Obama goes postal

[B_New End]

he is in fact a felon.

I think it's funny you thought that would insult me.

 

[Flashy]

I think it's funny you thought that would insult me.

i think it's funny that you thought it was an insult. It wasn't.

it's a fact. You're a felon.

 

[2322]

My question though is this: Why do you expect the post office to be profitable? It's there to serve the purpose of universal mail delivery. Mail delivery is a labor-intensive process and it's not going to get cheaper or easier unless the postal service has a change of mission.

 

[B_New End]

i think it's funny that you thought it was an insult. It wasn't.

I think its funny you mentioned it then. I am also a dude, you didn't mention that. I am also white. You didn't mention that. There are a lot of things I am, you just chose the one you thought would insult me. And then when called out on it, you actually try to deny it.

I think it's funny you think you even have the ability to outsmart me. You don't. It's a fact, you're a retard.

 

[Flashy]

My question though is this: Why do you expect the post office to be profitable? It's there to serve the purpose of universal mail delivery. Mail delivery is a labor-intensive process and it's not going to get cheaper or easier unless the postal service has a change of mission.

i do not expect it to be profitable, since it was founded as a non-profit entity.

I expect it to be competent, well-run and efficient...not the mess that it is.

 

[2322]

i do not expect it to be profitable, since it was founded as a non-profit entity.

I expect it to be competent, well-run and efficient...not the mess that it is.

Just because of the salary costs? The USPS does a good job of delivering mail for the costs they charge. I don't have a problem with them. People cost money and they need a lot of people for what they do. Efficiency has to take a back seat to the mission they're given. It's inefficient to drive down long empty roads or run tiny offices in the middle of nowhere, but it's the mission and you need staff to complete that mission.

 

[HazelGod]

2. A government public organization, mired in inefficiency, incompetence, red tape and debt/losses.

Your suppositions aren't without merit, sure...but if you replace government public with private in your statement above, then you just described the status quo to a tee. Personally, I'd rather have a government-run system with no profit motive providing basic care, even if it has those same faults you mentioned.

but when it involves 17% of our nation's economy, i am decidedly more fearful to allowing the government to get in there and meddle.

But that's the thrust of publicly subsidizing medical care...to reduce the ridiculously increasing costs. I did a little digging into my compensation plan and it turns out my employer pays 85% of my insurance premiums...which makes up about 15% of my "total" package. Think of the effect on corporate bottom lines if those expenditures disappeared.

This is why I feel successful reform of the system involves completely dismantling the current for-profit insurance model. If we must have the bloated inefficiencies of a middleman between us and medical providers, I'd prefer having the one who isn't there primarily to make a buck. I don't give a rat's ass if Cigna goes out of business and Merck has to cut its prices...but don't forget that the elective medical market isn't going anywhere. Botox and boob jobs and liposuction and teeth whitening will still be out there making money hand over fist off the insipid vanity of our society.

Please don't misunderstand me as being in favor of HR 3200 or any of the other plans being considered by either chamber of Congress. IMO, they're poorly constructed compromises that haphazardly address problems in a piecemeal fashion while ignoring the fact that the underlying paradigm itself is fatally flawed...truly rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[AllHazzardi]

I wonder what would happen if every uninsured individual joined together and offered up the whole bulk of contracts to the best bid.

Likely the ever delicious nature of chaos, but the end result is always a curious quandary.

 

[Flashy]

I think its funny you mentioned it then. I am also a dude, you didn't mention that. I am also white. You didn't mention that. There are a lot of things I am, you just chose the one you thought would insult me. And then when called out on it, you actually try to deny it.

I think it's funny you think you even have the ability to outsmart me. You don't. It's a fact, you're a retard.

i think it's funny that you think you are someone who has not been outsmarted. In fact, you have been so regularly on this board, by me, Vinyl Boy and numerous others enough times to render your declaration laughable.

as for me "mentioning" the fact that you were a felon, i found felon, to be more indicative of who you are, then "white" or "dude".

and as for it being a "fact" that i am a retard, it is in fact, not a fact. The IQ level to be considered for levels of "retardation" is 70 and below. My IQ tests during my lifetime have ranged between 128-132. as such, it is a fact that i am not retarded.

you have been outsmarted, rather easily, i might add.

 

[B_New End]

and as for it being a "fact" that i am a retard, it is in fact, not a fact. The IQ level to be considered for levels of "retardation" is 70 and below. My IQ tests during my lifetime have ranged between 128-132. as such, it is a fact that i am not retarded.
.

Is that what the internet told you? You are smart? So you believe it? More proof you are retarded.

Why are you taking multiple IQ tests? Most people only take one, and that is usually between the ages of 5 and 7. Failed it the first few times?

And just stop denying you thought felon would be an insult. You're so full of shit. Why you are even trying to play it all cool now?
What a fucking dipshit.

You sooooo shmoov! Play it off shmoov guy. Nobody will know. You can fool them all.

