President Obama to Introduce Radical Voting Initiative with the ‘Obama phone’

20130212_obamaphone_free_obama_phone_lady_LARGEMaking good on his promise to use the “pen and phone” strategy to circumvent Republican stonewalling of his agenda, President Obama’s next move via executive order may be the most radical change to the election system since women and minorities were allowed to vote. In the next few weeks, the president is expected to issue an executive order to circumvent the massive, coordinated assault on voting rights in many swing states which have included reducing voting precincts and voting hours, which disproportionately affects the working poor and the elderly. Ohio Governor Kasich signed legislation in February which eliminated same day voter registration, 6 days of early voting, and the mailing of absentee ballots to all registered voters.

Obama will sign an executive order introducing a new voting system in which all Lifeline (also known in the conservative media as “Obama phone”) subscribers will be able to vote via text messaging on their government-issued cell phones. Not a registered voter? Now when you sign up for an Obama phone, you’ll automatically be registered to vote. Can’t get to a polling place because you’re disabled or you can’t find a babysitter? No problem. Now with your Obama phone, you can easily text your vote to an 800 number without leaving the comfort of your home.

Of course, if you’ve read past the headline, you’d know that this is satire. But far too many people will read the headline alone and pass it along as proof in conservative circles that President Obama is a “radical Kenyan socialist communist Nazi Muslim” intent on allowing lazy black people on welfare to vote for Democrats.


However, let’s go ahead and debunk some of the conservative talking points surrounding the “Obama phone.” From the FCC’s page:

Since 1985, the Lifeline program has provided a discount on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers to ensure that all Americans have the opportunities and security that phone service brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family and emergency services. In 2005, Lifeline discounts were made available to qualifying low-income consumers on pre-paid wireless service plans in addition to traditional landline service. Lifeline is part of the Universal Service Fund. (Source)

Guess who was in the Oval Office in 1985? Reagan. Guess who was in the Oval Office in 2005? George W. Bush. So let’s go ahead and call it the “Bush phone” because that’s the president it was introduced under. While there was an increase in people using the program in 2008 to 2010, that was as a result of many Americans being out of work during the Bush recession.

Another false narrative about the Lifeline program would have you believe that welfare queens sit around in nail and hair salons all day playing Candy Crush on an iPhone. Again, that is false:

…in 2005 – under the Bush II Administration – the FCC recognized changing technology and usage patterns and expanded the program to provide cell phones to qualified low-income households. Contrary to the false statements that have been thrown out by pundits, there are no “unlimited” cell phone plans; the Lifeline program provides poor households with 250 minutes per month of cell phone access. (Source)

“But cell phones are a luxury!” is another talking point often used in opposition to the program. Sure, 15 years ago cell phones were a luxury, and quite expensive. Today, they’re quite common and affordable for most people, but if you really can’t afford a phone plan, that’s where the Lifeline program comes in. You get a basic phone which allows you to talk and text on a limited basis which is absolutely necessary to someone trying to find employment. You’re not getting a free iPhone or the latest Samsung Galaxy, you’re getting the bare bones minimum phone which wouldn’t even have been state of the art when Lifeline was expanded in 2005.

“Lifeline is an unfair tax on hardworking people!” is yet another rant you’ll hear from the daily Fox News viewer. Again, that is false. From AT&T’s website:

The Federal Universal Service Fund (USF), created by the federal government, is designed to help ensure first-class, affordable telecommunications service for all consumers across the country, especially residents in high-cost rural communities and low-income customers. Additionally, the Federal USF provides for discounted communications services for schools, libraries and rural healthcare facilities. All telecommunications providers are required to pay into the Federal USF, and their contributions may be recovered from customers. (Source)

In a nutshell, telecom companies are required by law to provide services to all Americans, regardless of where they live or how little their income is. The law does allow those companies to pass on the cost to their customers, and many of them choose to do. From the FCC’s website again:

Because telephones provide a vital link to emergency services, to government services and to surrounding communities, it has been our nation’s policy to promote telephone service to all households since this service began in the 1930s. The USF helps to make phone service affordable and available to all Americans, including consumers with low incomes, those living in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and libraries and rural health care providers. Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the “Federal Universal Service Fee” or “Universal Connectivity Fee”. (Source)


I have 4 lines on my personal cell phone account and I pay the whopping total of $1.31 a month for the Universal Service Fee. If you’re that outraged over a fee that small that helps people have a basic communication device, your priorities are all wrong. And if you’re gullible enough to post this article as “proof” of voter fraud, government abuse or President Obama subverting the Constitution in order to run for a third term, you might just get your disinformation from Fox News.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • robingee

    Donald Trump is hurriedly tweeting about this, his hair flopping all about in a panic.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      “HIS” hair????

