking cellphones away" just like they thought they read "Al Gore invented the internet".

I continue to wonder why, armed with legitimate points, posters feel the need to shoot their own credibility in the foot with misleading language like this.

There was clearly a grammatical difficulty with the title. It's not misleading language. It's a poorly crafted title. Your credibility suffers at least as much as Lovebears' when you run with an incorrect interpretation. You could ask a polite question for clarification.

Yeah I did that. I got no objection that there was something I missed, so we're left to conclude it was deliberate.

Now how does my credibility suffer? Is my grammatical analysis wrong or not?

It wasn't "misleading". It was off by any interpretation. The only conclusion to make is that it was deliberate? No, I don't think so. That's not very imaginative of you.

There was an error any way you cut it. No conclusions should have been made at all without further study or questions. If the reader is interested in communicating, the reader should make an attempt to understand what was actually meant. If the reader does not make that attempt, then the reader makes himself seem interested in something other than meaningful conversation and thereby loses credibility as a fair-minded participant in the discussion.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yet we give free cell phones for low income .. He tells the middle class to give up stuff for his agenda and we are giving people free the stuff he told us to give up. How is this fair ??Obamacare's too expensive for ya? Cancel your cable, peasant! | The Daily Caller

If you already have a phone how can you get an Obamaphone?


This is just Social Justice at work.

Obama looks down his nose at us. We don't need all of this stuff we had to work for. He wants it.........give up your food and your gold next.

Soviet Union, here we come.

 

[R.D.]

A string of excellent points in this thread; I agree with most of them, this one being the best and most pertinent:

Americans should cancel their cable anyway because it's feeding shit directly into your brain 24 hours a day.

--- and this illiteracy being the worst:
Obama cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant pay for Obamacare (thread title)

I can't run a video at work but unless there's something in there I missed (and I'm sure the blog would have noted it if it existed), O'bama never says the gummint is going to take away anybody's cellphone or cable. Rather, he's advising somebody on prioritization of his own free choices, which is a completely different thing.

Correct me if I missed something but this looks like yet another thread based on bullshit.

Nope. You're so brilliant that you knew the op meant even though you pretend it was so poorly written and misleading. As if the op was a lib

 

[Sunshine]

Yet we give free cell phones for low income .. He tells the middle class to give up stuff for his agenda and we are giving people free the stuff he told us to give up. How is this fair ??Obamacare's too expensive for ya? Cancel your cable, peasant! | The Daily Caller

Correct. He gives cell phones to people who pay nothing for their medical coverage.

 

[Pogo]

There was clearly a grammatical difficulty with the title. It's not misleading language. It's a poorly crafted title. Your credibility suffers at least as much as Lovebears' when you run with an incorrect interpretation. You could ask a polite question for clarification.

Yeah I did that. I got no objection that there was something I missed, so we're left to conclude it was deliberate.

Now how does my credibility suffer? Is my grammatical analysis wrong or not?

It wasn't "misleading". It was off by any interpretation. The only conclusion to make is that it was deliberate? No, I don't think so. That's not very imaginative of you.

There was an error any way you cut it. No conclusions should have been made at all without further study or questions. If the reader is interested in communicating, the reader should make an attempt to understand what was actually meant. If the reader does not make that attempt, then the reader makes himself seem interested in something other than meaningful conversation and thereby loses credibility as a fair-minded participant in the discussion.

Of course -- that's what I just said.

I didn't "cut" anything; I read it like anyone else, and as I just got done noting I only came into this thread for an explanation of how a POTUS could possibly take people's cellphones and cable away -- which is what the title says in its ineptitude. That turns out not to be true, and that misrepresentation is disingenuous on the part of the person who wrote it, which is the OP.

Don't play dumb here; we both know what's going on.

So there's nothing wrong with my grammatical analysis then. Thank you.

 

[Dot Com]

Yet we give free cell phones for low income .. He tells the middle class to give up stuff for his agenda and we are giving people free the stuff he told us to give up. How is this fair ??Obamacare's too expensive for ya? Cancel your cable, peasant! | The Daily Caller

Correct. He gives cell phones to people who pay nothing for their medical coverage.

