Yay! more bailouts!!!

[Rod38um]

I really think this insurance legislation is about government power not about providing services to people that need them.

That seems to be what this administration is all about. Everything they do is designed to trigger a slide into socialism.

I've had to stop watching the news lately.... it just makes me sick to think our country has degraded this far........

[dmagicglock]

came across this C.S. Lewis quote, thought it was fitting

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Rod38um]

came across this C.S. Lewis quote, thought it was fitting

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Very fitting.... very true!

[Disclaimer]

They have lost customers - the amount of first class mail has decreased. They've bumped up the revenue by raising rates, not by improving the product or adding customers.

But can you prove they're losing customers BECAUSE of the rate change? Or is it some other reason? Correlation is not causation. They're still the only game in town that'll get a physical piece of paper from one part of the country to another without any other wired or wireless piece technology.

And what would the profit (as a percentage of revenue) be without the subsidy? Lets see - 2009 revenue in $70.0 Billion range, $7.0 billion loss, thats NO profit. 2006's $0.9 Billion "profit" is less than 2% of revenue. If you were going to by stock in a company like that you'd be nuts.

But we're not investors, and I dunno where you're getting this $7B number. I read the 10Q for the Q3 financials (Q3 for USPS is Apr-Jun since their fiscal year is Sept to Sept)... and their recent loses are attributed more to the economy as a whole than anything else and are undergoing cost cutting measures just like any "for profit" company would.

http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/FinalQuarterIIIFY0910Q.pdf

Read page 29. There's a lot of other details in there that paint a much better, much more "full" picture of the happenings at the USPS.

It hasn't worked. The only thing that has happened is they have increased revenue, and they haven't even increased the revenue in relation to the increase in the cost of the product. Look at the numbers - The cost of a stamp from 2006 to 2008 increased 8%, yet revenue only increased 3%, and the 1.3% profit of 2006 became a 4% loss in 2008. If you want to look at 2009 numbers it only gets WORSE. Please explain to me how this is "working".

Read the 10Q, a lot of private sector companies are in this same boat due to the recent economy. The USPS is doing what they can to recover from the downturn. Gov't organizations are not immune to the economy.

The trend is to have a higher through put of mail? Are you kidding me? That would be true if revenue had risen proportionally to the increase in price, but it hasn't. Please explain to me how you can increase the price of a product by 8% and only show a 3% increase in revenue and claim an increase in the amount of product sold? If the amount of product sold actually INCREASED the percentage of increase of revenue would have to be GREATER THAN the increase in the cost of the product.

The trend I was referring to was 2002-2004 data because you requested I review historical data. The 2006-2008 data, volume had declined, once again... that's more a result of the economy as a whole than USPS efficiency.

I'm not flip-flopping on anything. It would be ludicrous to think that we need no government or regulation. The question is how much, and in what areas. Its not an "all or nothing" thing. The specific question at hand is "how much should the government be involved" as it relates to the USPS and Newspapers specifically, and other private industries and companies in general. Personally, I believe that market forces, not the government, should determine which businesses are viable and which ones are not.

If you left some industries up to market forces, some wouldn't exist. The gov't is the only entity that can spend massive amount of R&D without ever requiring a product to go to market, but that's how we learn. That's how we end up with F22s and Missile Defense Systems. Who is the private sector would've taken that risk on without financial backing from the gov't? You can put your entire faith in the 'capitalism' hat, but that would be a logical error.

So, my opinion is "grasping at straws"? Fine - you believe what you want to believe and I'll stick with my opinion until I've been shown otherwise.

That's kind of the point... I can opine that copper colored motorcycles are the best color ever, but that doesn't make it truth.

With the FCC and the Censorship board you assume that I approve of everything they do as well. When did I say that? Oh wait, that's your opinion - according to you, it doesn't mean shit.

I never put words in your mouth, you said your concern was "gov't controlled media" - I said, they already do, but you don't get your pitchfork out and raise a fuss about what news your local radio affiliates, or FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC present. You sit there are eat it up knowing that these are 'for profit' companies feeding you an agenda. You KNOW that, but aren't upset that Rupert Murdoch controls what you see, only Obama and the gov't.

