My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

On 10/6/2010 4:51 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

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

On 10/6/2010 4:51 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

That great leader would of course be Ronald Reagan.

On 2010-10-06, Gordon Shumway wrote:

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

You mean like the near trillion dollars of taxpayer money given to
crooked financial institutions?

nb

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.



Why are you lying about the actual nature of that free phone program?

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:05:14 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 10/6/2010 4:51 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

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

Party pooper.g

I like the summary;
"This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush,
with grants from an independent company created under President Bill
Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin
Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between
telecommunications companies and the administration of President
Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson Phones, anyone?"

Jim

On 10/6/2010 8:05 PM, SMS wrote:
On 10/6/2010 4:51 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

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


That cite is filed with double double talk.

The USF (Universal Service Fund) is used to pay for the program and the
USF is a mandatory tax on carriers who typically pass it on to the end
user as a universal service charge.


Here is the cite right from the tax collector:

"Contribution Factor & Quarterly Filings

Proposed contribution factor for the fourth quarter 2010 is 0.129 or
12.9 percent.

Contribution Factor: Telecommunications companies must pay a percentage
of their interstate end-user revenues to the Universal Service Fund.
This percentage is called the contribution factor. The contribution
factor changes four times a year (quarterly) and is increased or
decreased depending on the needs of the Universal Service programs. You
can read more about the contribution factor in the FCC's Fact Sheet on
Universal Service."

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/contribution-factor.html

On 10/6/2010 10:58 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-10-06, Gordon wrote:

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

You mean like the near trillion dollars of taxpayer money given to
crooked financial institutions?

nb

It is a shame and shows how corrupt both sides are. Congress is the only
one who can authorize such payments and the democrat Congress with
Pilosi having the gavel in her hand as speaker approved "helping" the
pirate organizations.

That is why organizations such as the tea party have sprung up because
the average person is tired of politicians who are owned by special
interests.

On 10/7/2010 12:34 AM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Gordon wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.



Why are you lying about the actual nature of that free phone program?



Especially since they could just use their government "gold card"

http://www.travelagentcentral.com/ca...se-ships-23973

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell phone
is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

I've not had one for three years now, and it's a liberating experience.
If people need to contact me in an emergecy, they'll find a way. For
everything else, I'm either near a land-line, or email, or whatever it is
can wait until I get to it. Life just shouldn't be so fast that we have
to be at someone's beck and call every waking second of the day :-)

cheers

Jules

In article ,
notbob wrote:

On 2010-10-06, Gordon Shumway wrote:

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

You mean like the near trillion dollars of taxpayer money given to
crooked financial institutions?

nb

Yet yesterday, the Administration was touting how much of that had
already been paid back or would soon be paid back. Which is it?

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

RR, the truly great leader. Would have reduced taxes so the economy
would stimulate. And then I could get a job with good benefits, and
buy my own cell phone.

"Lazy people don't prosper". - Shane, from the Surviving Katrena blog.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"SMS"
wrote in message ...


That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the
expense
of the tax paying citizens.

That great leader would of course be Ronald Reagan.

"ktos" wrote in message
eb.com...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:01:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.



Why are you lying about the actual nature of that free phone program?




There is a TV ad with a woman where a grandmother says she can call her
grandkids for free. WTF is that? They make it seem the free program is
for emergencies and trying to find jobs. Then they throw in the part
about the grandmother. geesh, my prepaid doesn't allow me 200 minutes a
month, yet the freeloaders call whoever they want.



If you were only allowed to consult **ONE** news source, which **ONE** would
you choose?

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
...

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.


Did you read your own link?

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr.../benefits.aspx

There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to provide
free cell phones. As you may know, this is a myth that is now circulating on
the Web via email and blog sites. It has been thoroughly debunked by
independent groups. (See for example: FactCheck.org at
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/, which notes: "Low-income
households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than
a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and
the president has nothing to do with it."

The federal "Lifeline" program was created during the Reagan Administration.
Lifeline is a federal program created by the Reagan era Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in 1984. The program was enhanced under
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was supported on a broadly bipartisan
basis in Congress. The FCC's Low Income Program of the Universal Service
Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company
(USAC), is designed to ensure that quality telecommunications services are
available to low-income customers at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.
Lifeline support reduces eligible low-income consumers' monthly charges for
basic telephone service.

