Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP

[Little-Acorn]

Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP


Nice try... but Trump isn't the one destroying the Republican party.

The destruction started decades ago, long before Trump ever appeared on the scene. And it's been consistently done by the "leaders" of the Republican party.

They tried to enact amnesty (under various guises) for illegal aliens when most Republicans opposed it, enacted new entitlements, and spent like drunken sailors even when they had both houses of Congress.

The Republicans who did those things are the ones destroying the Republican party. Every time they try to legislate against the will of their constituents, more normal Americans become disgusted with them, and decide to vote them out when possible.

That's why Trump and Cruz are doing so well: They promise people they will end those things. And more and more normal Americans are backing them as a result.

 

[MarcATL]

Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP


Nice try... but Trump isn't the one destroying the Republican party.

The destruction started decades ago, long before Trump ever appeared on the scene. And it's been consistently done by the "leaders" of the Republican party.

They tried to enact amnesty (under various guises) for illegal aliens when most Republicans opposed it, enacted new entitlements, and spent like drunken sailors even when they had both houses of Congress.

The Republicans who did those things are the ones destroying the Republican party. Every time they try to legislate against the will of their constituents, more normal Americans become disgusted with them, and decide to vote them out when possible.

That's why Trump and Cruz are doing so well: They promise people they will end those things. And more and more normal Americans are backing them as a result.

Indeed the Republicans sure has made a mess of things.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Oldstyle]

If I recall...you folks on the left declared the GOP "dead" back in 2008 when Barry won the Oval Office and the Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate. So how did that work out again?

It worked out to a two term democratic president and another democrat on deck to step in.

Two terms by someone who will most likely go down in history as one of the most ineffectual Presidents of all time, Hutch! Not something I'd want to hang my hat on if I were a progressive.

 

[Oldstyle]

They use USPS because the Postal Service by law has to deliver everywhere. So Fed Ex and UPS deliver on profitable routes and uses the Postal Service to deliver to addresses that are not profitable. The only reason the USPS survives with that business "model" is that they get billions from the US Treasury in loans that they will never pay back.

And yet, I just posted an article stating they use the USPS because it's cheaper. You're more demented than i thought if you think I'm taking your word over a factual article.

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

It's "cheaper" because part of the cost is picked up by us...what part of that can't you understand? If the Postal Service couldn't borrow money that they'll never pay back from the US Treasury then they wouldn't be able to stay in business delivering for that amount.

Except they don't borrow money. They were very profitable before Repub in Congress decided they should fund their retiree funds for the next 75 years.

Be Careful What You Assume | USPS Office of Inspector General

So you dispute the fact that they have borrowed over 16 Billion dollars from the US Treasury?

 

[Oldstyle]

They use USPS because the Postal Service by law has to deliver everywhere. So Fed Ex and UPS deliver on profitable routes and uses the Postal Service to deliver to addresses that are not profitable. The only reason the USPS survives with that business "model" is that they get billions from the US Treasury in loans that they will never pay back.

And yet, I just posted an article stating they use the USPS because it's cheaper. You're more demented than i thought if you think I'm taking your word over a factual article.

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

No, you're still wrong, if the USPS wasn't subsidized by the federal government, it would not be cheaper.

You still have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You actually think making shit up as you go along is a cogent argument.

Up until about 10 years ago, the post office was completely self-sufficient from selling postage stamps and charging for their services. They received no federal subsidies and they were still far cheaper than private competition. They're only receiving Federal subsidies now because they've been losing money over the last 10 years due to competition with the private sector and the internet. Even with federal subsidies, they still get the job done cheaper. Again, because there is no markup for profit.

You don't have a clue how bad things are, Faun! The Postal Service is facing upwards of 100 Billion dollars in unfunded liabilities and has reached the statutory limits on what it can borrow from the US Treasury. The Post Office is in no way, shape, or form "completely self-sufficient" and anyone who thinks they are is INCREDIBLY uninformed!

 

[Wry Catcher]

A Libertarian's "Wet Dream" (I'm almost embarrassed to quote this phrase) is that each man and woman is an island and the bonds that hold society together are the chains of tyranny

You need to actually learn what it is if you want to post on the subject without flaunting your ignorance. This is just bull

A subtle ad hominem, but let's put my so called ignorance to the test. I have read the following in detail, have you?

Platform

The Platform of the Libertarian Party is deficient of keen practical sense.

Ignoring your fallacy that the Libertarian party speaks for all libertarians, it still doesn't say that.

You're applying the old adage, if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit. Oh yeah, here's a link that doesn't support what I said, read it! Bam!

Which part of the platform do you find pragmatic and as an example of keen common sense and critical panoptic thought?

 

[PoliticalChic]

More nonsense. Do you ever stop making shit up in your failed attempt to support your idiocy?

They use the USPS because it's cheaper ...