And watch them pass it in the "draft stage". Harry Reid has already thrown down the gauntlet and said they'll use reconcilliation to ram the draft through the senate. Nancy Pelosi has already said that nothing is going through without the Public Option. Who do you believe?

Not to put the 2+2 together here, but this bill didn't contain a public option - so given that the Rasmussen poll you cited that said the majority didn't like the bill as presented, and the poll I cited that said that the majority favor a public option... I mean, I don't have a fancy venn diagram in front of me, but I can only guess that part of the majority that doesn't like the current bill BECAUSE it doesn't include a public option. As they're overlapping subsets of each 'A or B' poll.

GDP is far more accurate for a number of reasons. The main one is the amount we spend on health care also includes a large amount of money spent (directly and indirectly) on illegal aliens. As they are undocumented they skew the results of the per capita spending. To get an accurate picture of true "per capita" spending you either have add the number of illegals to the mix or take out the amount of money we spend (directly or indirectly) to provide them with health care. Naturally, they don't do that because the want to make it look worse than it really is. Oh wait they wouldn't use a "fact" in a misleading way, would they?

There's about 12M illegals [cite] over a population of 300M+ - so about 4%... you're saying that then 4% makes that much of a difference? Ok, adjust all the figures down 4% of their current total...(which assumes WORST CASE scenarios that ALL the illegals use medical services, which is a total BS assumption since IRL it'd be much less) in both scenarios, the US still spends more. So, once again, you fail to prove your hypothesis.

If we look at the GDP we see that we only spend about 5% more than Switzerland, Germany, France, and Belgium. If 5% isn't much for the post office, why is it suddenly a HUGE amount now? Are you flip-flopping on that issue?

Ohh I dunno... because 5% for the USPS = $3B (5% of $70B) and

5% for Health Care = ~$600B

Ya know since its relative to the entire GDP of the US which is...umm, $13.8T

Or, only 20,000% MORE than the USPS subsidy. That's why.

[dmagicglock]

and this is why Justin and I just agree to disagree now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_KzCSlxMDU

[Disclaimer]

That is a great flick.

[Rod38um]

Yep... he argues for the tobacco companies and makes seemingly valid points about the benefits of smoking. just like people make seemingly valid points about big government, excessive spending and socialized programs. Sorta like Obama did with the stimulus package and all the bail outs. Every reasonable person knew it was BS....... well the results are in......... smoking isnt healthy and neither is big government spending...... Both are pretty much a cancer on society........ It was a good flick!

[Todd#43]

But can you prove they're losing customers BECAUSE of the rate change? Or is it some other reason? Correlation is not causation. They're still the only game in town that'll get a physical piece of paper from one part of the country to another without any other wired or wireless piece technology.

What difference does it make WHY they're losing customers? They're trying to make up a revenue shortfall by raising the rates.

They're the only game in town for moving a piece of paper from one part of the country without any wired or wireless piece of technology? Are you serious???? I send a lot of documents (sometimes one piece of paper) overnight to virtually anywhere in the world via UPS and FEDEX. Honestly, they're the only game in town for first class mail because they have a monopoly.

But we're not investors, and I dunno where you're getting this $7B number. I read the 10Q for the Q3 financials (Q3 for USPS is Apr-Jun since their fiscal year is Sept to Sept)... and their recent loses are attributed more to the economy as a whole than anything else and are undergoing cost cutting measures just like any "for profit" company would.

http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/FinalQuarterIIIFY0910Q.pdf

Read page 29. There's a lot of other details in there that paint a much better, much more "full" picture of the happenings at the USPS.

We're not investors? WTF? Did you forget about the $3.0 Billion that the Gov't. gives them every year? Some of that money came from everyone in the country that pays taxes.

Why the losses happened are certainly obvious, but again they arent the point. I commend the USPS for attempting to offset the losses, but its a case of too little too late in my opinion. According to their own press release (http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_066.htm) they've posted a net loss 11 out of the last 12 quarters. Not a company that's trending in the correct direction.

Where am I getting the $7.0 billion number? I got it right here (second to last paragraph):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203463.html

Oddly enough they got the information from a USPS Press Release.

Read the 10Q, a lot of private sector companies are in this same boat due to the recent economy. The USPS is doing what they can to recover from the downturn. Gov't organizations are not immune to the economy.