 

[Flashy]

Just because of the salary costs? The USPS does a good job of delivering mail for the costs they charge. I don't have a problem with them. People cost money and they need a lot of people for what they do. Efficiency has to take a back seat to the mission they're given. It's inefficient to drive down long empty roads or run tiny offices in the middle of nowhere, but it's the mission and you need staff to complete that mission.

well, actually that is not always the case...there are numerous cases where the USPS has outsourced the drive down those long empty roads. it also outsouurces to private contractors on numerous routes, locations etc.

it is not an entirely self-sustaining service

Contracting Out Mail Delivery from Postal Employee Network

the average cost of delivery of mail per person is 235$ a year estimated. if FedEx or UPS can do that for less, why should we not be able to have that?

I think they do a very good job of actual delivery...but in terms of actually *running* itself, it does a very poor job.

 

[AllHazzardi]

Just because of the salary costs? The USPS does a good job of delivering mail for the costs they charge. I don't have a problem with them. People cost money and they need a lot of people for what they do. Efficiency has to take a back seat to the mission they're given. It's inefficient to drive down long empty roads or run tiny offices in the middle of nowhere, but it's the mission and you need staff to complete that mission.

Unless that efficiency would result in completing their mission better, faster, easier, or less expensively.

The reason the Post Office is doing so poorly isn't because their mission is too expensive, or because they are a non-profit entity, but rather because paper, the movement of which is their primary business, is becoming more and more phased out over time. Between the internet and a couple new technologies recently developed and already in use(ink-less biometrics), paper correspondence could be completely phased out except for archival purposes or individual preference. The primary reason we still use paper is because a signature is your certification of identity in regards to what you are signing, but a fingerprint which is sufficiently checked for fraud(eg, test skin conductivity and temperature for stress levels and false fingerprints) serves the same purpose.

The internet, cellular phones, and text messaging has been taking correspondence volume from the post office since the time of its creation. We're in the digital age, and the post office is essentially being selected out through technological evolution. We don't really need it because technology has already taken over the majority of its purpose. If you want to keep the system, it must be retrofitted and updated to be effective within the scope of current technology and society. After this update, it'd effectively be a national digital messaging system which has verified identification attached to the messages it transports, much like an IP which is attached to the user, not the computer.


The PO is dying because it's being selected out by technological evolution, we can do without it today if we make some simple choices, or we can update it to be the basis of a new system, effectively metamorphosing it to be efficient AND effective in its new operation.

I agree that the mission is more important; but I think things other than the mission should only be on the back-burner until such point where they are more valuable to successfully completing your mission than directly focusing upon that mission.

 

[Flashy]

Is that what the internet told you? You are smart? So you believe it? More proof you are retarded.

Why are you taking multiple IQ tests? Most people only take one, and that is usually between the ages of 5 and 7. Failed it the first few times?

And just stop denying you thought felon would be an insult. You're so full of shit. Why you are even trying to play it all cool now?
What a fucking dipshit.

You sooooo shmoov! Play it off shmoov guy. Nobody will know. You can fool them all.

1. yes, the internet has numerous links where you can check what levels of IQ various associations say demarcates retardation.

2. you have still not provided proof that my IQ is under 70. Ergo, your assertion of proof is incorrect.

3. I am not "most people". I have taken multiple IQ tests for these reasons:
A. when i was young, as many do
B. when i was in college, as part of a course in my minor in psychology, to understand what is behind the test itself, we were required to take them.
C. when i was applying for a job at a private commodity options trading firm.

I have taken three tests.

4. you cannot fail an IQ test. there is no pass/fail.

5. I do not need to call people "fucking dipshits" in an argument, unlike you.

6. I have no clue what shmoooov is. I do not speak slang or jive or whatever that is.

7. the fact that you are a felon, and i called you one to annoy you and as such you are still so annoyed to be arguing about it is rather obvious. if i wanted to insult you, i would have gone a step further and called you a stupid felon, which would have added another layer of truthfulness.

8. the fact that you have added nothing of substance at all to this discussion speaks volumes about your own intelligence level.

 

[AllHazzardi]

Is that what the internet told you? You are smart? So you believe it? More proof you are retarded.

Why are you taking multiple IQ tests? Most people only take one, and that is usually between the ages of 5 and 7. Failed it the first few times?

And just stop denying you thought felon would be an insult. You're so full of shit. Why you are even trying to play it all cool now?
What a fucking dipshit.

You sooooo shmoov! Play it off shmoov guy. Nobody will know. You can fool them all.

It's impossible to fail an IQ test; there is no such consideration of grading given. The purpose of an IQ test is to compare the ability to process information of one individual to the average(100) individual's ability to process information. IQ tests are updated regularly to reflect the average person's ability to process information to be "100" on the scale. If one takes an IQ test from 1900-1950, one would find your score, when calculated, is ridiculously high; people have been, on average, increasing in the ability to process information, so a 120 today would come to near 300 on a very old IQ test. I myself have been administered several by counselors and psychologists in the like. I was a bit of an outlying child and the teachers, as they tend to do, thought themselves psychologists and doctors. The visits to the actual psychologists were to check if there was anything there or if the teacher was just being like most teachers.