Thanks to SafeLink, Lifeline support is now available for wireless phones.
Traditionally, the Lifeline program was only available as a discount on a
consumer's landline telephone bill. SafeLink Wireless was created by
TracFone Wireless, Inc. when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
recently approved the company to offer Lifeline -- a public assistance
program that ensures telephone service is available and affordable for
low-income subscribers. SafeLink Wireless applies the Universal Service Fund
subsidy to an allotment of free airtime minutes and TracFone provides the
wireless handset at the company's expense. Instead of receiving a subsidized
monthly telephone bill for Lifeline service, SafeLink converts the total
amount of discounted service into minutes each month for one year. The cell
phone offers in-demand features: voicemail, text, three-way calling, call
waiting, caller ID and access to 911.

SafeLink phones are not paid for by taxpayers or the federal government.
TracFone Wireless pays for the phones and also the cost of promoting its
SafeLink program to make sure that eligible consumers know about the
program.

SafeLink Wireless is making the vision of universal access to
telecommunications services for all Americans a reality. As of October 2009,
SafeLink has over 2 million customers and is available in 31 states -
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Today, there are over
1,700 companies in the United States currently providing discounted
telephone service. But, thanks to its extensive outreach promoting SafeLink,
TracFone Wireless is one of the largest providers of Lifeline services in
the United States, second only to AT&T.

Only certain Americans are eligible for SafeLink. Eligibility guidelines
vary by state but in general individuals qualify if they participate in a
public assistance program such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), National Free School Lunch,
Federal Housing/Section 8 Assistance, or if they do not receive any of these
public assistance programs, they may also qualify based on total household
gross monthly income. Customers can learn more or apply by calling
1-800-SAFELINK or visiting www.SafeLink.com

Your exact benefits, including the number of free Minutes you will receive,
depend on the state you live in.

"George" wrote in message
...

It is a shame and shows how corrupt both sides are. Congress is the only
one who can authorize such payments and the democrat Congress with Pilosi
having the gavel in her hand as speaker approved "helping" the pirate
organizations.

Hundreds of billions of dollars were poured into the banks and auto
companies with the agreement of the Bush administration/cabinet and the
personal approval of the President. Bush expressed reluctance, but he
signed at the bottom of the page. So let's not pretend it was an
all-Democratic deal, the Republicans have never been too bashful about
helping out their friends in the corporate world.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

RR, the truly great leader. Would have reduced taxes so the economy
would stimulate. And then I could get a job with good benefits, and
buy my own cell phone.

When Reagan (whom I liked) took office the federal debt was $700 billion,
when he left office it was $3 trillion. Congress writes and passes spending
bills, but the President signs them into law, so most of that spending had
Reagan's signature on the bottom (excepting where Congress overrode his
veto). High spending and low taxes, gee, I wonder where that leads?

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...

I've not had one for three years now, and it's a liberating experience.
If people need to contact me in an emergecy, they'll find a way. For
everything else, I'm either near a land-line, or email, or whatever it is
can wait until I get to it. Life just shouldn't be so fast that we have
to be at someone's beck and call every waking second of the day :-)

My wife and I both use pay-as-you-go cell phones, the only condition is we
have to pay at least $20 every 90 days but we can bank that airtime if need
be. Most of the time the phones are not even turned on, we use them when
*we* want to, so they aren't a means for other people to annoy us. Works
pretty good.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
...

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.


Did you read your own link?

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr.../benefits.aspx


There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to
provide free cell phones. As you may know, this is a myth that is now
circulating on the Web via email and blog sites.

This nonsense surfaces is a curiously cyclical way. I'd like to think it
originates with some fat slob who gets bored with watching Andy Griffith
re-runs and wolfing pork rinds, so he (or she) posts or emails this crap
again. But it could actually come from a pro - some Rove-like organism whose
job it is to feed the lie machine until election day.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

RR, the truly great leader. Would have reduced taxes so the economy
would stimulate. And then I could get a job with good benefits, and
buy my own cell phone.

