Obama wants cooler phones in the White House, Microsoft tweets it can be arranged
0. phoneArena posted on 18 Apr 2011, 09:30
Barack Obama was caught saying off-script that the White House needs to seriously consider getting more advanced gadgets, and "cool phones". Microsoft quickly offered to send a WP7 device the President's way...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 18 Apr 2011, 10:00 4 3
With all due respect President Obama we need you to worry about the hellish gas prices that are raping all Americans, & this economic funk we are in. Cooler cell phones because you are President is really not in the best interest of the American people. Why can't you get a cool cell phone like every other American does? All you need is to go to your local wireless store! "I'm like, c'mon guys, I'm the president of the United States. Where's the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up?" I think we are in trouble! It looks like one term President a la Jimmy Carter.
2. Uhhhhh-huhh (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 10:23 4 4
Yeahhh, lets keep the comments to the Phone side of things. I understand your point but I don't think one comment such as that paints his general work ethics towards the issues you addressed.
"Why can't you get a cool cell phone like every other American does? All you need is to go to your local wireless store!"
If you read again- and carefully, you will see that the story is alluding to how what you mentioned is not so simple/easy. Look before you jumpzz.
3. sscorp99 posted on 18 Apr 2011, 10:27 6 6
He never should have been elected, this guy is a total farce, The American people deserve better, Cooler cell phones indeed.
54. unification (unregistered) posted on 19 Apr 2011, 18:17 0 1
y because he is black because he did not make all this mess he is trying to clean up someone else's who had eight years to make it.
5. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 18 Apr 2011, 10:29 3 2
I know thanks for the heads up. I was just making a joke. The President wanting a cool cell phone is not going to change anything. Just kidding, trying to have a laugh. It's not that serious. I look before I jump. lol
6. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 18 Apr 2011, 10:35 2 2
But the one term President like Jimmy Carter, I do stand by that! lol I did look & I did jump! lol
8. Mig Ruetter (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 11:05 2 3
Uhhhhh-huhh...another blind sheep.
Why don't you borrow the lame-duck Obama your iPhone, hommey?
Catch my drift?
34. elandrumiii posted on 18 Apr 2011, 21:36 0 1
So now you wanna take it there. A comment over a cell phone and you wanna get political and racial. If started talking about all the cracker red necks that tore the country apart and divided it when the comment was about a cell phone you would want to have my head.
9. donpeppino9 posted on 18 Apr 2011, 11:22 3 4
i'm pretty sure the us pres can't just simply use any cell phone for security purposes.
that beign said, ppl should stick to fones and not banter their political views, especially cause people dont seem to know what theyre talking about. gas prices going up is a sign that obama is doing a good job. gas prices going up is a direct sign of a stronger economy. nothing much can be done in the long run to alter gas prices. supply and demand. the major oil suppliers in the world dont give a fcuk.
12. TheFunnyMan posted on 18 Apr 2011, 11:40 3 0
Right...because having to pay gas prices at $4.00, especially when paired with inflating food prices (40% in the last year) and a failure to raise return interest rates (ask your bank; your savings account probably sees 1.5% interest annual) is the sign of a stronger economy....
42. noahbf posted on 19 Apr 2011, 11:30 0 2
You do realize that President Obama is working to correct the economy.. Remember when the government poured $790 billion into the economy? If you looked at economic history after WWII and the Marshall Plan was enacted, you would find that it requires a lot of money and time for an economy to turn around. Its Keynesian economics. You can't expect immediate results because the economic structure is so massive. It will take years for the economy to turn around.
13. SuperAndroidEvo posted on 18 Apr 2011, 11:58 4 0
donpeppino9, I have no clue where you live, but if you can honestly say the economy is strong because of high gas prices really has me scratching my head. The economy is still going down, foreclosure is at an all time high. Unemployment is still through the roof. Again I don't know where you live, but let me know so I can move there. From what you say the economy is strong, I would guess where you live right?