For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office

They use USPS because the Postal Service by law has to deliver everywhere. So Fed Ex and UPS deliver on profitable routes and uses the Postal Service to deliver to addresses that are not profitable. The only reason the USPS survives with that business "model" is that they get billions from the US Treasury in loans that they will never pay back.

And yet, I just posted an article stating they use the USPS because it's cheaper. You're more demented than i thought if you think I'm taking your word over a factual article.

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

It's "cheaper" because part of the cost is picked up by us...what part of that can't you understand? If the Postal Service couldn't borrow money that they'll never pay back from the US Treasury then they wouldn't be able to stay in business delivering for that amount.

Of course, you are correct.

1. "Starting Salary is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now!

2. ... this week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek examines the United States Postal Service as it hurtles toward insolvency..

3. ... a projected $6.4 billion loss this year, the Postal Service is expected tohit its own debt ceilingby the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
4. The federal government will then have to choose between letting the agency default on its massive pension obligations or bailing it out to the tune of more than $50 billion.
5. The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007.

6. Despite the agency's economic woes, the 250,000-member American Postal Workers Union negotiated a cushy labor deal with the USPS in March. The four-and-a-half-year agreement extends the no-layoff provision and provides a 3.5% raise over the period of the contract, as well as seven uncapped cost-of-living increases.

7. In general, postal service employees enjoy more expensive benefits than most public-sector workers. USPS covers 79% of its employees' health benefits, compared to the 72% typical for most federal workers.

8. In March, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the USPS would default on $5.5 billion in future retiree healthcare costs unless Congress comes to the rescue.

9. Democrats are also sympathetic: President Obama inserted a proposal in his 2012 budget to absolve the USPS of $4 billion of its retiree health-care liabilities in 2011, which would help the agency pull through another year.

Evenmore alarmingis a bill co-sponsored by Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Susan Collins of Maine, would give the agency a $50 billion to $75 billionlife raftby having the federal government underwrite pension obligations for retired postal workers. House Republicans oppose anything that looks like a bailout. They are pushing for the USPS to make deeper budget cuts, including closing post offices.



10. Germany's Deutsche Post, for example, is now a private company and runs just 2% of the country's post offices.

Read more:11 Things You Should Know About The U.S. Postal Service Before It Goes Bankrupt

 

[NYcarbineer]

They use USPS because the Postal Service by law has to deliver everywhere. So Fed Ex and UPS deliver on profitable routes and uses the Postal Service to deliver to addresses that are not profitable. The only reason the USPS survives with that business "model" is that they get billions from the US Treasury in loans that they will never pay back.

And yet, I just posted an article stating they use the USPS because it's cheaper. You're more demented than i thought if you think I'm taking your word over a factual article.

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

It's "cheaper" because part of the cost is picked up by us...what part of that can't you understand? If the Postal Service couldn't borrow money that they'll never pay back from the US Treasury then they wouldn't be able to stay in business delivering for that amount.

Of course, you are correct.

1. "Starting Salary is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now!

2. ... this week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek examines the United States Postal Service as it hurtles toward insolvency..

3. ... a projected $6.4 billion loss this year, the Postal Service is expected tohit its own debt ceilingby the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
4. The federal government will then have to choose between letting the agency default on its massive pension obligations or bailing it out to the tune of more than $50 billion.
5. The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007.

6. Despite the agency's economic woes, the 250,000-member American Postal Workers Union negotiated a cushy labor deal with the USPS in March. The four-and-a-half-year agreement extends the no-layoff provision and provides a 3.5% raise over the period of the contract, as well as seven uncapped cost-of-living increases.

7. In general, postal service employees enjoy more expensive benefits than most public-sector workers. USPS covers 79% of its employees' health benefits, compared to the 72% typical for most federal workers.

8. In March, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the USPS would default on $5.5 billion in future retiree healthcare costs unless Congress comes to the rescue.

9. Democrats are also sympathetic: President Obama inserted a proposal in his 2012 budget to absolve the USPS of $4 billion of its retiree health-care liabilities in 2011, which would help the agency pull through another year.

Evenmore alarmingis a bill co-sponsored by Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Susan Collins of Maine, would give the agency a $50 billion to $75 billionlife raftby having the federal government underwrite pension obligations for retired postal workers. House Republicans oppose anything that looks like a bailout. They are pushing for the USPS to make deeper budget cuts, including closing post offices.



10. Germany's Deutsche Post, for example, is now a private company and runs just 2% of the country's post offices.

Read more:11 Things You Should Know About The U.S. Postal Service Before It Goes Bankrupt

Maybe we could get Governor Snyder of Michigan to appoint someone to run the Post Office.

 

[kaz]

A Libertarian's "Wet Dream" (I'm almost embarrassed to quote this phrase) is that each man and woman is an island and the bonds that hold society together are the chains of tyranny

You need to actually learn what it is if you want to post on the subject without flaunting your ignorance. This is just bull

A subtle ad hominem, but let's put my so called ignorance to the test. I have read the following in detail, have you?