When Reagan (whom I liked) took office the federal debt was $700 billion,
when he left office it was $3 trillion. Congress writes and passes spending
bills, but the President signs them into law, so most of that spending had
Reagan's signature on the bottom (excepting where Congress overrode his
veto). High spending and low taxes, gee, I wonder where that leads?

Yeah and when he tried to stop it by refusing to sign things and shut
down the government, the Dems and press leaped all over him showing
children from Iowa sitting outside the Smithsonian because it was shut
down. Also, the Dems in Congress rather enjoyed calling every one of his
budgets dead on arrival. Either they are Dem budgets or they aren't.
I hold RR contributorily negligent precisely because he did not
close down the government. But to suggest otherwise is to put Congress
into the functional equivalent of the serial killer writing Stop me
before I kill again on the wall.
BTW: If you look at the Joint Committee on Taxation "scoring" vs
what happened, you will find that the tax cuts actually increased income
(at least compared to what the JCT said was going to happen.) They
called for decreases in revenue every year, there was one year and by
year two rev were above what they were before the cuts. No matter how
you looked at the JCT projections (indivdual years, cumulative) the revs
were well ahead what they were thought they were going to be when the
CC's voted for it.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:10:39 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...

I've not had one for three years now, and it's a liberating experience.
If people need to contact me in an emergecy, they'll find a way. For
everything else, I'm either near a land-line, or email, or whatever it
is can wait until I get to it. Life just shouldn't be so fast that we
have to be at someone's beck and call every waking second of the day
:-)

My wife and I both use pay-as-you-go cell phones, the only condition is
we have to pay at least $20 every 90 days but we can bank that airtime
if need be. Most of the time the phones are not even turned on, we use
them when *we* want to, so they aren't a means for other people to annoy
us. Works pretty good.

Yes, I used to have one before I moved to the US (no restriction on
minimum spend, either), but it wouldn't work on the US system (well, at
least not outside major cities). I was lazy about spending money on a new
phone (which would probably break reasonably quickly anyway, because they
all seem to be built to the worst possible quality) and as time went on I
just found less and less need to have one.

I think there are probably a handful of times a year now where I think
one would be useful - but that's not enough to justify buying a phone and
then spending $80/year just to make 4 or 5 calls.

(a side issue is that I've only ever used a cell phone to make voice
calls and send the occasional text message. I couldn't give a hoot about
playing games on it, or Internet access, or it having a camera, or any of
the other "extras" that they seem to insist on tacking on these days :-)

cheers

Jules

On Oct 7, 1:40*pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:10:39 -0700, DGDevin wrote:
"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...

I've not had one for three years now, and it's a liberating experience..
If people need to contact me in an emergecy, they'll find a way. For
everything else, I'm either near a land-line, or email, or whatever it
is can wait until I get to it. Life just shouldn't be so fast that we
have to be at someone's beck and call every waking second of the day
:-)

My wife and I both use pay-as-you-go cell phones, the only condition is
we have to pay at least $20 every 90 days but we can bank that airtime
if need be. *Most of the time the phones are not even turned on, we use
them when *we* want to, so they aren't a means for other people to annoy
us. *Works pretty good.

Yes, I used to have one before I moved to the US (no restriction on
minimum spend, either), but it wouldn't work on the US system (well, at
least not outside major cities). I was lazy about spending money on a new
phone (which would probably break reasonably quickly anyway, because they
all seem to be built to the worst possible quality) and as time went on I
just found less and less need to have one.

I think there are probably a handful of times a year now where I think
one would be useful - but that's not enough to justify buying a phone and
then spending $80/year just to make 4 or 5 calls.

(a side issue is that I've only ever used a cell phone to make voice
calls and send the occasional text message. I couldn't give a hoot about
playing games on it, or Internet access, or it having a camera, or any of
the other "extras" that they seem to insist on tacking on these days :-)

cheers

Jules- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a Tracfone which I only use in an emergency, plus 1-5 times a
year for "I'll be there in 10 minutes, are you home yet" or "Do we
need XYZ from the store?", etc. I have no idea if it texts or not,
since texting seems to me to be the biggest waste of time EVER!! Just
call the person and TALK. But then again, I'm a grown-up, not trying
to text during math class. I don't care if you can text using one
character for every word, it is still WAAAAY faster to actually TALK!