28. downphoenix posted on 18 Apr 2011, 16:46 0 3
get your sarcasm detector checked out, it may be malfunctioning or obsolete, he was being sarcastic.
22. remixfa posted on 18 Apr 2011, 14:08 5 0
your right.. u dont know what your talking about
higher gas prices = weaker economy because we are spending more in gas and less on buying things that spur economic growth
higher gas prices = obama doing a bad job.. especially after he just went to brazil and told them WE would PAY for them to drill THIER oil.. and then be their best CUSTOMER. Yet, he bans drilling in the US.
Obama, ill hapilly buy you 3 smartphones of your choosing if you step down. it would cost me less in the long run anyways.
38. DUH (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 22:49 0 4
There is two reasons why we don't drill in the US. Oil that would be accessed from Drilling in the US Would not meet standards and thus will be only be sold in foreign markets. The risk of drilling and the fact that oil would not stabilize our prices (cause its being only exported) is not enough of a reward. Its more sound to go to another country and buy their oil, because if the want to screw their environment up hey its not US Soil. Also Food For thought land is also scarce, it is a limited resource, if we destroy our environment that would be more harmful than a depression. I need you guys to buck the trend. Other countries laugh at us, for one reason our average citizen is uneducated. Im not talking about degrees. There are abundant sources of information on a plethora of topic yet most of you guys talk about stuff ya don't know.
41. remixfa posted on 19 Apr 2011, 11:29 3 0
your an idiot. i just have to say that.
Most of the US's oil supplys are in sparsley populated areas.. AKA the shallow waters of the oceans, ANWAR, The mountains (oil shale), and the less populated areas of the midwest. So, drilling wont decrease availible property to live on. Who the heck told u that?? lol.
Our oil is completely up to standard, and we have more of it than anyone else in the world. We have enough to supply us for 50 more years than the middle east could... without any adjustments to the way we use it.
your right.. americans are uneducated. people like to pretend they know something and then tell others they are stupid because they dont agree. unfortunately, some of us actually do know a bit and can call you on your BS.
47. duh (unregistered) posted on 19 Apr 2011, 12:05 0 3
@ remix. Our supply is not completely up to standard that why a few years back when Republicans proposed legislation to drill in US fell through that's shows how much You know. Second u think its n an area not populated with people we wont have land to live on...its not about having land to live on alone. Ecosystem there are habits with life. Risk of introuducing oil spills in said habitats would be a disaster. It truly seems you are one of the uneducated. I never said it would decrease land to live on. I said land is scarce a limited resource. And destroying that resource would be stupid. Instead of trying to drill for another limited resource we should be funding advancements in fuels sources. First thing you did was insult, and show your lack of intelligence. Played right into the American stereotypes thanks remix. We wouldn't be America without people like you.
51. remixfa posted on 19 Apr 2011, 18:05 0 0
the legislation for more drilling died with the disaster in the gulf. Obama used that to ban all further drilling and reduce current drilling output. It has nothing to do with oil quality, just a piss poor "green" agenda.
You still have no idea what your talking about, but thanks for playing anyways. :)
36. elandrumiii posted on 18 Apr 2011, 21:46 0 0
Well we all know gas has been sky rocketing since the Good Ole Boy's took the oval office.
10. TheFunnyMan posted on 18 Apr 2011, 11:22 0 1
Agreed, Agreed. Of course, we have this whole "gotta police the world" thing going on too. Last I checked, what people in Egypt and Libya are doing to their own country wasn't our problem.
Hey, I could be wrong, but should the man with the most power be trying to solve the issues that have arisen during his reign?
23. remixfa posted on 18 Apr 2011, 14:09 3 0
it is our problem as long as we refuse to drill in america (we have more oil than the middle east) and depend on these crack pots for our gasoline.