Platform

The Platform of the Libertarian Party is deficient of keen practical sense.

Ignoring your fallacy that the Libertarian party speaks for all libertarians, it still doesn't say that.

You're applying the old adage, if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit. Oh yeah, here's a link that doesn't support what I said, read it! Bam!

Which part of the platform do you find pragmatic and as an example of keen common sense and critical panoptic thought?

LOL, so your argument is a link and a homework assignment for me while you do nothing to support your idiotic claim. Typical.

Oh, and pass. If you're not going to work or provide content, I'm not going to chase the stick, get it yourself.

Libertarianism has had one chance, the United States of America. And it lead to 5% of the world controlling 1/3 the wealth. that is until you leaches out breeded us and took over. Which is why we have the "new reality" of low growth.

The reason libertarianism is the only form of government that works so outrageously successfully is that it isn't built on the lie that liberalism and conservatism are built on that if you give one side guns and dictatorial power over the population, they will care about the population, not themselves.

Libertarianism allows everyone, companies, employees, consumers, producers the ability to make their own choices, and government's only role is to make sure their free choices aren't removed by other players. You can do anything you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same.

It's that last part you keep ignoring no matter how many times you are told

 

[Faun]

And yet, I just posted an article stating they use the USPS because it's cheaper. You're more demented than i thought if you think I'm taking your word over a factual article.

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

No, you're still wrong, if the USPS wasn't subsidized by the federal government, it would not be cheaper.

You still have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You actually think making shit up as you go along is a cogent argument.

Up until about 10 years ago, the post office was completely self-sufficient from selling postage stamps and charging for their services. They received no federal subsidies and they were still far cheaper than private competition. They're only receiving Federal subsidies now because they've been losing money over the last 10 years due to competition with the private sector and the internet. Even with federal subsidies, they still get the job done cheaper. Again, because there is no markup for profit.

You don't have a clue how bad things are, Faun! The Postal Service is facing upwards of 100 Billion dollars in unfunded liabilities and has reached the statutory limits on what it can borrow from the US Treasury. The Post Office is in no way, shape, or form "completely self-sufficient" and anyone who thinks they are is INCREDIBLY uninformed!

What a pity you can't understand English, gramps.

Where the fuck did I say the post office IS self-sufficient?

It's like you're arguing with yourself over points you think others are making.

 

[Faun]

They use USPS because the Postal Service by law has to deliver everywhere. So Fed Ex and UPS deliver on profitable routes and uses the Postal Service to deliver to addresses that are not profitable. The only reason the USPS survives with that business "model" is that they get billions from the US Treasury in loans that they will never pay back.

And yet, I just posted an article stating they use the USPS because it's cheaper. You're more demented than i thought if you think I'm taking your word over a factual article.

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

It's "cheaper" because part of the cost is picked up by us...what part of that can't you understand? If the Postal Service couldn't borrow money that they'll never pay back from the US Treasury then they wouldn't be able to stay in business delivering for that amount.

Of course, you are correct.

1. "Starting Salary is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now!

2. ... this week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek examines the United States Postal Service as it hurtles toward insolvency..

3. ... a projected $6.4 billion loss this year, the Postal Service is expected tohit its own debt ceilingby the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
4. The federal government will then have to choose between letting the agency default on its massive pension obligations or bailing it out to the tune of more than $50 billion.
5. The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007.

6. Despite the agency's economic woes, the 250,000-member American Postal Workers Union negotiated a cushy labor deal with the USPS in March. The four-and-a-half-year agreement extends the no-layoff provision and provides a 3.5% raise over the period of the contract, as well as seven uncapped cost-of-living increases.

7. In general, postal service employees enjoy more expensive benefits than most public-sector workers. USPS covers 79% of its employees' health benefits, compared to the 72% typical for most federal workers.

8. In March, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the USPS would default on $5.5 billion in future retiree healthcare costs unless Congress comes to the rescue.

9. Democrats are also sympathetic: President Obama inserted a proposal in his 2012 budget to absolve the USPS of $4 billion of its retiree health-care liabilities in 2011, which would help the agency pull through another year.

Evenmore alarmingis a bill co-sponsored by Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Susan Collins of Maine, would give the agency a $50 billion to $75 billionlife raftby having the federal government underwrite pension obligations for retired postal workers. House Republicans oppose anything that looks like a bailout. They are pushing for the USPS to make deeper budget cuts, including closing post offices.



10. Germany's Deutsche Post, for example, is now a private company and runs just 2% of the country's post offices.

Read more:11 Things You Should Know About The U.S. Postal Service Before It Goes Bankrupt

UPS pays their employees more and of course, nothing you posted indicates the private sector gets the job done cheaper than the USPS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And yet, I just posted an article stating they use the USPS because it's cheaper. You're more demented than i thought if you think I'm taking your word over a factual article.