I have about 800 minutes (which came with the airtime) saved up and it
costs less than $80/year. Totally worth it, since the last time I used
it I was stranded in a snowstorm, in a dead car, up in the
Adirondacks. Would probably still be there if I hadn't had that
phone...

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

When Reagan (whom I liked) took office the federal debt was $700 billion,
when he left office it was $3 trillion. Congress writes and passes
spending
bills, but the President signs them into law, so most of that spending
had
Reagan's signature on the bottom (excepting where Congress overrode his
veto). High spending and low taxes, gee, I wonder where that leads?

Yeah and when he tried to stop it by refusing to sign things and shut
down the government, the Dems and press leaped all over him showing
children from Iowa sitting outside the Smithsonian because it was shut
down. Also, the Dems in Congress rather enjoyed calling every one of his
budgets dead on arrival. Either they are Dem budgets or they aren't.

That ignores Reagan's ability to peel away enough Dems from the herd that he
was often able to cancel their majority and pass legislation the Democratic
Party was not in favor of. It also ignores that Reagan was often able to
swing uncooperative members of own party into line, e.g. Howard Baker,
especially when an election was near and they were afraid of not running in
sync with the party's national platform. Baker knew Reagan's proposal for a
Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget was not only unworkable
but was never going to *really* be Republican policy no matter what the
party said. But he agreed to go along with pretending they'd do it if they
could because it made good politics. So the Republicans ran together in
'82, and despite Reagan's approval rating at 40% and unemployment at 10%
they didn't lose ground in the Senate, no small achievement considering the
sour economy (although they got beat-up in the House). So while Reagan lost
some, he won some too, and it's unrealistic to depict him as being unable to
stop the spending spree as he was a participant in that spending when it
suited him.

Contrast that with the Democrat Party and it's traditional circular firing
squad. Not only do they not vote in lockstep as Republicans largely did
under Bush 43, some are quite prepared to throw the President under the bus
if they think that will help their individual chances of being re-elected.

Reagan was quite a character, he really knew how to get people to go along
whether they wanted to or not. Obama seems to lack that ability, and his
party's leaders in Congress are barely able to corral their own members much
less persuade more than a few Republicans to stray from the party line.

I hold RR contributorily negligent precisely because he did not
close down the government.

And he insisted on keeping his own pet projects funded. Defense spending
jumped, procurement in particular which effectively doubled. So let's say
you're broke, and your wife wants a new car and you want a new boat, and
since you can't choose which to get (on credit) you compromise and get both.
Is either one of you in the clear when it comes to financial
irresponsibility?

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:




I hold RR contributorily negligent precisely because he did not
close down the government.

And he insisted on keeping his own pet projects funded. Defense spending
jumped, procurement in particular which effectively doubled. So let's say
you're broke, and your wife wants a new car and you want a new boat, and
since you can't choose which to get (on credit) you compromise and get both.
Is either one of you in the clear when it comes to financial
irresponsibility?
Which of course is a really bad analogy unless the husband has
the kind of power over the pocketbook that the Congress had. The final
analysis (and this is independent of Party as noted under Bush) nothing
gets spent unless the Congress okays. Nada. Zilch, Zip.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

I spent the entire day waiting for Fed Ex to drop off
my new phone. Usually they are here about 10 AM.
The guy arrived 4:37 PM, left a door sticker. I was
here, but didn't hear him knock. Musta not knocked
very loud.

So, four service calls I could have done today get
rescheduled. I'm going to spend tomorrow apologizing
to people. See if I can either do the work, reschedule
a second time, chase around and try to keep everyone
happy. All the time cursing Verizon and Fed Ex.

I called the toll free number. She says if I sign the door
sticker, he should leave the package. Lets hope I can
get the phone activated. My backup piece of equipment,
the battery doen't keep a charge. I did find the emergency
charger I bought years ago. Came with the first set of
batteries. Which have since corroded, leaked all over
the package.