      • robingee

        Well, I assume he paid for it. Or adopted it legally from Hairpiece Rescue.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ” im not just the president …….im a customer”
        =======================================
        hairclub 4 men ad—

  • Sandy Greer

    I’d heard of the Obama Phone – but wasn’t clear on what it was. I know what Lifeline is – having worked at The Phone Company for many years (prior to the Millennium) It’s a tough program to get into, with strict requirements. In all those years I never heard any complain that Lifeline was a ‘giveaway’ to the poor. In fact, I never heard any complaints against Lifeline at all.

    Just goes to show Obama Phone complaints are driven more by Hate of Obama than anything else.

    Dems need to get on top of attempts at Voter Suppression – be more proactive. The fact GOP wants to make it more difficult to vote – shows they’re afraid of how Ordinary Joe might vote. They fear an American public doesn’t buy what they sell – and they’re right. We don’t; most of us just don’t want to get a ‘hate on’ for the ‘other’. GOP NEEDS to suppress our vote because their ideas don’t sell themselves.

    I don’t care HOW difficult they make it – HOW many obstacles they throw up: Dems need to VOTE: Every election, every time – local, state, national.

    No excuses. Get out there and vote. And make sure your neighbor does too. Each and every one of our votes count.

    • Bine646

      Go ahead and youtube the viral video- “obamaphone.” The lady in the video changed alot of folks minds on this government program.

      As for voting- now you can use a phone? Its to hard or inconvenient to show up at a voting center? How can we be certain its that individual actually voting and not someone else? In this era of hackers- seems very easy to manipulate. But if repubs are trying to make it hard too vote, dems are doing the opposite- i guess after seeing the polls and recent election losses they (you) are desperate

      • Sandy Greer

        Oh, my. Bine asks:

        >now you can use a phone? Its to hard or inconvenient to
        show up at a voting center?

        LOL Did you even bother reading the article? If you had,
        you would have seen this:

        >if you’ve read past the headline, you’d know that this
        is satire.

        And this:

        >But far too many people will read the headline alone and
        pass it along as proof in conservative circles that President Obama is a “radical Kenyan socialist communist Nazi Muslim” intent on allowing lazy black people on welfare to vote for Democrats.

        ^^^Author was sure somebody like you would come along. I was skeptical ANYbody would comment on an article they hadn’t read, and thus – betray foolishness – or worse.

        But we can always count on Bine never to disappoint – can’t
        we? ;D

      • Bine646

        Guess you havnt been paying attention- theyve been proposing modernizing the voting system to make it more convenient, etc. One of the ideas was mobile voting.

        Did you youtube the infamous obamaphone vid? Its a classic

      • Sandy Greer

        Who is this ‘they’ you speak of? Care to prove that little tidbit?

        Or should I join you in worrying the sky will fall – at some vague point in the future – if we allow people we don’t like – and who might not vote our way – to vote???

        To each their own, I suppose. But I’ll stick with my Citizen Kanes and North by Northwests (and the like) when I’m in the mood for a ‘classic’.

      • Bine646

        You should stop assuming, thatd be a good place to start. Just because i believe in accurate voting practices does not mean i think the “sky will fall” or all americans should not be allowed to vote.

        As for the modernization process- many ideas have been proposed by politicians and independent agencies. “The Commission’s recommendations are a significant step forward,” added Wendy Weiser, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. “They make clear that nationwide our voting systems have common problems, which can be fixed with common, national solutions. Especially important is the consensus that we need to modernize voter registration, make early voting available to all Americans, and put systems in place so no one waits longer than 30 minutes to vote. These will be the new benchmarks against which future elections will be judged.

        “However, more must be done to make sure the voting system works for all Americans. We need to fix the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court eviscerated last year, in order to protect against restrictive and often discriminatory voting laws. We look forward to working with members of Congress and election officials across the country to modernize voting and bring our system into the 21st century

      • Sandy Greer

        And, what you said (your Wendy quote) proves “mobile voting”…HOW…exactly?