On the topic of insults, an insult is defined by the receiver, not the speaker. If a speaker is intentionally trying to insult someone the speaker is using what is known of the receiver the strike a nerve. If a speaker is intentionally trying to avoid insulting someone, the same thing is done, but instead of aiming for a nerve, the speaker avoids them. Likewise, as we don't know each other perfectly, a receiver may easily misconstrue intention of insult at any given moment. Whether or not the nerve is struck is down the the receiver, regardless of the speaker's attitude.

If you think yourself so intelligent, why haven't you figured out that the only thing that can truly be unknown is specifically what another person was thinking and did not, will not, or refuses to present to another party. So whether you think he's full of shit or not, you still don't know what exactly he meant or thought until he feels he wants to offer it to you. No matter how certain you are, there is still a large margin for error in your analysis and information.

Another thing I can't seem to understand is why someone who says he focuses on numbers so much wouldn't see there is more value in calm, civilized, and open discourse;you're not spending resources on fighting each other and ending up at the same end conclusion anyway. Sure, flashy did it first, so what? Aggression begets aggression, assertion begets assertion, calm begets calm. If someone's goal is to just start a fight, and noone around is vulnerable enough to be incited into a fight, they will simply leave or be annoying and eventually ignored or removed.

The smart money in war and morals will always be on the high ground legitimately gained and not claimed.

 

[Flashy]

It's impossible to fail an IQ test; there is no such consideration of grading given. The purpose of an IQ test is to compare the ability to process information of one individual to the average(100) individual's ability to process information. IQ tests are updated regularly to reflect the average person's ability to process information to be "100" on the scale. If one takes an IQ test from 1900-1950, one would find your score, when calculated, is ridiculously high; people have been, on average, increasing in the ability to process information, so a 120 today would come to near 300 on a very old IQ test. I myself have been administered several by counselors and psychologists in the like. I was a bit of an outlying child and the teachers, as they tend to do, thought themselves psychologists and doctors. The visits to the actual psychologists were to check if there was anything there or if the teacher was just being like most teachers.

On the topic of insults, an insult is defined by the receiver, not the speaker. If a speaker is intentionally trying to insult someone the speaker is using what is known of the receiver the strike a nerve. If a speaker is intentionally trying to avoid insulting someone, the same thing is done, but instead of aiming for a nerve, the speaker avoids them. Likewise, as we don't know each other perfectly, a receiver may easily misconstrue intention of insult at any given moment. Whether or not the nerve is struck is down the the receiver, regardless of the speaker's attitude.

If you think yourself so intelligent, why haven't you figured out that the only thing that can truly be unknown is specifically what another person was thinking and did not, will not, or refuses to present to another party. So whether you think he's full of shit or not, you still don't know what exactly he meant or thought until he feels he wants to offer it to you. No matter how certain you are, there is still a large margin for error in your analysis and information.

Another thing I can't seem to understand is why someone who says he focuses on numbers so much wouldn't see there is more value in calm, civilized, and open discourse;you're not spending resources on fighting each other and ending up at the same end conclusion anyway. Sure, flashy did it first, so what? Aggression begets aggression, assertion begets assertion, calm begets calm. If someone's goal is to just start a fight, and noone around is vulnerable enough to be incited into a fight, they will simply leave or be annoying and eventually ignored or removed.

The smart money in war and morals will always be on the high ground legitimately gained and not claimed.

your efforts at rational discourse with NEW END are noble, but ultimately useless, AH. he is a long standing fool. (and i did not do anything first...New End and i have a long running animosity...he simply chose to start it again, as you can see by his deliberate snide and sarcastic provocations in post 5)

 

[B_New End]

7. the fact that you are a felon, and i called you one to annoy you and as such you are still so annoyed to be arguing about it is rather obvious. if i wanted to insult you, i would have gone a step further and called you a stupid felon, which would have added another layer of truthfulness.

ahh! the admission. Thank you, you may step down now. Next witness.

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Who did he kill?
The killings have already begun!!!! The death panels and VinceFoster coverups! :biggrin:

 

[Flashy]

ahh! the admission. Thank you, you may step down now. Next witness.

actually, annoy and insult are different. Nice try.

you may resume your incessant nattering.

 

[B_New End]

actually, annoy and insult are different. Nice try.

you may resume your incessant nattering.

New End 1, Flashy 0.

 

[AllHazzardi]

your efforts at rational discourse with NEW END are noble, but ultimately useless, AH. he is a long standing fool. (and i did not do anything first...New End and i have a long running animosity...he simply chose to start it again, as you can see by his deliberate snide and sarcastic provocations in post 5)

Oh, it wasn't meant in a way to state my belief of who started what, but as a preemptive response to a reason that most people use when arguing incessantly: "He/She started it!".