24. TheFunnyMan posted on 18 Apr 2011, 14:59 3 1
And we have the "Green" movement to thank for that. Of all the things that could come out of the 60's, enviromnetalism is probably the one that will destroy us.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for keeping Earth around as long as possible, but I really, really dont enjoy being raped for gas.
46. noahbf posted on 19 Apr 2011, 11:38 0 0
The US tried to stay out of world affairs. Then WWII happened. It is widely believed that had the US been involved in policy making at the end of WWI the second war would not have happened. Take a history class.
35. DUH (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 21:42 2 2
First Europe pays more for gas, its not greener on the other side. Second if you knew anything about the economy, you would understand two things, A the economy fluctuates in a cycle of highs and lows. Measures taken by Bush prevented a depression and measures Taken by Obama Has yielded growth albeit it marginal; meaning we are not longer in a recession and as long as our leaders continue making fine decisions our economy will continue to grow. Also oil in a scarce resource, it is in limited quantity OPEC has a choke hold on that market, in order for you and all Americans we must ween ourselves of that shyt, go green, spend a little more on an hybrid or electric car. or even better call your representation demand the American government enact tougher fuel economy standards. European governments have done this, they have vehicles that get over 200 mpg. Would you be talking gas and politics on a cell phone website if u had a vehicle with 10 gallon tank and it average 600 mile a tank and the market price for gas was 5 dollars, no U would tell your buddies about the money you saved and makw suggestions for a cool phone for the President.
43. remixfa posted on 19 Apr 2011, 11:31 2 0
proving again, how little you know.. lol.
any growth less than 3% is a recession. you dont have to have negative growth. we are growing at an astounding rate of just over 1%!! woo hoo! go obama!!
48. DUH (unregistered) posted on 19 Apr 2011, 12:21 1 0
Your Proving how little you know, Look it up, don' take my word i fact. Take Macro economics, you will learn about the business cycle, And research European governments and see for yourself. And your wrong AGAIN. I wasnt speaking about recession in the terms you are, clearly I was referring to the government's definition of a recession, any growth yielded in consecutive quarters government deems recession, over even though private sector may or may not agree. During that time frame unemployment went down marginally. People lost jobs yes but more jobs were created than lost. Please stop talking you know alot about very little.
52. remixfa posted on 19 Apr 2011, 18:08 0 0
your very entertaining. just thought u should know.
45. noahbf posted on 19 Apr 2011, 11:35 0 1
You do realize that the president does not spend all his time working on and thinking about White House technology, right? He simply made a statement. It is ignorant to think that the president is not working on the issues that our country faces.
4. protozeloz posted on 18 Apr 2011, 10:28 3 0
Obama got tired of his bb? LOL I know your pain... Many come asking how can they get a cool phone like iPhone or Android (SE, Samsung and "Droid" are most known... sorry HTC).... all he need to do is get his own Cloud based services and start worrying less... and yeah nice move MS
7. concerned citizen (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 11:05 0 1
the droid incredible by HTC was arguably one of the best and most successful Android devices up to date, just so you know @protozeloz
15. protozeloz posted on 18 Apr 2011, 12:34 1 1
what i meant is that HTC is not well know here, so people dont ask much for their phones
11. donpeppino9 posted on 18 Apr 2011, 11:24 2 2
i think obama is tired of the equipment in the WH, not the cell phoen he carries around.
that being said i wonder what type of blackberry he uses?
14. doubler86 posted on 18 Apr 2011, 12:24 1 2
You know if Blackberry had at least one smart CEO (just because they have more than one doesn't mean that any of them are good), they would've shipped some Playbooks to the white house so that they are like hey here's you're cool buttons. You can make this useful with your existing blackberry phones. Then charge for the rest of the government and make bank. But it's blackberry so ya.
Disclaimer: The CEO of Blackberry would like to let you know that this comment is unfair. It's not a fair comment. Also LOLs
16. DontHateOnS60 posted on 18 Apr 2011, 13:01 0 2
Newer tech = more problems. The stuff they have now is most likely very proven to work flawlessly.
