no.
i guess you've moved on from your idiotic original argument and now want to claim that's there's no racial politics being pushed by you.
here is where i point out that you are a massive fucking racist, which you would call an ad hom, but which is 100% relevant since you are so racist that you are unable to even understand what is and is not racist.
the "obamaphone" thing is 100% racial politics.
not only was the program started under reagan, but it was expanded to cell phones under bush.
and further, there's a reason why this particular program is targeted for the "obama" label, and not others.
no one calls it obama security. they call it social security.
no one calls it obama medicare, they call it medicare.
no one calls it obama unemployment insurance, they call it unemployment insurance.
we'll call those social assistance programs the "broadly targeted" social assistance programs.
now, let's take a look at some things that do beget the obama label.
"obama is the food stamp president" - newt gingrich
"obama's plan...they just send you a welfare check. welfare to work goes back to just welfare" - mitt romney approves this message
"obamaphone" - you
what's the difference between the former "broadly targeted" social assistance programs and the latter social assistance programs?
the latter social assistance programs are means tested, they are for the poor specifically.
so why do the broadly targeted programs not get the obama label while the means tested ones do?
a fucking mountain of academic research says it's racism moreso than self interest, egalitarianism, or individualism.
a fucking mountain of academic research shows that it is linked to and predicted by perceptions of blacks as lazy, undependable, and demanding.
a fucking mountain of academic research shows this link is strongest in means tested programs, and that broadly targeted programs do not have the same relation to racial attitudes as means tested programs.
the conclusion? "obamaphone" caters to your racial resentments without being an over race bait.
don't believe me? don't agree?
fine. show me why the fucking mountains of academic rsearch are wrong then. (hint: they aren't)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103446520893
if you want to see the entire study without registering for free, just google the title of the paper and choose the second google link, the one that starts with "apps.cla.umn.edu/directory...)