I never said that gov't agencies are not immune to economic down turns. My point is how they deal with the down turn. Typically private enterprise will look for ways to reduce cost, improve the product, etc. The gov't sector's first effort is almost always to raise the price. It happens with the USPS when volume drops, it happens with Public Transportation when ridership drops, hell, it even happens in Cleveland with the water department because people aren't using enough water. The gov't. model has always been to raise prices for the end user when they are faced with a revenue shortfall.

The trend I was referring to was 2002-2004 data because you requested I review historical data. The 2006-2008 data, volume had declined, once again... that's more a result of the economy as a whole than USPS efficiency.

Again, the reason why isn't important. Its the "how" that matters here. It has been shown (11 of the last 12 quarters) that the postal service cannot become self sufficient my merely raising rates. The amount of mail being mailed continues to decrease, and the price to do it keeps going up while the losses mount. What part of that don't you get?

If you left some industries up to market forces, some wouldn't exist. The gov't is the only entity that can spend massive amount of R&D without ever requiring a product to go to market, but that's how we learn. That's how we end up with F22s and Missile Defense Systems. Who is the private sector would've taken that risk on without financial backing from the gov't? You can put your entire faith in the 'capitalism' hat, but that would be a logical error.

Do you really think that gov't is the only entity that spends a large portion of its annual budget on R&D? I've got news for you, skippy, for every product that goes to market and is ulitmately successful there are a multitude of products that never see the light of day. You cite a couple of examples of things the government has funded, but I can assure you that the private sector does their share. How do I know this? I've been there - I've seen it with my own eyes, touched it, been involved with it. Oh wait, that's anecdotal evidence - it doesn't prove anything. My bad

I never put words in your mouth, you said your concern was "gov't controlled media" - I said, they already do, but you don't get your pitchfork out and raise a fuss about what news your local radio affiliates, or FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC present. You sit there are eat it up knowing that these are 'for profit' companies feeding you an agenda. You KNOW that, but aren't upset that Rupert Murdoch controls what you see, only Obama and the gov't.

So, its ok with you that the gov't "bailing" out a newspaper? Cool. It's ok with you that could potentially give them "state run" media? Cool again. Personally, its not cool to me. ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, CBS are private companies - if they want to promote an agenda I'm totally cool with that. I understand that. If people don't like it, they dont have to watch. If people dont watch, advertisers wont spend money, if advertisers dont spend money the enterprise will fail, and something else will replace it. THAT'S THE WAY OUR SYSTEM WORKS. Of course, it also tramples the First Amendment, but hey, that's not important, right?

Not to put the 2+2 together here, but this bill didn't contain a public option - so given that the Rasmussen poll you cited that said the majority didn't like the bill as presented, and the poll I cited that said that the majority favor a public option... I mean, I don't have a fancy venn diagram in front of me, but I can only guess that part of the majority that doesn't like the current bill BECAUSE it doesn't include a public option. As they're overlapping subsets of each 'A or B' poll.

HR3200 doesn't include a public option, or the draft in the senate finance committee doesnt include a public option, or Obama's wet dream that he presented a couple of weeks ago doesnt have a public option? It seems to me that most of the plans include some type of gov't funded "option". How we will all end up on it differs from "plan" to "plan" but that's not important. What it said in the poll was:

"Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats."

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

There's about 12M illegals [cite] over a population of 300M+ - so about 4%... you're saying that then 4% makes that much of a difference? Ok, adjust all the figures down 4% of their current total...(which assumes WORST CASE scenarios that ALL the illegals use medical services, which is a total BS assumption since IRL it'd be much less) in both scenarios, the US still spends more. So, once again, you fail to prove your hypothesis.

Just because illiegals only account for 4% of the population doesn't mean their Health Care costs (direct and indirect) account 4% of what we spend on health care. That statement is oversimplification at its finest.

Ohh I dunno... because 5% for the USPS = $3B (5% of $70B) and

5% for Health Care = ~$600B

Ya know since its relative to the entire GDP of the US which is...umm, $13.8T

Or, only 20,000% MORE than the USPS subsidy. That's why.

I'm not really following your math. Let me see if I have this straight.

The US GDP is $13.8 Trillion, right?