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

It's "cheaper" because part of the cost is picked up by us...what part of that can't you understand? If the Postal Service couldn't borrow money that they'll never pay back from the US Treasury then they wouldn't be able to stay in business delivering for that amount.

Of course, you are correct.

1. "Starting Salary is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now!

2. ... this week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek examines the United States Postal Service as it hurtles toward insolvency..

3. ... a projected $6.4 billion loss this year, the Postal Service is expected tohit its own debt ceilingby the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
4. The federal government will then have to choose between letting the agency default on its massive pension obligations or bailing it out to the tune of more than $50 billion.
5. The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007.

6. Despite the agency's economic woes, the 250,000-member American Postal Workers Union negotiated a cushy labor deal with the USPS in March. The four-and-a-half-year agreement extends the no-layoff provision and provides a 3.5% raise over the period of the contract, as well as seven uncapped cost-of-living increases.

7. In general, postal service employees enjoy more expensive benefits than most public-sector workers. USPS covers 79% of its employees' health benefits, compared to the 72% typical for most federal workers.

8. In March, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the USPS would default on $5.5 billion in future retiree healthcare costs unless Congress comes to the rescue.

9. Democrats are also sympathetic: President Obama inserted a proposal in his 2012 budget to absolve the USPS of $4 billion of its retiree health-care liabilities in 2011, which would help the agency pull through another year.

Evenmore alarmingis a bill co-sponsored by Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Susan Collins of Maine, would give the agency a $50 billion to $75 billionlife raftby having the federal government underwrite pension obligations for retired postal workers. House Republicans oppose anything that looks like a bailout. They are pushing for the USPS to make deeper budget cuts, including closing post offices.



10. Germany's Deutsche Post, for example, is now a private company and runs just 2% of the country's post offices.

Read more:11 Things You Should Know About The U.S. Postal Service Before It Goes Bankrupt

UPS pays their employees more and of course, nothing you posted indicates the private sector gets the job done cheaper than the USPS.

What????

You're stupid AND ugly??????


Didn't you understand this?

"The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007."

 

[Faun]

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

It's "cheaper" because part of the cost is picked up by us...what part of that can't you understand? If the Postal Service couldn't borrow money that they'll never pay back from the US Treasury then they wouldn't be able to stay in business delivering for that amount.

Of course, you are correct.

1. "Starting Salary is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now!

2. ... this week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek examines the United States Postal Service as it hurtles toward insolvency..

3. ... a projected $6.4 billion loss this year, the Postal Service is expected tohit its own debt ceilingby the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
4. The federal government will then have to choose between letting the agency default on its massive pension obligations or bailing it out to the tune of more than $50 billion.
5. The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007.

6. Despite the agency's economic woes, the 250,000-member American Postal Workers Union negotiated a cushy labor deal with the USPS in March. The four-and-a-half-year agreement extends the no-layoff provision and provides a 3.5% raise over the period of the contract, as well as seven uncapped cost-of-living increases.

7. In general, postal service employees enjoy more expensive benefits than most public-sector workers. USPS covers 79% of its employees' health benefits, compared to the 72% typical for most federal workers.

8. In March, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the USPS would default on $5.5 billion in future retiree healthcare costs unless Congress comes to the rescue.

9. Democrats are also sympathetic: President Obama inserted a proposal in his 2012 budget to absolve the USPS of $4 billion of its retiree health-care liabilities in 2011, which would help the agency pull through another year.

Evenmore alarmingis a bill co-sponsored by Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Susan Collins of Maine, would give the agency a $50 billion to $75 billionlife raftby having the federal government underwrite pension obligations for retired postal workers. House Republicans oppose anything that looks like a bailout. They are pushing for the USPS to make deeper budget cuts, including closing post offices.



10. Germany's Deutsche Post, for example, is now a private company and runs just 2% of the country's post offices.

Read more:11 Things You Should Know About The U.S. Postal Service Before It Goes Bankrupt

UPS pays their employees more and of course, nothing you posted indicates the private sector gets the job done cheaper than the USPS.

What????

You're stupid AND ugly??????


Didn't you understand this?

"The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007."

I understand you're retarded and therefore can't understand that doesn't mean it's still not cheaper for the USPS than for UPS or FedEx.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A Libertarian's "Wet Dream" (I'm almost embarrassed to quote this phrase) is that each man and woman is an island and the bonds that hold society together are the chains of tyranny

You need to actually learn what it is if you want to post on the subject without flaunting your ignorance. This is just bull

A subtle ad hominem, but let's put my so called ignorance to the test. I have read the following in detail, have you?

Platform

The Platform of the Libertarian Party is deficient of keen practical sense.

Ignoring your fallacy that the Libertarian party speaks for all libertarians, it still doesn't say that.

You're applying the old adage, if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit. Oh yeah, here's a link that doesn't support what I said, read it! Bam!

Which part of the platform do you find pragmatic and as an example of keen common sense and critical panoptic thought?

LOL, so your argument is a link and a homework assignment for me while you do nothing to support your idiotic claim. Typical.

