Anyone on food stamps or low income

[falcon9]

If you think this kind of assistance is wrong, then why did you apply for it? I think you're just mad because you didn't meet their requirements.

I didn't state that the assistance, (gratis cell phone), was right or wrong; I objected to having to pay for it through surcharges on everyone else's phone bill.  Granted, it's a relatively small surcharge but, those add up like FC earnings do.

[ghunter]

I heard about the free phone, but I do not qualify for one since I am not on food stamps or anything because my husband and I both work (Thanks the Lord), but I still can use the free stuff  , but I think it is a good program.

[tuyetmai]

I search them after heard the info you give me.  Unfortunately they didn't offer this in California? That kind of suck.

[falcon9]

... my husband and I both work (Thanks the Lord)

Why would you thank a hypothetical being for having jobs - did such a being hire, recommend or, serve as a reference when you applied for those jobs?  If yes, any H.R. persons responsible are in need of a psych-eval.  If no, then one must assume that you obtained those jobs based upon being qualified to do them; not due to some mystical, magical 'prayers'.

[Abrupt]

... my husband and I both work (Thanks the Lord)

Why would you thank a hypothetical being for having jobs - did such a being hire, recommend or, serve as a reference when you applied for those jobs?  If yes, any H.R. persons responsible are in need of a psych-eval.  If no, then one must assume that you obtained those jobs based upon being qualified to do them; not due to some mystical, magical 'prayers'.

Why would you feel the need to harass someone that may have simply included a commonly used phrase?  You are adamant in your attacks upon any showing beliefs in a higher power, so speaking of psychological evaluations, you would certainly fit the bill for someone that should consider such a course of self correction.  Faith isn't a mental illness, but unwarranted and non-beneficial assailments upon everyone who has a different belief than you do probably indicates one.

[falcon9]

... my husband and I both work (Thanks the Lord)

Why would you thank a hypothetical being for having jobs - did such a being hire, recommend or, serve as a reference when you applied for those jobs?  If yes, any H.R. persons responsible are in need of a psych-eval.  If no, then one must assume that you obtained those jobs based upon being qualified to do them; not due to some mystical, magical 'prayers'.

Why would you feel the need to harass someone that may have simply included a commonly used phrase? 

Now questions, (as opposed to torture and cross-examinations), are considered as 'harassment'?  Let's invert that and see if it flies in the opposite direction ... 'why do you feel the need to harass someone who asked a few simple questions?'  Apparently, your definition of "harass" is at the same degree of variance with mine as "atheism".
 

You are adamant in your attacks upon any showing beliefs in a higher power ...

Your unsubstantiated opinion that simple questions constitute 'harassing' and "attacks" reveals your counter-bias, (yes, I'm biased against knee-jerk blind faith-based proclamations - your obvious religious bias needs no reciprocal admission).

... so speaking of psychological evaluations, you would certainly fit the bill for someone that should consider such a course of self correction. 

Strangely enough, those military personnel working in the same area I did all had to undergo 'psych-eval' in order to be considered fit for the job.  Just as strangely, anyone whose psychological evaluations revealed a strong degree of _religious fundamentalism_ was not considered fit for that duty.  Not only was I considered fit for that duty, I actively served performing it with commendations.  While I'm not a trained psychologist, I'd tend to doubt that you'd be fit for that duty, (not specified due to classification - guess, if wished).
 

Faith isn't a mental illness ...

Your assertion is disputed, (especially being an empty one).  On the other hand, several supported counter-arguments can be made which form a strong basis for a counter-contention that 'faith can be considered as a mental illness', (under the wishful-thinking, magical thinking and believing in dubious concepts sans evidence parameters).

[Abrupt]

Why would you feel the need to harass someone that may have simply included a commonly used phrase? 

Now questions, (as opposed to torture and cross-examinations), are considered as 'harassment'?  Let's invert that and see if it flies in the opposite direction ... 'why do you feel the need to harass someone who asked a few simple questions?'  Apparently, your definition of "harass" is at the same degree of variance with mine as "atheism".

A cursory examination of your tone and additional and unnecessary details and statements in your so called 'simple questions' readily reveals them not to be simple (innocent) questions.  If you pretend not to actually intend the harassment you think you cleverly conceal, then perhaps you are not as clever as you pretend.

You are adamant in your attacks upon any showing beliefs in a higher power ...

Your unsubstantiated opinion that simple questions constitute 'harassing' and "attacks" reveals your counter-bias, (yes, I'm biased against knee-jerk blind faith-based proclamations - your obvious religious bias needs no reciprocal admission).

Unsubstantiated?  My charge is about as substantiated as anything possibly could be as these forums easily reveal that any mention of religion, or faith, or God is quickly followed by a falcon9 and gang assault.  There is no purpose to what you do other than to attack/harass/bully the ones you are replying to.  You know this (of course you would not honestly admit it), I know this, and we all know this.

... so speaking of psychological evaluations, you would certainly fit the bill for someone that should consider such a course of self correction. 

Strangely enough, those military personnel working in the same area I did all had to undergo 'psych-eval' in order to be considered fit for the job.  Just as strangely, anyone whose psychological evaluations revealed a strong degree of _religious fundamentalism_ was not considered fit for that duty.  Not only was I considered fit for that duty, I actively served performing it with commendations.  While I'm not a trained psychologist, I'd tend to doubt that you'd be fit for that duty, (not specified due to classification - guess, if wished).