Health Care accounts for 14% to 16% of that number (depending on who you listen to) or about $2.0 Trillion

5% of $2.0 Trillion is $100.0 Billion, not $600 Billion.

So, ummmm....what's the point you're trying to make here? Percentages are relative for your argument with the post office, but not relative with respect to health care? Gimme a break.

I'm done discussing this with you. You've said the same tired shit for the last 5 posts.

[Disclaimer]

What difference does it make WHY they're losing customers? They're trying to make up a revenue shortfall by raising the rates.

And you run a business? How do you solve a problem without understanding a root cause? If you sell hamburgers and people decide not to patronize your establishment because they don't like lettuce, and you try to change the quantity of beef - you'll still lose customers. Of COURSE it matters WHY.

We're not investors? WTF? Did you forget about the $3.0 Billion that the Gov't. gives them every year? Some of that money came from everyone in the country that pays taxes.

I knew that was coming. We're not investors in the traditional business sense of the word. Just like we're not investors in the military. We don't put money towards them expecting a profit at some later date.

Why the losses happened are certainly obvious, but again they arent the point. I commend the USPS for attempting to offset the losses, but its a case of too little too late in my opinion. According to their own press release (http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_066.htm) they've posted a net loss 11 out of the last 12 quarters. Not a company that's trending in the correct direction.

Neither are a lot of private industries... and per your link:

The organization’s financial situation is compounded by its obligation to pay $5.4 billion to $5.8 billion annually to prefund retiree health benefits. This requirement, established in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, is an obligation that no other government agency has to pay.

And the rest of the link further reinforces the effect the downturn of the economy had, along with the $6B in cost cutting measures the USPS HAS accomplished, they just happen to not be enough yet.

I never said that gov't agencies are not immune to economic down turns. My point is how they deal with the down turn. Typically private enterprise will look for ways to reduce cost, improve the product, etc. The gov't sector's first effort is almost always to raise the price. It happens with the USPS when volume drops, it happens with Public Transportation when ridership drops, hell, it even happens in Cleveland with the water department because people aren't using enough water. The gov't. model has always been to raise prices for the end user when they are faced with a revenue shortfall.

You're wrong. The USPS has dealt with the downturn like every other private org. They've reduced costs $6B - it's right in your press release you quoted:

“Thanks to extraordinary efforts across the entire organization, we are well on track to achieve our 2009 target of more than $6 billion in total cost reductions,” said Potter. “In the third quarter, we surpassed the targeted amount by $500 million.”

They've raised priced too, but no one said that was the first and only option. And this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations - You'll complain about the inefficiencies of the USPS and how they never make money because they're gov't run, but now you're saying it's bad business to raise prices to bring them more in line with a private sector company to MAKE profit. So they can't win in your mind no matter HOW they run the business.

Again, the reason why isn't important. Its the "how" that matters here. It has been shown (11 of the last 12 quarters) that the postal service cannot become self sufficient my merely raising rates. The amount of mail being mailed continues to decrease, and the price to do it keeps going up while the losses mount. What part of that don't you get?

Again, it IS important to understand the root cause, and AGAIN, they've taken cost cutting measures and established efficiencies in certain areas to better serve their customers - in addition to raising the cost. But, it wouldn't matter to you because they're evil and wrong no matter what direction they take because it's not run "privately".

Do you really think that gov't is the only entity that spends a large portion of its annual budget on R&D? I've got news for you, skippy, for every product that goes to market and is ulitmately successful there are a multitude of products that never see the light of day. You cite a couple of examples of things the government has funded, but I can assure you that the private sector does their share. How do I know this? I've been there - I've seen it with my own eyes, touched it, been involved with it. Oh wait, that's anecdotal evidence - it doesn't prove anything. My bad

Hate to break it to you, skippy, but I work in R&D... and I've worked on gov't projects outsourced to the private sector. So, I'm well aware there's non-gov't R&D going on. But, the risk and magnitude of some of the R&D projects is much too great for any private sector company to take on... and some flop, some don't. But without the gov't contributions we wouldn't have a lot of the advanced technology that we have today. DARPA anyone?