Oh, and pass. If you're not going to work or provide content, I'm not going to chase the stick, get it yourself.

Libertarianism has had one chance, the United States of America. And it lead to 5% of the world controlling 1/3 the wealth. that is until you leaches out breeded us and took over. Which is why we have the "new reality" of low growth.

The reason libertarianism is the only form of government that works so outrageously successfully is that it isn't built on the lie that liberalism and conservatism are built on that if you give one side guns and dictatorial power over the population, they will care about the population, not themselves.

Libertarianism allows everyone, companies, employees, consumers, producers the ability to make their own choices, and government's only role is to make sure their free choices aren't removed by other players. You can do anything you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same.

It's that last part you keep ignoring no matter how many times you are told

Q. How is the essential part enforced? [You can do anything you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same.]

Human nature, authoritarians, exploiters, morons using antibiotics indiscriminately, cartels, personality disordered persons, in short those who don't give a damn about anyone else, including foreign sources and those who do care about others such as (some) religious orders.

Gee, let's let everyone who wants a gun have a gun, let's let everyone who wants to abuse antibiotics that right, let's allow people to chose not to vaccinate their kids and let's let children do as they please (smoke, drink, abuse drugs all legally). Your fantasy is that everyone will be licensed to do whatsoever pleases them for lack of specific laws/rules, and that is why Libertarianism is a Utopian Dream which is not based in reality.

A liberal democratic republic allows for reasonable restrictions on human nature, a conservative plutocracy believes only a power elite is capable of making the laws and rules, and the revolutionary and radical seek power and rarely have any ideas what to do when they have it.

I agree, a Libertarian form of governance is appealing, too bad human nature isn't malleable enough to operate within such vast parameters.

 

[Redfish]

Gads, you're a dunce.

Please, dunce.....write this again:
"Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."



OK.....this is almost as good:

"Do you not understand that Marx supported the down trodden"

Even stupid people think you are a moron.


And now for reality:
"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.


a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981


b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publicly advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.

I love providing education to Liberals who have been deprived of same in government schools, and I don't mind shredding attempts by Liberals to rebut same...but the most fun is spotlighting your infirmities.
I used to be surprised at how truly stupid you Leftists are.....but you have disabused me of that.
Now I treat it as humor.



C'mon....one more time.....say it again: "Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."

"Marxism had nothing to the with the murder of millions"; genocide has been the practice of evil men and exists even today in ISIS and not explicitly stated but inherit in the words of many white men running today for the nomination in their party to be the next POTUS.

Let me mentor you with what may seem to be a childish link, but one which is clear as to the thinking of Marx and Engels at least in their words and efforts to publish the Manifesto. Note that racism, slavery and murder are not explicit in this summary, nor in the Manifesto itself. If Marx, born a Jew, was an antisemite it would not be uncommon for many in the mid 19th Century and even today are antisemites. No where is genocide a practice unless one comports revolution as a form of it.

SparkNotes: The Communist Manifesto: Summary

Once again, Socialism in Western Europe is market based and egalitarian - China and Russia - each having a power elite which pulls the strings is not an example of the latter even though both have market economies (note: not free markets, as the State does not have absolute control of the economy). The RED SCARE is ironic in the sense that both China an Russia are run by conservatives, and like the US, all reject equal rights, rejecting Pluralism (listen to Trump and Cruz as examples and evidence) and resistant to change.

Gads, you're a dunce.

Please, dunce.....write this again:
"Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."



OK.....this is almost as good:

"Do you not understand that Marx supported the down trodden"

Even stupid people think you are a moron.


And now for reality:
"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.


a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981


b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publicly advocated racial extermination. He was the first."
George Watson.

I love providing education to Liberals who have been deprived of same in government schools, and I don't mind shredding attempts by Liberals to rebut same...but the most fun is spotlighting your infirmities.
I used to be surprised at how truly stupid you Leftists are.....but you have disabused me of that.
Now I treat it as humor.



C'mon....one more time.....say it again: "Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."

"Marxism had nothing to the with the murder of millions"; genocide has been the practice of evil men and exists even today in ISIS and not explicitly stated but inherit in the words of many white men running today for the nomination in their party to be the next POTUS.

Let me mentor you with what may seem to be a childish link, but one which is clear as to the thinking of Marx and Engels at least in their words and efforts to publish the Manifesto. Note that racism, slavery and murder are not explicit in this summary, nor in the Manifesto itself. If Marx, born a Jew, was an antisemite it would not be uncommon for many in the mid 19th Century and even today are antisemites. No where is genocide a practice unless one comports revolution as a form of it.

SparkNotes: The Communist Manifesto: Summary

Once again, Socialism in Western Europe is market based and egalitarian - China and Russia - each having a power elite which pulls the strings is not an example of the latter even though both have market economies (note: not free markets, as the State does not have absolute control of the economy). The RED SCARE is ironic in the sense that both China an Russia are run by conservatives, and like the US, all reject equal rights, rejecting Pluralism (listen to Trump and Cruz as examples and evidence) and resistant to change.