 

I have no desire to guess some hypothetical MOS (why did I add 'hypothetical'?  Reread what you posted and you will have the answer, and if you cannot figure out exactly why I used that word then you are not looking close enough at what you posted), and you don't have to keep it secret as I am pretty sure they did away with that "don't ask, don't tell". 

Faith isn't a mental illness ...

Your assertion is disputed, (especially being an empty one).  On the other hand, several supported counter-arguments can be made which form a strong basis for a counter-contention that 'faith can be considered as a mental illness', (under the wishful-thinking, magical thinking and believing in dubious concepts sans evidence parameters).

I am sure it is disputed, but it certainly isn't refuted.  Considering that faith isn't "wishful-thinking, magical thinking, or believing in dubious concepts sans evidence parameters", I fail to see any relevance.

[falcon9]

A cursory examination of your tone and additional and unnecessary details and statements in your so called 'simple questions' readily reveals them not to be simple (innocent) questions.  

"Tone" is often inaccurately assessed on a text-based medium, (as in your instance of 'guessing' about "tone").  Nevertheless, the wording of the questions posed was nominally polite, (containing no 'harassing' content).

... these forums easily reveal that any mention of religion, or faith, or God is quickly followed by a falcon9 and gang assault.

There is no formal or informal "gang" and your characterization of dissenting viewpoints as one are as false as clumping all xtians who continually mention/prosetlyze their religious beliefs across the forums as a "gang".   

There is no purpose to what you do other than to attack/harass/bully the ones you are replying to.  

That is manifesting false; at least one purpose is to express opposing viewpoints in dissent against irrationality.  Such dissenting views oppose the belief system, not the believer personally, (no matter how much they may take it personally and perceive such opposition as "attacks", "harassment", 'bullying' in order to suppress dissenting points of view from being expressed).

I am sure it is disputed, but it certainly isn't refuted.  Considering that faith isn't "wishful-thinking, magical thinking, or believing in dubious [religious] concepts sans evidence parameters", I fail to see any relevance.

Simply stating 'no it isn't' does not constitute a valid refutation.  Conversely, it can be, (and has been), demonstrated that "faith" and "prayer" do constitute wishful-thinking, magical thinking, or believing in dubious [religious] concepts sans evidence parameters in every instance.  That is, there is no demonstrable effect which can be directly attributed to wishful-thinking, magical thinking, or believing in dubious [religious] concepts due to the lack of evidence needed to support such claims.

[momoney555]

This may come a suprise to some people,  but there are people in this world who actually want to spend their money helping others (i.e Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ophra Winfrey)  They feel extremely humbled by the fact that they have great wealth.  Every poor person in this country is not trying to exploit the government or anyone else.  They are poor, hard working people who have had bad things happen.  It is too bad that an extremely intellegent, obviously well educated, well versed Idiot, who posts much too often to this topic, dosen't understand that.

[falcon9]

It is too bad that an extremely intellegent, obviously well educated, well versed Idiot, who posts much too often to this topic, dosen't understand that.

While I can understand how others with money might desire to help out those who don't have it, (whether out of 'wealth-guilt', alturism or as a tax write-off), being "intelligent", "well-educated" and "well versed" is typically the opposite of being an "Idiot".  Such a derrogatory designation comes across as more of a specious opinion than one founded upon evidence.

[momoney555]

It is too bad that an extremely intellegent, obviously well educated, well versed Idiot, who posts much too often to this topic, dosen't understand that.

While I can understand how others with money might desire to help out those who don't have it, (whether out of 'wealth-guilt', alturism or as a tax write-off), being "intelligent", "well-educated" and "well versed" is typically the opposite of being an "Idiot".  Such a derrogatory designation comes across as more of a specious opinion than one founded upon evidence.

In some cases, it is NOT the opposite and believe me, there is quite enough evidence here....end of conversation!
In some caes

[falcon9]

It is too bad that an extremely intellegent, obviously well educated, well versed Idiot, who posts much too often to this topic, dosen't understand that.

While I can understand how others with money might desire to help out those who don't have it, (whether out of 'wealth-guilt', alturism or as a tax write-off), being "intelligent", "well-educated" and "well versed" is typically the opposite of being an "Idiot".  Such a derrogatory designation comes across as more of a specious opinion than one founded upon evidence.

In some cases, it is NOT the opposite and believe me, there is quite enough evidence here....

That's just it, I don't believe your simple assertion without that evidence you claim exists.  Without such evidence, your opinion and claim is specious.

end of conversation!
In some caes

It may be the end of [the] conversation for you however, that just means you lack the courage, (and supporting evidence), of your convictions.  That's fine too, "run away, run away..." -- excerpted from M. Python's Holy Grail

[tuyetmai]

Thank for the information.  I hope that everyone will catch up this opportunity.

[HuffmanFamilyof4]

Why post in my topic? U know I don't like u. I think ur an idiot. So why?

For one thing, no one 'owns' a topic; which means that anyone else can post to it if wished. For another, your advice to mooch off of the government teet during a time of deficit government spending is idiotic. Lastly, you posted an off-topic subject in the "offers" forum, (which adds to the contention that you are not very intelligent and someone whose opinions have no value to me).

@falcon9 do you not see how stupid that comment made you look to other members. There will be no reason for you to comment on what I'm saying because after I hit the post button I'm going to ignore any future post from you so 

[HuffmanFamilyof4]

Why post in my topic? U know I don't like u. I think ur an idiot. So why?

I believe there are quite a few members in here that  don't like falcon9, for he thinks he knows everything(nothing) about everything(still nothing)