        That would be ‘assuming’ quite a bit. We BOTH know you don’t want me to ‘assume’.

        Maybe you shouldn’t, either?

        Prove it. Don’t ‘assume’ I should take your word for it.

      • Bine646

        Well for one- they purposed mobile voting machines….

        Usually when brainstorming ideas are thrown around- they look at the technology available and how it can be used to make the process more efficient. As we are all aware, mobile voting has been used for years- its certainly being pondered- lets not be ignorant aswrell Sandy

      • Sandy Greer

        I Googled; read the report. The proposal was that REGISTRATION be PORTABLE (I quote the report)

        >Once an eligible citizen is on a state’s voter rolls, she should remain registered and her registration should automatically move with her as long as she continues to reside in that state.

        ^^^’Ignorance’ is reading that and concluding they proposed either ‘mobile voting machines’ (which are already mobile – moving for each election)

        OR that ‘they’ proposed ‘mobile voting’ (via phone) as you asserted (twice now) and have yet to prove.

        You call ME ‘ignorant’; say *I* don’t ‘pay attention’, and shouldn’t ‘assume’.

        ^^^But you think I’m ‘ignorant’ enough not to ‘pay attention’ and call you on your own ‘assumptions’. Just SMH at what passes for ‘ignorance’ these days.

      • Bine646

        You were ignorant enough to not know about the modernization proposals- looks like you learned something.

        Heres what Australia has done with televoting- 2.3.1 The Electoral Council of Australia sought to standardize the usability of technology that is being developed in different Australian Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) in response to increasing public need and commercial and parliamentary requirement. Telephone Voting brings added benefits of accessibility that technology can bring to voters who previously relied on assistance to mark the ballot paper.

      • Sandy Greer

        Uh, no. I hadn’t read your particular report prior to today. But that’s not indicative of ‘ignorance’.

        YOU didn’t read the article; didn’t know who the author was (thought it was Allen) Nor did you even read your OWN report. If you HAD – you would have known the proposals involved REGISTRATION procedures.

        Looks like we BOTH learned something today.

        Yet you keep asserting we vote by phone; you double down on ignorant lies. LMFAO at shamelessness that holds its head high.

        Australia gets to do what Australia wants. Phil made short work of your argument below.

        Or are you just shameless ENOUGH to argue there is no merit in what any other country in this world chooses to do?

        I suggest you worry less about televoting in Australia – and more about proving it’s happening here. You said it was. Now PROVE it.

        Because even an ‘ignoramus’ like me knows better than to debate with stupidity, who offers ignorant lies.

      • Phil Keast

        If you intend to quote a document, it would help if you read the document, and placed it in the context for which the document was written.

        Australia does not have a universal Telephone Voting System, these documents are working papers on how such a system could be implemented. They are currently restricted to use to enable those who would normally not be able to vote due to disability or remote location.

        The Standards Document, below, should be read in conjunction with such documents as the Victorian Electoral Commission: Accessible information and voting services for people who are blind or vision impaired.

        Automated Telephone Voting: Australian Electoral Industry Standard, is intended to provide a common technological blue-print as it relates to the application of Telephone Voting where Telephone Voting is available. It states, among its technical specifications that: [Note: the following are all quotes taken directly, and without editing of the specific clause, from the document. Highlighting by italics has been added by me. Numbers are the clauses, sub-clauses, etc. as stated in the document, which should make verifying that I have not misquoted easy to check.]

        2.3.2 The Standard was initially instigated in an effort to regularize the voting experience for people who are blind or have low vision, but it is recognized that this approach is applicable to anyone who is able to hear and comprehend spoken instructions and activate a telephone keypad. The assembled working party concluded that when voting using a telephone voting system, that all voters will be casting a vote without the benefit of being able to see the ballot paper.

        4.1.3 There are many liability and other legal issues relating to matters covered in this Standard, the resolution of which falls outside the scope of the document. These include:
        4.1.3.1 Conditions of use (eg, proxy relationships, determinations of breaches)
        4.1.3.2 PIN and Voting Identification Number entry (eg, inability to enter PIN, PIN replacing signature)
        4.1.3.3 PIN disclosure
        4.1.3.4 Disclosure of user IDs and passwords
        4.1.3.5 Strategies for avoidance of fraud
        4.1.3.6 Compliance with Commonwealth Electronic Transactions Act
        4.1.3.7 Compliance with the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 (which incorporates the amendments made to it by the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000).
        4.1.3.8 Any electoral legislation that may be governing the particular ballot that is using Telephone Voting.