"Marxism had nothing to the with the murder of millions"

Excellent!
Exposing the asininity of posters is one of my guilty pleasures.....but it would be redundant in your case.

Lest any reader mistake your ability at a keyboard as representing either education or intelligence, this one sentence alone should identify your lack of either.
"Marxism had nothing to the with the murder of millions"



"Marxism–Leninismis a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of Marxism and Leninism, and seeks to establish socialist statesand develop them further. Marxist–Leninists espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of Marxism and Leninism, but generally they support the idea of avanguard party,one-party rule,state-dominance over the economy,internationalism, opposition tobourgeois democracy, and opposition tocapitalism.

It remains the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam, and was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union(CPSU) and the other ruling parties making up the Eastern Bloc.....

Marxism–Leninism first became a distinct philosophical movement in the Soviet Union during the 1920s, when Joseph Stalinand his supporters gained control of the Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks)."
Marxism–Leninism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





And, on to the larger point....that particular phrase suggested by what you have under your hat....

...why is it that Democrat voters, Obama supporters, have the knee-jerk reaction to support and serve as apologists for Marxism, communism, and Stalin....

...yet snarl with anger at the mention of Nazis and Hitler???

1. Both doctrines can be traced to your fav, Karl Marx
2. By every single metric....Stalin and communism was far worse than Hitler and Nazism,
3. Stalin slaughtered more than Hitler
4. And the Democrat Party stands for the very same things that the Communist Party did.

Clearly, indoctrination is indelible.....you serve as proof.


In short, I'm glad to see you're not letting education get in the way of your ignorance

First of all, you're an idiot. And second...nah, that pretty much covers it.

Well, golly gee, thanks so much for sharing. "by every single metric....Stalin and Communism was far worse than Hitler and Nazism" strikes me as as an odd statement - at least you didn't claim Stalin and Communism wasn't 'worser' than Hitler and the Nazi Regime. Evil is what characterized both men and numbers can't account for the evil done under both totalitarian systems ruled by despots.

But what I find most odd is you, by comparison, find Hitler and the Nazi Regime less culpable of evil than Stalin and his regime. I've always sensed you are a fascist, this is more evidence to support such a theory.

"But what I find most odd is you, by comparison, find Hitler and the Nazi Regime less culpable of evil than Stalin and his regime. I've always sensed you are a fascist, this is more evidence to support such a theory."

Well.....look at you, you little worm, trying to wiggle out of this:"Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."

Let's review:

1. You said this: "Marxism had nothing to do with the murders of millions..."

2. And, as though that wasn't stupid enough, you said this: "Do you not understand that Marx supported the down trodden"

That was you standing up for a pathological, homicidal murderer.'



3. I said this:"By every single metric....Stalin and communism was far worse than Hitler and Nazism,..."

4. I never said what you claimed I said, this: "...you, by comparison, find Hitler and the Nazi Regime less culpable of evil than Stalin..."
I never said thing that would remotely indicate support of evil.
You are the only one who did that.

5. So....tell me.....on what basis do you find Stalin more favorable to you than Hitler.....
Notice I didn't identify either with Marx...because both ideologies come from Marx.


Both Nazism and Communism are Leftwing......as you are.

Now,,,,,show some appreciation for the education I provide to you....and answer the question: on what basis do you find Stalin more favorable to you than Hitler.....?

I don't find mass murder's or those that enable them (such as the NRA) favorable. I posted and you chose to ignore and spin your tail of ad hominems by claiming I did; the truth being I defined both Hitler and Stalin as evil, not one or the other "worser" as have you.

so now the NRA is enabling radical muslim terrorism? are you a complete fricken moron?

 

[Redfish]

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

It's "cheaper" because part of the cost is picked up by us...what part of that can't you understand? If the Postal Service couldn't borrow money that they'll never pay back from the US Treasury then they wouldn't be able to stay in business delivering for that amount.

Of course, you are correct.

1. "Starting Salary is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now!

2. ... this week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek examines the United States Postal Service as it hurtles toward insolvency..

3. ... a projected $6.4 billion loss this year, the Postal Service is expected tohit its own debt ceilingby the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
4. The federal government will then have to choose between letting the agency default on its massive pension obligations or bailing it out to the tune of more than $50 billion.
5. The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007.

6. Despite the agency's economic woes, the 250,000-member American Postal Workers Union negotiated a cushy labor deal with the USPS in March. The four-and-a-half-year agreement extends the no-layoff provision and provides a 3.5% raise over the period of the contract, as well as seven uncapped cost-of-living increases.

7. In general, postal service employees enjoy more expensive benefits than most public-sector workers. USPS covers 79% of its employees' health benefits, compared to the 72% typical for most federal workers.