Link?

BTW- that program started under..... drum roll please..... Bush II rofl

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[Amelia]

Yeah I did that. I got no objection that there was something I missed, so we're left to conclude it was deliberate.

Now how does my credibility suffer? Is my grammatical analysis wrong or not?

It wasn't "misleading". It was off by any interpretation. The only conclusion to make is that it was deliberate? No, I don't think so. That's not very imaginative of you.

There was an error any way you cut it. No conclusions should have been made at all without further study or questions. If the reader is interested in communicating, the reader should make an attempt to understand what was actually meant. If the reader does not make that attempt, then the reader makes himself seem interested in something other than meaningful conversation and thereby loses credibility as a fair-minded participant in the discussion.

Of course -- that's what I just said.

I didn't "cut" anything; I read it like anyone else, and as I just got done noting I only came into this thread for an explanation of how a POTUS could possibly take people's cellphones and cable away -- which is what the title says in its ineptitude. That turns out not to be true, and that misrepresentation is disingenuous on the part of the person who wrote it, which is the OP.

Don't play dumb here; we both know what's going on.

So there's nothing wrong with my grammatical analysis then. Thank you.

That's not what you just said.

For one thing, you said, " so we're left to conclude it was deliberate."

There was quite enough information available to draw a conclusion different from the one you drew. Are we then to conclude that the false conclusion you drew was done deliberately?



This is getting convoluted. I'm bored now. In my opinion the meaning of the OP was sufficiently clear. Hardly anyone interpreted it the way you did. You might wonder why that was. Or you might not care.

I don't care anymore.

 

[Sunshine]

Of course it's my business. I live in this country and pay taxes. Until we have some sort of document that people can sign that says, "If Im sick and chose not to buy insurance, you should not treat me no matter what unless I have cash to pay for it" then it's my business because it affects me.

Liberalism 101- The Government passes legislation that forces ER's and hospitals to provide service to people who cannot pay for it. This creates a massive imbalance in the system. Now the only way to fix the problem (that they created) is by creating a new and bigger government program.

Most decent people want to live in a place where the truly needy aren't denied help simply because they're poor. Guilty as charged!

So how is it that the welfare crack ho who gets subsidized housing, food stamps, and welfare more 'needy' of a cell phone than the working middle class mother who uses her cell phone to keep track of her children while she is at work?

 

[Sunshine]

A string of excellent points in this thread; I agree with most of them, this one being the best and most pertinent:



--- and this illiteracy being the worst:
Obama cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant pay for Obamacare (thread title)

I can't run a video at work but unless there's something in there I missed (and I'm sure the blog would have noted it if it existed), O'bama never says the gummint is going to take away anybody's cellphone or cable. Rather, he's advising somebody on prioritization of his own free choices, which is a completely different thing.

Correct me if I missed something but this looks like yet another thread based on bullshit.

when political leaders like Obama are full of bullshit it's pretty tough NOT to post on bullshit...

Not the point at all.

The bullshit point is not what the POTUS does; the bullshit point is the OP misrepresenting what the POTUS does.

This is why certain posters here have no credibility; they lie, misrepresent and just plain make shit up. Then any grain of truth they might have been able to make in their argument is lost as coming from an unreliable source.

From the OP about Obama's town hall meeting in which he took phone calls:

He suggested that some families may be spending too much on cable television or cell phones, and not enough on health insurance.

And this:

Update: The feedback I’m getting indicates that some people don’t quite understand what Obama is doing here. Please note that this caller didn’t say anything about cable TV or cellphones. He just said he can’t afford Obamcare. Obama is the one who’s suggesting that this guy is wasting his money on luxuries, based on no evidence at all. He’s deflecting the criticism back on the critic. It’s a cheap trick, but it works.

He’s doing what he always does: Blaming everybody but himself. Don’t fall for it.