Curses to Verizon and their signature required. Curses
to the Fed Ex driver who doesn't pound on doors.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
My cell phone died. LG VX-5500. A year and a half old, not that old.
Took my old backup phone to the cell store, and got the service moved
over.

New phone arrives tomorrow, Fed Ex. I'm amazed how essential cell
phone is, in my life. Not sure what I did before they were invented.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Oct 7, 8:42*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*notbob wrote:
On 2010-10-06, Gordon Shumway wrote:

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.

You mean like the near trillion dollars of taxpayer money given to
crooked financial institutions?

nb

* Yet yesterday, the Administration was touting how much of that had
already been paid back or would soon be paid back. Which is it?



You know, it's a curious thing that Obama and the Dems haven't made a
point of explaining that 90% of the $787Bil TARP money has either
been paid back or is no longer at risk. The last estimate I heard
recently was that they think the govt will lose $70bil tops, with the
real possibility of it actually being zero or showing a profit. Yet
almost everyone keeps acting like the money was just given to the
banks and other businesses with no repayment. Instead the Dems just
keep taking a beating, which they should for plenty of other reasons,
but not for this.

It's also interesting that the TARP plan was initiated under the final
months of Bush, was counted towards the Bush deficit that Obama likes
to point to that he inherited. But $700 bil of that deficit the govt
has or is getting back, hence it did not really increase the national
debt. The spending Obama has done after that was the money that was
truly handed out, really added to the deficit, and will never be paid
back.

On 10/7/2010 2:31 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
m...

"Gordon wrote in message
...

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.


Did you read your own link?

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr.../benefits.aspx


There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to
provide free cell phones. As you may know, this is a myth that is now
circulating on the Web via email and blog sites.

This nonsense surfaces is a curiously cyclical way. I'd like to think it
originates with some fat slob who gets bored with watching Andy Griffith
re-runs and wolfing pork rinds, so he (or she) posts or emails this crap
again. But it could actually come from a pro - some Rove-like organism whose
job it is to feed the lie machine until election day.



Whether or not you like a particular President, he/she/it does not have
the power to do what most people think h.s.i. has. Many people blame the
bad economy on The President or give The President credit for a good
economy. The President does not control it, The President runs the
executive branch of the government and is commander and chief of the
military. If The President was all powerful, there would be no reason
for The President and his party to try to stuff the courts and congress
with his party members. I'm amazed at the folks who don't understand it.

TDD

On 10/7/2010 2:10 PM, DGDevin wrote:
"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...

I've not had one for three years now, and it's a liberating experience.
If people need to contact me in an emergecy, they'll find a way. For
everything else, I'm either near a land-line, or email, or whatever it is
can wait until I get to it. Life just shouldn't be so fast that we have
to be at someone's beck and call every waking second of the day :-)

My wife and I both use pay-as-you-go cell phones, the only condition is
we have to pay at least $20 every 90 days but we can bank that airtime
if need be. Most of the time the phones are not even turned on, we use
them when *we* want to, so they aren't a means for other people to annoy
us. Works pretty good.

I have a pager, same number for 20 years, and a TracFone. I don't turn
my cellphone on until I'm ready to use it or when waiting for a call.
Anyone can get a TracFone for as little a $9.95. It never ceases to
amaze me because the first hand held cellphones were $2000.00.

TDD

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:10:39 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...

I've not had one for three years now, and it's a liberating experience.
If people need to contact me in an emergecy, they'll find a way. For
everything else, I'm either near a land-line, or email, or whatever it
is can wait until I get to it. Life just shouldn't be so fast that we
have to be at someone's beck and call every waking second of the day
:-)
My wife and I both use pay-as-you-go cell phones, the only condition is
we have to pay at least $20 every 90 days but we can bank that airtime
if need be. Most of the time the phones are not even turned on, we use
them when *we* want to, so they aren't a means for other people to annoy
us. Works pretty good.

Yes, I used to have one before I moved to the US (no restriction on
minimum spend, either), but it wouldn't work on the US system (well, at
least not outside major cities). I was lazy about spending money on a new
phone (which would probably break reasonably quickly anyway, because they
all seem to be built to the worst possible quality) and as time went on I
just found less and less need to have one.