        6.1.6 Disability – the use of this term in the Standard relies on the DDA definition which includes:
        6.1.6.1 Physical
        6.1.6.2 Intellectual
        6.1.6.3 Psychiatric
        6.1.6.4 Sensory
        6.1.6.5 Neurological
        6.1.6.6 Learning disabilities
        6.1.6.7 Physical disfigurement
        6.1.6.8 The presence in the body of disease-causing organisms

        7.1.7 This Industry Standard in the first instance specifies requirements, guidelines, recommendations and suggestions for Automated Telephone Voting services to make them more accessible to people with disabilities and for rural and remote Australians. Nothing in this standard should technically preclude the use of such telephone voting services by anyone who has the capacity to hear and comprehend the spoken messages and activate keys on a standard touchtone-capable telephone device.

        7.3.1 The service must be able to be operated regardless of whether the voter has a speech impairment or is unable to talk. The service must not require voice input by the voter. If user verification processes or other aspects of the service request the voter to speak, fall-back alternatives need to be in place for voters who do not have that capacity.

        8.4.6 Note: As print handicapped voters are a logical audience for telephone voting the legislative requirement to register for this service using a signature should be minimized on the basis that the voter has already enrolled with the EMB and that any further registration is an extension of that enrollment.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
        annoying a regressive with facts

      • Sandy Greer

        Kudos. I’m impressed.

      • republic84

        Stop using facts, they make their heads explode. If bine gets too testy, turn on fox news, that tends to calm them down.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        and do NOT forget the GREATEST movie NAME ever::::::
        ” the greatest STORY ever told”
        ==============================
        or should it be called ” the biggest yarn ever told”?

      • gmartini

        Wow—“As for voting- now you can use a phone?”
        That was just satire that flew over your head. Please read the article.

      • Bine646

        Please do some research- modernizing the voting process has been proposed since 2012. You think Allen just makes this stuff up?

      • Phil Keast

        Modernize the voting process. You bloody well better. The world was either laughing or crying when an election was being decided on the basis of whether the hole punch went all the way through the paper or most of the way through it.

        When it comes to using modern technology in the voting process, be it the internet, mobile phones, or any other technology less than 50 years old, don’t worry, some other more forward thinking country (probably many of them in fact) will trial it, prove its effectiveness, and put it into law before it will ever be more than vaporware in the USA. [Oh, and having your voter registration not invalidated when you move house, its not that big a deal. OK, Australia has a universal, compulsory voter registration system, but its about 5 minutes work (fill in a form, post it) to notify the Electoral Commission of your new address. Then they update their records. No big deal.]

      • gmartini

        Read the article! He states right in the third paragraph, “… you’d know this is satire…” Is that clear enough for you?!

      • Sandy Greer

        He didn’t even know who the author was; thought it was Allen: (You think Allen just makes this stuff up?)

        He didn’t even read his OWN report that he referred me to. *I* had to read it, and tell him what it said.

        Gotta be a Faux News watcher. Reads a headline – that’s enough. Some RWNJ tells him a report says something – he’s off and running, sure it’s gospel.

      • gmartini

        Probably. Some people just jump right in never knowing that they entirely missed the point.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        funny ( aint it) how it wasn’t an issue ( see: florida fraud 2000) until a black democrat president appeared in 2009
        funny aint it?
        =======================================
        NOTE: “ok class,,,,,,what PCT of voter ‘fraud’ ( cumulative) is in the repub -led states who are pulling this voter ID crap”?
        —————— answer: ( average number PCT) 0.00765 %

      • republic84

        Well folks, we found the first republican. As usual as in tune with the facts as a rock. Maybe, if your capable, you could REAL THE ENTIRE ARTICLE prior to commenting on it. Deflecting with “haven’t you heard the are actually considering this, that’s what I meant” isn’t fooling anyone. Have a seat Mr Romney.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        where O where O where was the regressive voter fraud outrage BEFORE jan 2009????
        oooops,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, silly little facts again
        ( answer: it was inculating with the not-yet-formed “fiscally prudent tea party)

  • Raiann

    After reading the headline, I can just see Hannity, Limbaugh, O’ Reilly, Beck and Coulter all going nuclear. Actually probably all of Faux news. This could be fun. !!!