17. bigswitz (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 13:03 1 1
i see all these comments about obama. we were being raked over the coals with bad loans and the economy went straight down hill when bush was leading the free world. Now everybody is a politician. I say what's your solution for this mess smart uneducated non-lawyers.
25. TheFunnyMan posted on 18 Apr 2011, 15:03 0 1
Ha, good job on that call out. And you are indeed right, it wasn't exactly like he bankrupted the nation from start to finish single handedly.
BUT....he did monatize our national debt (last count: 14 trillion) and cause inflation to go from 3% to 10.5%. He had to sign those moves before they were done (unless the Fed did it without his approval, which wouldn't surprise me as they are in control of the economy with nothing to check them, as they loan our money at interest to the US government).
And we should all be politicians. That was the original idea of this country.
39. DUH (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 22:54 0 1
The original idea of this country was for the aristocrat (minority) to lead the majority. Even though our constitution spoke of equality, Only white wealthy educated men were allowed in government and politics. Women were second class citizens at best. Native Americans were displaced and treated with extreme hostility, and African Americans were slaves and 3/4 of a person. Andrew Jackson was the first commoner President and he instituted Patronage, he gave government jobs to his associates who were mainly common citizens.
44. remixfa posted on 19 Apr 2011, 11:34 1 0
no... your government education does you no good.
Only those that owned land (rich or poor) could vote. The reason for this was so those that didnt own land couldnt vote to take things from land owners. It was to keep wealth redistribution from happening. Too bad that happened anyways.. huh?
African americans were 1/5th vote. not 3/4ths. Big difference.
Women didnt have rights in any part of the world, not just the US. It was the culture of the time.
49. DUH (unregistered) posted on 19 Apr 2011, 12:31 0 1
I have to say this but I pity you how could you be poor if you were a land owner, owning land during the colonies and after the US was established made you wealthy and affluent. You came from family with prestige and money. Now the poor had land the worked, land owned by the wealthy. Second now look it up The US government compromised, Southern representation wanted african american to count as in terms of populace for the House Of Rep, the south was greatly outnumbered by the north in terms of population not including African Americans, they compromised on 3/4, not 1/5, at that time it prevented the south from succeeding only later to have them succeed from the union. African American slaves didnt have votes, women didnt have votes until Suffrage, what are you talking about. They instituted poll taxes, or required you to be land owners, or past literacy test. Remix go back to high school obviously you didnt learn wont should be basic knowledge. And the Andrew Jackson tidbit is factual, you can not tell who preceded Jackson and who succeeded Jackson.
53. remixfa posted on 19 Apr 2011, 18:11 0 0
lol. your still very entertaining. im not going to continue debating you. its like u keep running into the same wall and wonder why the wall hasnt moved yet.
keep it up though.. your still entertaining. :)
56. jbash posted on 19 Apr 2011, 19:11 0 0
it was 3/5 just so you know, but keep up the debate im enjoying it
29. remixfa posted on 18 Apr 2011, 17:12 2 0
You do realize that Bush only signs the laws. He doesnt create them. Give him crap for signing the housing bill (he was more concerned with being "friends" than knowing what he was signing), but make sure u place full blame on its cowriters... Pelosi and Dodd. Oh, and dont forget the man that trained ACORN on how to harrass banks into doing more subprime loans under the new law...Barrack Obama. That was a large part of his "community organizing".
Amazing how that works out huh?
Dont believe me? Go look it up, its a quick search away.
At this point, I think electing NON lawyers is a great idea. Look how they've all messed this up to begin with. I say we only hire doctors, teachers, accountants, nurses, economists, and any people that have real ideas.
What does a laywer know about the economy or health care? Why do people think that somehow a lawyer is going to make better medical decisions than doctors and nurses and accountants and economists? (real experience in med + real experience in financials = something that might be common sence).