I think there are probably a handful of times a year now where I think
one would be useful - but that's not enough to justify buying a phone and
then spending $80/year just to make 4 or 5 calls.

(a side issue is that I've only ever used a cell phone to make voice
calls and send the occasional text message. I couldn't give a hoot about
playing games on it, or Internet access, or it having a camera, or any of
the other "extras" that they seem to insist on tacking on these days :-)

cheers

Jules
I finally broke down and got a prepaid cell phone, I went with net10
200 minutes a month for 15.00 bucks, that's plenty for me, the time
and minutes roll over,
http://www.net10.com/
I use skype to call out, once you use a headset you will never be
happy holding a phone to your ear again, skype is a couple of cents a
minute or for all you can blabber it's something like 4 bucks a month,
actually they have a limit of something like 10 gazillion minutes/month.
more free unsolicited spam,......no I don't get paid to do this,
http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/home
I haven't gotten around to trying the free Google voice but someday I will.
http://www.google.com/chat/voice/
I hate contracts on anything, some of the cell phones/satellite TVs
are like a pregnant cat showing up on your doorstep.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 10/7/2010 2:31 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
m...

"Gordon wrote in message
...

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.


Did you read your own link?

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr.../benefits.aspx


There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to
provide free cell phones. As you may know, this is a myth that is now
circulating on the Web via email and blog sites.

This nonsense surfaces is a curiously cyclical way. I'd like to think it
originates with some fat slob who gets bored with watching Andy Griffith
re-runs and wolfing pork rinds, so he (or she) posts or emails this crap
again. But it could actually come from a pro - some Rove-like organism
whose
job it is to feed the lie machine until election day.



Whether or not you like a particular President, he/she/it does not have
the power to do what most people think h.s.i. has. Many people blame the
bad economy on The President or give The President credit for a good
economy. The President does not control it, The President runs the
executive branch of the government and is commander and chief of the
military. If The President was all powerful, there would be no reason for
The President and his party to try to stuff the courts and congress
with his party members. I'm amazed at the folks who don't understand it.

TDD


Amazed? You should be disgusted. It means that a significant segment of the
population never reads ANYTHING. They're mesmerized by the shiny objects
they see on TV news, and they never look any further.

On 10/7/2010 6:33 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...
On 10/7/2010 2:31 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
m...

"Gordon wrote in message
...

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the expense
of the tax paying citizens.


Did you read your own link?

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr.../benefits.aspx


There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to
provide free cell phones. As you may know, this is a myth that is now
circulating on the Web via email and blog sites.

This nonsense surfaces is a curiously cyclical way. I'd like to think it
originates with some fat slob who gets bored with watching Andy Griffith
re-runs and wolfing pork rinds, so he (or she) posts or emails this crap
again. But it could actually come from a pro - some Rove-like organism
whose
job it is to feed the lie machine until election day.



Whether or not you like a particular President, he/she/it does not have
the power to do what most people think h.s.i. has. Many people blame the
bad economy on The President or give The President credit for a good
economy. The President does not control it, The President runs the
executive branch of the government and is commander and chief of the
military. If The President was all powerful, there would be no reason for
The President and his party to try to stuff the courts and congress
with his party members. I'm amazed at the folks who don't understand it.

TDD


Amazed? You should be disgusted. It means that a significant segment of the
population never reads ANYTHING. They're mesmerized by the shiny objects
they see on TV news, and they never look any further.



See 'Ellison's Law'.

--
aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 10/7/2010 6:33 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...
On 10/7/2010 2:31 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
m...

"Gordon wrote in message
...

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the
expense
of the tax paying citizens.


Did you read your own link?

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr.../benefits.aspx


There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to
provide free cell phones. As you may know, this is a myth that is now
circulating on the Web via email and blog sites.

This nonsense surfaces is a curiously cyclical way. I'd like to think
it
originates with some fat slob who gets bored with watching Andy
Griffith
re-runs and wolfing pork rinds, so he (or she) posts or emails this
crap
again. But it could actually come from a pro - some Rove-like organism
whose
job it is to feed the lie machine until election day.