He assumed that people are wasting money on things they don't need.

 

[Sunshine]

the op never said the government is 'going to take away' anybody's cellphone or cable (although that could be next)

Don't think so? Read it again:

Obama cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant pay for Obamacare

Obviously as written it makes little grammatical sense but it looks like it wants to say "Obama will cancel your cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare" or "Obama cancels cell phones and cable if you cant [sic] pay for Obamacare"

Maybe we need Englishcare more than Obamacare, but it looks to me like this is a deliberate misrepresentation to push a perception that does not exist in the real world, rather than the ignorance of how to write a sentence in English. This is a power of suggestion tactic designed to float a myth, plain and simple. It is in fact why I clicked in here, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that, to see how the **** a POTUS could take people's cellphones away.

In fact the poster could have posted honestly and still pushed his same agenda with the addition of a simple colon and quotes:

"Obama: "Cancel your cell phones and cable if you can't pay for Obamacare"

That would have accurately represented what actually happens in the video. But accuracy was not what he was going for, was it?

This is what I mean by tossing credibility overboard like so much ballast. It undermines the poster's point and makes him an unreliable source. He fancies himself a mythmaker. By next week he'll have casual readers believing they thought they read "O'bama is taking cellphones away" just like they thought they read "Al Gore invented the internet".

I continue to wonder why, armed with legitimate points, posters feel the need to shoot their own credibility in the foot with misleading language like this.

There was clearly a grammatical difficulty with the title. It's not misleading language. It's a poorly crafted title. Your credibility suffers at least as much as Lovebears' when you run with an incorrect interpretation. You could ask a polite question for clarification.

Sez the little kitty who's ready to pounce~!

​

 

[Sunshine]

Yet we give free cell phones for low income .. He tells the middle class to give up stuff for his agenda and we are giving people free the stuff he told us to give up. How is this fair ??Obamacare's too expensive for ya? Cancel your cable, peasant! | The Daily Caller

If you already have a phone how can you get an Obamaphone?


This is just Social Justice at work.

Obama looks down his nose at us. We don't need all of this stuff we had to work for. He wants it.........give up your food and your gold next.

Soviet Union, here we come.

[MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION]

It may be better in the Soviet Union!

 

[mudwhistle]

when political leaders like Obama are full of bullshit it's pretty tough NOT to post on bullshit...

Not the point at all.

The bullshit point is not what the POTUS does; the bullshit point is the OP misrepresenting what the POTUS does.

This is why certain posters here have no credibility; they lie, misrepresent and just plain make shit up. Then any grain of truth they might have been able to make in their argument is lost as coming from an unreliable source.

From the OP about Obama's town hall meeting in which he took phone calls:

He suggested that some families may be spending too much on cable television or cell phones, and not enough on health insurance.

And this:

Update: The feedback I’m getting indicates that some people don’t quite understand what Obama is doing here. Please note that this caller didn’t say anything about cable TV or cellphones. He just said he can’t afford Obamcare. Obama is the one who’s suggesting that this guy is wasting his money on luxuries, based on no evidence at all. He’s deflecting the criticism back on the critic. It’s a cheap trick, but it works.

He’s doing what he always does: Blaming everybody but himself. Don’t fall for it.

He assumed that people are wasting money on things they don't need.

Like TV, and air-conditioning, and XBOX.

Rat-bastard. He lives like a king while we have to settle for less and less.

 

[RDD_1210]

You cant turn my words into anything then they are already.

All those who do have cable TV and don't have health care insurance while expecting from me to pay for it saying exactly that: MEEEEEEE!

Then you agree with Obama, those people should give those things up for health insurance.

Good for you, you're making progress.

Now, don't go off and kill yourself that you agreed with Obama on something. I know you'll probably have your membership card revoked, but you're better off now that you've figured out how to use at least a portion of your brain for critical thought.

The bigger point is that YOU agree with Obama, we the people should pay for everything for everybody.

You aren't part of the people, don't worry. It only applies to Americans.