18. box (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 13:05 0 0
...why does the POTUS need a cell phone? He has underlings to do that stuff for him, as well as a plane, office, helicopter, et all with any and all communication needs met, and as secure as our country knows how to make. Or does he want to play Angry Birds while pondering the various crises that cross his desk?
At least he doesn't have an iphone: can you imagine how quickly THAT would be hacked, a la celebrities'?
19. andrewdreams (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 13:43 4 0
shutup about political stuff guy just wants a new phone blackberry sucks, who wouldnt want a new phone!? get an adroid phone!
26. TheFunnyMan posted on 18 Apr 2011, 15:06 0 1
Phone Arena is looking for this political debate. They wouldnt post this story (which, if you look at it, really has NOTHING to do with whats new in the world of technology) if they didnt. So if you dont want to read the ensuing debate, log off the site
27. phone333 posted on 18 Apr 2011, 15:39 1 1
Completely agree about the political stuff !!! Why can't we just have a discussion about what's the best phone for the President of the United States without all the political dick measuring!
30. remixfa posted on 18 Apr 2011, 17:15 3 0
The best phone for the president is the one that DOESNT get him reelected.
21. Androidluv posted on 18 Apr 2011, 14:08 0 1
I think a Windows Phone 7 will fit Barack nicely........I ditched my bb for a windows phone and I couldn't be happier. Luv the live tiles and updates and the stream-lined look and feel of the OS. it is not cluttered at all. Luv, luv, luv it...and so might he... :-P
31. SemperFiV12 posted on 18 Apr 2011, 18:16 0 0
If I were the president of any entity -gov., business, etc... - I think the BlackBerry has everything covered. It is the finest device for connectivity and messaging. It is also secure. It is like a grown man's device.
I would wait until WP7 is on Nokia before I switch over to it. Security and connectivity are two important factors as well as battery life and reliability.
Sorry Apple, sorry Google. Maybe if it was for a teenager then we can make the case for them, but in the MATURE and RESPONSIBLE world, we don't need toys.
32. InspectorGadget80 posted on 18 Apr 2011, 19:40 0 0
Um no MICROSOFT he doesn't meant you guys so don't bother.
40. DUH (unregistered) posted on 18 Apr 2011, 23:01 0 1
If you want to fix government and economy there is only two choices, follow the trend and outsource the US government to India or have the US become major players in the global market, get our export up, produce products everyone must have. We used to dominate the global market, we were untouchable, the worlds largest company during our apex Was General Motors. Everyone one wanted a car, now the American Government owns GM due to chapter 11. If we were major players in the export business then job creation would increase, government debt would decrease, and the economy would be in another surplus. Now Im done with all this tiem to check out my next cool phone. Good Night People.
50. ZayZay posted on 19 Apr 2011, 14:39 0 0
Why does the government need cooler phones? Let's worry about our debt first instead of spending more of OUR tax money on pointless phones. I hate taxes!
55. unification (unregistered) posted on 19 Apr 2011, 18:26 0 0
Really people are really taking a comment about updated technology to serious. Everytime he farts its in the news. But yet no one is talking about a war that got started and funded on false accusations . Also you could have a president that knows not a thing of current affairs nor foreign ones for that matter. a president that would decide she had enough and just get up and say i quit, or one that is so out of touch he has no clue what e-mail is or how to even turn on a computer. No but people want to praise the ones who go out and form and rename the KKK to the teapartiers. and Heaven help us if we get the beauty pagent playboy we really gonna be in trouble.
57. buy lexapro online (unregistered) posted on 22 Aug 2011, 17:15 0 0
Really great article with very interesting information. You might want to follow up to this topic!?! 2011
58. hooher tod (unregistered) posted on 04 Sep 2011, 15:43 0 0
Yes there should realize the reader to RSS my feed to RSS commentary, quite simply