Whether or not you like a particular President, he/she/it does not have
the power to do what most people think h.s.i. has. Many people blame the
bad economy on The President or give The President credit for a good
economy. The President does not control it, The President runs the
executive branch of the government and is commander and chief of the
military. If The President was all powerful, there would be no reason
for
The President and his party to try to stuff the courts and congress
with his party members. I'm amazed at the folks who don't understand it.

TDD


Amazed? You should be disgusted. It means that a significant segment of
the
population never reads ANYTHING. They're mesmerized by the shiny objects
they see on TV news, and they never look any further.



See 'Ellison's Law'.


"When belief in a god dies, the god dies." ???

If that's not what you mean, save us from the need to wander through google
results. Ante up.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 10/7/2010 6:33 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...
On 10/7/2010 2:31 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
m...

"Gordon wrote in message
...

Here's where you should have gotten your new phone.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr...blic/Home.aspx

That way if you were too lazy to work our great leader in Washington
fixed it so you could get a free phone and free service at the
expense
of the tax paying citizens.


Did you read your own link?

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enr.../benefits.aspx


There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to
provide free cell phones. As you may know, this is a myth that is now
circulating on the Web via email and blog sites.

This nonsense surfaces is a curiously cyclical way. I'd like to think
it
originates with some fat slob who gets bored with watching Andy
Griffith
re-runs and wolfing pork rinds, so he (or she) posts or emails this
crap
again. But it could actually come from a pro - some Rove-like organism
whose
job it is to feed the lie machine until election day.



Whether or not you like a particular President, he/she/it does not have
the power to do what most people think h.s.i. has. Many people blame the
bad economy on The President or give The President credit for a good
economy. The President does not control it, The President runs the
executive branch of the government and is commander and chief of the
military. If The President was all powerful, there would be no reason
for
The President and his party to try to stuff the courts and congress
with his party members. I'm amazed at the folks who don't understand it.

TDD


Amazed? You should be disgusted. It means that a significant segment of
the
population never reads ANYTHING. They're mesmerized by the shiny objects
they see on TV news, and they never look any further.



See 'Ellison's Law'.


Never mind. I found the "other" Ellison's Law. Funny.

DGDevin wrote:
"George" wrote in message
...

It is a shame and shows how corrupt both sides are. Congress is the
only one who can authorize such payments and the democrat Congress
with Pilosi having the gavel in her hand as speaker approved
"helping" the pirate organizations.

Hundreds of billions of dollars were poured into the banks and auto
companies with the agreement of the Bush administration/cabinet and
the personal approval of the President. Bush expressed reluctance,
but he signed at the bottom of the page. So let's not pretend it was
an all-Democratic deal, the Republicans have never been too bashful
about helping out their friends in the corporate world.

Don't forget, most of it has or will be paid back, some with a profit.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...


So let's say
you're broke, and your wife wants a new car and you want a new boat, and
since you can't choose which to get (on credit) you compromise and get
both.
Is either one of you in the clear when it comes to financial
irresponsibility?

Which of course is a really bad analogy unless the husband has
the kind of power over the pocketbook that the Congress had. The final
analysis (and this is independent of Party as noted under Bush) nothing
gets spent unless the Congress okays. Nada. Zilch, Zip.

Nothing gets authorized unless Congress says so, but the Executive Branch
does most of the spending. Nobody held a gun to Reagan's head and forced
him to resurrect the B-1 bomber, but as in my analogy above when asked to
choose between the B-1 or the B-2, Reagan decided to buy them both. As the
wags at the Pentagon say, few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon
you're talking real money.

It takes two to do this tango, Congress votes the money, but they don’t
spend it, and I fail to see why the branch that actually does spend it
should get a pass.

"Bob F" wrote in message
...

It is a shame and shows how corrupt both sides are. Congress is the
only one who can authorize such payments and the democrat Congress
with Pilosi having the gavel in her hand as speaker approved
"helping" the pirate organizations.