8. In March, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the USPS would default on $5.5 billion in future retiree healthcare costs unless Congress comes to the rescue.

9. Democrats are also sympathetic: President Obama inserted a proposal in his 2012 budget to absolve the USPS of $4 billion of its retiree health-care liabilities in 2011, which would help the agency pull through another year.

Evenmore alarmingis a bill co-sponsored by Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Susan Collins of Maine, would give the agency a $50 billion to $75 billionlife raftby having the federal government underwrite pension obligations for retired postal workers. House Republicans oppose anything that looks like a bailout. They are pushing for the USPS to make deeper budget cuts, including closing post offices.



10. Germany's Deutsche Post, for example, is now a private company and runs just 2% of the country's post offices.

Read more:11 Things You Should Know About The U.S. Postal Service Before It Goes Bankrupt

UPS pays their employees more and of course, nothing you posted indicates the private sector gets the job done cheaper than the USPS.

What????

You're stupid AND ugly??????


Didn't you understand this?

"The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007."

I understand you're retarded and therefore can't understand that doesn't mean it's still not cheaper for the USPS than for UPS or FedEx.

cheaper in the mind of brain dead liberals = a government agency that loses millions every year and has to be propped up by taxpayer funding so it won't go under.

Its not cheaper, you fricken moron.

 

[Faun]

It's "cheaper" because part of the cost is picked up by us...what part of that can't you understand? If the Postal Service couldn't borrow money that they'll never pay back from the US Treasury then they wouldn't be able to stay in business delivering for that amount.

Of course, you are correct.

1. "Starting Salary is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now!

2. ... this week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek examines the United States Postal Service as it hurtles toward insolvency..

3. ... a projected $6.4 billion loss this year, the Postal Service is expected tohit its own debt ceilingby the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
4. The federal government will then have to choose between letting the agency default on its massive pension obligations or bailing it out to the tune of more than $50 billion.
5. The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007.

6. Despite the agency's economic woes, the 250,000-member American Postal Workers Union negotiated a cushy labor deal with the USPS in March. The four-and-a-half-year agreement extends the no-layoff provision and provides a 3.5% raise over the period of the contract, as well as seven uncapped cost-of-living increases.

7. In general, postal service employees enjoy more expensive benefits than most public-sector workers. USPS covers 79% of its employees' health benefits, compared to the 72% typical for most federal workers.

8. In March, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the USPS would default on $5.5 billion in future retiree healthcare costs unless Congress comes to the rescue.

9. Democrats are also sympathetic: President Obama inserted a proposal in his 2012 budget to absolve the USPS of $4 billion of its retiree health-care liabilities in 2011, which would help the agency pull through another year.

Evenmore alarmingis a bill co-sponsored by Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Susan Collins of Maine, would give the agency a $50 billion to $75 billionlife raftby having the federal government underwrite pension obligations for retired postal workers. House Republicans oppose anything that looks like a bailout. They are pushing for the USPS to make deeper budget cuts, including closing post offices.



10. Germany's Deutsche Post, for example, is now a private company and runs just 2% of the country's post offices.

Read more:11 Things You Should Know About The U.S. Postal Service Before It Goes Bankrupt

UPS pays their employees more and of course, nothing you posted indicates the private sector gets the job done cheaper than the USPS.

What????

You're stupid AND ugly??????


Didn't you understand this?

"The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007."

I understand you're retarded and therefore can't understand that doesn't mean it's still not cheaper for the USPS than for UPS or FedEx.

cheaper in the mind of brain dead liberals = a government agency that loses millions every year and has to be propped up by taxpayer funding so it won't go under.

Its not cheaper, you fricken moron.

It's in fact, ridiculously cheaper. Especially for mail under 2 pounds. The USPS is losing about $6b per year. If they raised the price to deliver mail by only .04¢ per item, they would more than make up that $6b. And increasing the cost of delivering mail by .04¢ would still be considerably less than private competition.

You really are too fucked in the head to get this.

 

[Redfish]

Of course, you are correct.

1. "Starting Salary is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now!

2. ... this week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek examines the United States Postal Service as it hurtles toward insolvency..

3. ... a projected $6.4 billion loss this year, the Postal Service is expected tohit its own debt ceilingby the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
4. The federal government will then have to choose between letting the agency default on its massive pension obligations or bailing it out to the tune of more than $50 billion.
5. The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007.

6. Despite the agency's economic woes, the 250,000-member American Postal Workers Union negotiated a cushy labor deal with the USPS in March. The four-and-a-half-year agreement extends the no-layoff provision and provides a 3.5% raise over the period of the contract, as well as seven uncapped cost-of-living increases.

7. In general, postal service employees enjoy more expensive benefits than most public-sector workers. USPS covers 79% of its employees' health benefits, compared to the 72% typical for most federal workers.

8. In March, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the USPS would default on $5.5 billion in future retiree healthcare costs unless Congress comes to the rescue.