    • gmartini

      Great article—It had me going for a moment or two and thinking the same thing: Wingnut heads will explode in unison in 3…2….1!

      • republic84

        BOOM! There’s little bits of bine646 all over.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        kinda itches

    • republic84

      If they all explode, we could use the air time for something more important. I hear grass is fun to watch and much more intelligent.

  • republic84

    No, this article is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Obama used his Muslim time machine and went back and made this happen so all the black or poor people in America could be lazy and use their Obama Phones to check the status of their food stamp cards before they used them to buy alcohol and tobacco. Reagan and the Bush’s two were saints, by far the best presidents of all time. All hale Reagan, all hale Reagan.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      saint Reagan!!!
      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that silly near tripling of debt he incurred

      • Charles Vincent

        Reagan didn’t triple the debt Congress did, the house of representatives is responsible passing budgets. And during the Reagan administration the house was controlled by the Democrats.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        when an administration is in power all good and bad is associated with that administration. caseinpoint: regressives are now TRYING to tell me that the reason the deficit is shrinking is because of republicans sequestration( many didn’t like it though) so U cannot have it both ways. Reagans tenure was one which sent us spiraling in debt; his deficit spending also out of control as well as selling arms to the evildoers in the middle east– as well as many other foibles.
        I do agree that congress holds the purse strings; but the president in power is the one who gets blame/credit. please see Vietnam and the great depression as well as 9/11 if this statement is unclear

      • Charles Vincent

        OK then Obama is going to add more debt than all other presidents combined by the end of his term in 2016 a total of almost 11 trillion dollars. There’s some down and dirty for you, and that number is from the CBO. FYI 11 trillion in 8 years(Obama) vs 3 trillion in 8 years(Reagan). Obama has nearly quadrupled the debt of Reagan. As for deficit shrinkage that is also following the CBO numbers But it is also Temporary and by 2015 it will start growing again according to the CBO and continue to grow through 2023. Obama and the people running this country are Financial illiterates.

        the chart is on the top of page 6.

        http://www DOT cbo DOT gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44173-APB_0 DOT pdf

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        funny how U crybabies always quote Reagan when it “suits” but what is saint Reagans numbers when adjusting for inflation? (oooops,,,,EH?) also– how about comparing the current dem pres to most recent repub pres? ( damn that contemporary history!!),,,,,,, I do like how U admit deficit is shrinking ( faster than any time since IKE) and the CBO is not infallible; witness their numbers 14 months ago which concluded the ACA ( nee: obamacare)was going to spiral higher the debt/deficit; now– 5 weeks ago the same CBO admitted that they now see the aca costing 5 BILLION dollars less for just 2014.
        also– pertaining to the most recent repub administration we wont get in2 silly specifics (policy wise) such as unpaid wars and 4400PLUS dead americans ( oooops- 4 dead in Benghazi)as well as near 10 thousand more maimed. ( details; details)
        job creation: combine Obama and Clinton and now combine both bushes and Reagans numbers:
        lo & behold– democrats blow repubs from stratosphere ( last repub pres? those tax cuts to “job creators”????) damn those details again!!
        maybe the tea party formation ( see: jan 2009) with little or no populace in it being NON Caucasian will lead the entire country!! after all; ted cruz isn’t born here,,,, rand paul is a mockery and marco Rubio- while somewhat moderate — is on the outside looking in. JEB BUSH!!!!! (NO; tea party hates him)
        RNC— decisions; decisions,,!!

      • Charles Vincent

        So the ACA costs only 1 trillion 995 billion woopie frigging dooo.
        I never quoted Reagan that’s a flaccid argument.
        the CBO numbers for deficits have been lower thanthe actual deficits that Obama has been running which means he is still creating more deficit than even the CBO is saying.