Hundreds of billions of dollars were poured into the banks and auto
companies with the agreement of the Bush administration/cabinet and
the personal approval of the President. Bush expressed reluctance,
but he signed at the bottom of the page. So let's not pretend it was
an all-Democratic deal, the Republicans have never been too bashful
about helping out their friends in the corporate world.

Don't forget, most of it has or will be paid back, some with a profit.

Yeah, that's a startling change of pace, the *******s have actually paid off
their tab (although the jury is still out on AIG).

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

Amazed? You should be disgusted. It means that a significant segment of
the population never reads ANYTHING. They're mesmerized by the shiny
objects they see on TV news, and they never look any further.

News websites I read today:

The Chicago Tribune
The Wall St. Journal
The Guardian
The New York Times
The San Francisco Chronicle

I managed not to visit Daily KOS, Newsmax, World Net Daily or any of the
other lunatic-fringe websites some folks take seriously. On TV I'll
probably watch my usual BBC, NBC, PBS tonight. I won't assume any of them
necessarily got it right, but between the whole bunch of them I'll hopefully
have some idea what is going on.

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...

My wife and I both use pay-as-you-go cell phones, the only condition is
we have to pay at least $20 every 90 days but we can bank that airtime
if need be. Most of the time the phones are not even turned on, we use
them when *we* want to, so they aren't a means for other people to annoy
us. Works pretty good.

Yes, I used to have one before I moved to the US (no restriction on
minimum spend, either), but it wouldn't work on the US system (well, at
least not outside major cities). I was lazy about spending money on a new
phone (which would probably break reasonably quickly anyway, because they
all seem to be built to the worst possible quality) and as time went on I
just found less and less need to have one.

Our phones use one of the big national systems for coverage, so we've never
had trouble making calls anywhere except way out in the boonies. I did get
a camera phone for Christmas (which I'd hinted at) and it's come in handy on
many occasions, having the ability to take snapshots without carrying a
camera is kind of cool. The first phone was defective, they replaced it at
no cost to me and so far the second one is working fine. I also have no
interest in web access etc. on my phone, although it does do all that extra
nonsense. This phone has a 4 gigabyte memory chip, my first PC had a 20
megabyte hard drive, it's amazing....

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

Curses to Verizon and their signature required. Curses
to the Fed Ex driver who doesn't pound on doors.

I track incoming packages and make arrangements accordingly if I won't be
home. If it's UPS the best I can hope for is they won't just toss it on the
porch and drive away, that they'll at least shove it behind the shrubs.
FedEx always follows instructions if I leave them a note asking them to
leave a package next door or whatever. I prefer to use USPS because our
mail carrier is an ace, he takes care of our packages. Depending on how far
away the FedEx terminal is you can also pick up a package there if you act
fast.

On 10/7/2010 8:58 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...


So let's say
you're broke, and your wife wants a new car and you want a new boat, and
since you can't choose which to get (on credit) you compromise and
get both.
Is either one of you in the clear when it comes to financial
irresponsibility?

Which of course is a really bad analogy unless the husband has
the kind of power over the pocketbook that the Congress had. The final
analysis (and this is independent of Party as noted under Bush) nothing
gets spent unless the Congress okays. Nada. Zilch, Zip.

Nothing gets authorized unless Congress says so, but the Executive
Branch does most of the spending. Nobody held a gun to Reagan's head and
forced him to resurrect the B-1 bomber, but as in my analogy above when
asked to choose between the B-1 or the B-2, Reagan decided to buy them
both. As the wags at the Pentagon say, few billion here, a few billion
there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

It takes two to do this tango, Congress votes the money, but they don’t
spend it, and I fail to see why the branch that actually does spend it
should get a pass.

Uh, I forget which POTUS tried (mebbe Nixon?), but Congress gets REAL
snotty if executive branch sits on appropriated money. The Prez in
question wanted to just stonewall the programs he disagreed with and
thought wasteful, but got told by the Fools on the Hill to do what he
was told, or forget about getting anything passed for the remainder of
his term. I think that is one of the reason recent laws get down into
such ridiculous detail of how programs and stuff will work, versus just
doing broad strokes and directing the cabinet department or agency to
figure out the details.

--
aem sends...