9. Democrats are also sympathetic: President Obama inserted a proposal in his 2012 budget to absolve the USPS of $4 billion of its retiree health-care liabilities in 2011, which would help the agency pull through another year.

Evenmore alarmingis a bill co-sponsored by Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Susan Collins of Maine, would give the agency a $50 billion to $75 billionlife raftby having the federal government underwrite pension obligations for retired postal workers. House Republicans oppose anything that looks like a bailout. They are pushing for the USPS to make deeper budget cuts, including closing post offices.



10. Germany's Deutsche Post, for example, is now a private company and runs just 2% of the country's post offices.

Read more:11 Things You Should Know About The U.S. Postal Service Before It Goes Bankrupt

UPS pays their employees more and of course, nothing you posted indicates the private sector gets the job done cheaper than the USPS.

What????

You're stupid AND ugly??????


Didn't you understand this?

"The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007."

I understand you're retarded and therefore can't understand that doesn't mean it's still not cheaper for the USPS than for UPS or FedEx.

cheaper in the mind of brain dead liberals = a government agency that loses millions every year and has to be propped up by taxpayer funding so it won't go under.

Its not cheaper, you fricken moron.

It's in fact, ridiculously cheaper. Especially for mail under 2 pounds. The USPS is losing about $6b per year. If they raised the price to deliver mail by only .04¢ per item, they would more than make up that $6b. And increasing the cost of delivering mail by .04¢ would still be considerably less than private competition.

You really are too fucked in the head to get this.

you are the one who is fucked in the head. "losing $6b per year".

Yes, USPS is cheaper for the shipper/mailer, because they are subsidized by the US taxpayers, remember your $6b per year?

If 4 cents per item would bail them out, why don't they do it? answer: because that's bullshit. 4cents would not come close to making them solvent.

Nothing the government does is cheaper than private industry. NOTHING.

 

[Faun]

UPS pays their employees more and of course, nothing you posted indicates the private sector gets the job done cheaper than the USPS.

What????

You're stupid AND ugly??????


Didn't you understand this?

"The Postal Service is nearly $15 billion in debt. It has stayed afloat by borrowing $12 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The agency has lost $20 billion since 2007."

I understand you're retarded and therefore can't understand that doesn't mean it's still not cheaper for the USPS than for UPS or FedEx.

cheaper in the mind of brain dead liberals = a government agency that loses millions every year and has to be propped up by taxpayer funding so it won't go under.

Its not cheaper, you fricken moron.

It's in fact, ridiculously cheaper. Especially for mail under 2 pounds. The USPS is losing about $6b per year. If they raised the price to deliver mail by only .04¢ per item, they would more than make up that $6b. And increasing the cost of delivering mail by .04¢ would still be considerably less than private competition.

You really are too fucked in the head to get this.

you are the one who is fucked in the head. "losing $6b per year".

Yes, USPS is cheaper for the shipper/mailer, because they are subsidized by the US taxpayers, remember your $6b per year?

If 4 cents per item would bail them out, why don't they do it? answer: because that's bullshit. 4cents would not come close to making them solvent.

Nothing the government does is cheaper than private industry. NOTHING.

Since you're brain-dead, I'll explain it to ya....


The USPS delivers over half a billion pieces of mail every day. Adding .04¢ to every piece would generate an additional $6.2b annually, covering their shortfall.

And again, because you truly are too brain-dead to retain this information.... even adding .04¢ to the cost of delivering mail still leaves them considerably cheaper than their private competitors.

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...it's only "cheaper" because the Postal Service is essentially subsidized by the US Treasury! What part of that concept can't you wrap your oh so small brain around!

No, you're still wrong. It's cheaper because they don't have to turn a profit.

No, you're still wrong, if the USPS wasn't subsidized by the federal government, it would not be cheaper.

You still have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You actually think making shit up as you go along is a cogent argument.

Up until about 10 years ago, the post office was completely self-sufficient from selling postage stamps and charging for their services. They received no federal subsidies and they were still far cheaper than private competition. They're only receiving Federal subsidies now because they've been losing money over the last 10 years due to competition with the private sector and the internet. Even with federal subsidies, they still get the job done cheaper. Again, because there is no markup for profit.

You don't have a clue how bad things are, Faun! The Postal Service is facing upwards of 100 Billion dollars in unfunded liabilities and has reached the statutory limits on what it can borrow from the US Treasury. The Post Office is in no way, shape, or form "completely self-sufficient" and anyone who thinks they are is INCREDIBLY uninformed!

What a pity you can't understand English, gramps.

Where the fuck did I say the post office IS self-sufficient?

It's like you're arguing with yourself over points you think others are making.

Why did you even bring up the Post Office as an example of how government works in any way better or cheaper than the Private Sector, Faun? All you've been doing since you did...was admitting that they aren't! Quite frankly, I'd be hard pressed to find a better example of why the Private Sector works better and cheaper than a comparison between companies like Fed Ex and UPS...and the US Postal Service!