        And with two wars bumping the total debt added by Bush, Obama still doubled what bush did in 4 years. The deficits aren’t shrinking faster look at the table in that link you rube.
        I didn’t avoid it I left a mushroom print on your forehead about how your boy Obama will have created more debt than all other presidents combined by the end of his term. and he not only doubled or tripled but nearly quadrupled the amount of debt Reagan added.
        The tea party fox new and all the other irrelevant horse shit you blather about is irrelevant and nothing but a puerile attempt to obfuscate how shitty Obama is doing. add Bill Clinton to Obama ans he still spent more money keep drinking that kool aid T. and for the record Obamas unemployment numbers are rigged they changed the way they calulated them to make him look good and thats right out of the new york times.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        bush took surplus and made it 11 trillion debt…. Obama has it now to 17 trillion. that’s doubling? wow– I have a lot more money than I thought by YOUR math!!!
        deficit falling rudely. I don’t need your pissant link: cbo and treasury work fine for me.
        lets compare repub policies VS democrat policies in federal level in past 25 yrs: which has helped America more? which has hurt more?
        ” please continue GOVNA”

      • Charles Vincent

        The surplus wasn’t a surplus even you admitted that. I believe you called it a technicality. And Obama has still added more debt than Bush and he did it in just 4 years.

        You seem to forget i am not partial to the repubs either and lets not exclude states and cities that are going broke under democratic fiscal policies. you know states like California and oh I don’t know maybe Detroit which has been run by the democrats since the 1950’s and guess what they are currently filed under bankruptcy. As for federal

        http://cnsnews DOT com/news/article/no-democrat-controlled-congress-has-balanced-federal-budget-40-years-no-republican

        “bush took surplus and made it 11 trillion debt…. Obama has it now to 17 trillion.”

        This is incorrect.
        “Under President (George W. Bush), we added $4.9 trillion to the debt.”(8 Years) “Under President Obama, since he’s been in office, we’ve added $6.5 trillion to the debt,”(~4 years)
        By then end of Obama’s second term he will have doubled the debt(~10.8 trillion) Bush added and will have accrued more debt than all presidents including bush according to the CBO and that’s according to the base line analysis, it is more according to the extended base line analysis.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        u are remarkably incorrect,,,,, the CBO and treasury numbers destroy your numbers—— go to BOTH sites and do homework b4 U reply again here.
        ==================================
        wrong #2— California? CALIFORNIA?????
        2014 surplus under dem jerry brown surplus for this yr 851 million
        ================================
        they project balanced budget next 4 yrs
        =====================================
        please attempt to read more

      • Charles Vincent

        Posted the CBO numbers already you’re wrong and California has been in trouble for awhile before brown got back in.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,, chuckie
        im looking at them now– separate screen VOILA!! and U either want to skirmish with me here –idiotically– or u simply cannot read
        =======================================
        second–
        I am enthralled that ur lame attempt to obfuscate calif budget shows that even chuckie knows that the numbers I quite are 100% correct
        wanna try again?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        oh,,,and forgive me!!!! I nearly neglected to ( again) inform you that the crying you attempted ( Reagan/ dem congress blame/credit) was totototally avoided by thee!
        U must be a writer for FOX “news” creeps such as Hannity and megyn Kelly and the crybaby “FIVE” who spin faster than a nuclear top!

  • Stephen Barlow

    Why NOT? if I make a credit purchase online, I an contractually bound to that agreement, even without a signatures in ink on a contract.

  • Stephen Barlow

    Why doesn’t even obama KNOW he’s half white?

    I think the hatred is less racial and more about ignorance. So many of the Republicans have inherited their wealth, or scammed it. These are the kind of people who routinely disrespect ‘scholarship’ students or students with JOBS.

  • fairness_rules

    With the GOP platform and changing demographics the republicans know they can no longer win national elections based on their ideas. They have to resort to voter suppression, false narratives, and other unethical tactics to have any chance of winning. All this is nothing but an act of desperation, sad but true. They are rapidly becoming obsolete largely due to tea party influences.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      and……………………….
      attempting to infuse the 21st century white regressive JEEEESUS into legislation as well as crying about war on easter/Christmas/ religion even as they fight all other religions in America.
      can we all in unison say,,,,,,,”WHIG”?

  • JudgeX X

    I find it pathetic that I can’t just vote from my computer. I log in with my social security number and my IRS Tax signature PIN (or similar number), and cast my vote.

    It’s 2014, and that system should have been functional in 2000.

    Once that happens and we can vote for local, state, and federal elections from home or at an easy to use internet kiosk at the library or school, I don’t think Democrats will have as much trouble getting their votes in.

    The fact that anyone would be happy with a President being elected due to muted voices of other Americans is a fascist terrorist position. Why do you want to be like the Taliban, Republicans? Why rig the game? Is that what Jesus would do?

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      2014 21st century jeeesus certainly would!!
      ,,,,just ask palin –after she re-quotes how we ‘baptize’ arabs with waterboarding