So, its ok with you that the gov't "bailing" out a newspaper? Cool. It's ok with you that could potentially give them "state run" media? Cool again. Personally, its not cool to me. ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, CBS are private companies - if they want to promote an agenda I'm totally cool with that. I understand that. If people don't like it, they dont have to watch. If people dont watch, advertisers wont spend money, if advertisers dont spend money the enterprise will fail, and something else will replace it. THAT'S THE WAY OUR SYSTEM WORKS. Of course, it also tramples the First Amendment, but hey, that's not important, right?

Fifth time - it's not a bailout, it's restructuring to a non-profit.

HR3200 doesn't include a public option, or the draft in the senate finance committee doesnt include a public option, or Obama's wet dream that he presented a couple of weeks ago doesnt have a public option?

Second sentence: What's included and what's out of Senator Max Baucus's bill? Well, you won't find any public option. [cite] Which is the congressional Democrats main plan right now that the 56% you cited, oppose.

Just because illiegals only account for 4% of the population doesn't mean their Health Care costs (direct and indirect) account 4% of what we spend on health care. That statement is oversimplification at its finest.

Maybe, but what mathematical model do you suggest we run then? The 4% is a reasonable compromise between the fact that no ALL of that 4% use health care, and that maybe a subset of that 4% accounts for more than their fair share of the average cost. The 4% accounts for the offset in those mitigating assumptions. How do you suggest we model it?

I'm not really following your math. Let me see if I have this straight.

The US GDP is $13.8 Trillion, right?

Health Care accounts for 14% to 16% of that number (depending on who you listen to) or about $2.0 Trillion

5% of $2.0 Trillion is $100.0 Billion, not $600 Billion.

Yep, that was my mistake. After double-checking, I forgot to take 5% of the 15% chunk, not 5% of the whole pie as I previously stated. You do read my posts. Still $100B is 3333% larger than the post office subsidy. Not only that, but that's 5% more relative to GDP, the other countries don't have GDPs as large as ours either, so dollar-to-dollar if you compared those figures rather than percentages, it'd show a larger discrepancy.

I'm done discussing this with you. You've said the same tired shit for the last 5 posts.

Phew, I was getting tired. I appreciate you letting me have the last word on this.

[12oclocker]

I figured out I can't change communist America, so I think I'm just going to leave the country. I've been examining other nice tropical places to live.

[Rod38um]

I figured out I can't change communist America, so I think I'm just going to leave the country. I've been examining other nice tropical places to live.

Isn't it so ironic that our nation has helped put so many other countries on a path to democracy, we have been key to the fall of communism and socialist regimes all over the world and yet here we sit with elected leaders who believe in those ideas our fathers fought against, protected us against and in many cases died, in multiple wars.

We apparently lost without a shot fired or a fist raised. Well at least till next election.........

Assuming that good, honest, hard working americans get out and vote instead of just assuming enough like minded people will do it for them like they did the last time.....

[kawi kid]

I figured out I can't change communist America, so I think I'm just going to leave the country. I've been examining other nice tropical places to live.

take me too please!!

[Disclaimer]

[dmagicglock]

ohh we're posting cartoons now? well my gift to you is the greatest video of all time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVMKBOANOc0

[Disclaimer]

Wow... that was 6 minutes of pretty offensive shit. WAY over the top.

I admit, I chuckled a few times.

[max power]

Well Pimp up hos down muthfugga. We got to hit dem sloppy bugga bears and make bank!

the original is still the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKh_6GzC2Zo

[Todd#43]

ohh we're posting cartoons now? well my gift to you is the greatest video of all time

Whenever JRMII runs out of "facts" he posts a cartoon.

Its kind of like his own version of Godwin's Law.

[Cheech]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/222638

[Disclaimer]

Funny, that out of all the cartoons and random shit I've posted, you learned what Godwin's Law was.

I didn't post it because I ran out of "facts". I posted it because I came across it on Digg, thought it was relevant (regardless of the fact that it's a CARTOON - I liked C&H growing up), and posted it. Jesus.

You definitely are a hater, just for the sake of hating. I'm sorry your parents didn't love you more and you're not getting what you want out of life - misery loves company, so we're all glad you're here.

[Todd#43]

Funny, that out of all the cartoons and random shit I've posted, you learned what Godwin's Law was.

Do some research, I've mentioned this before.

I didn't post it because I ran out of "facts". I posted it because I came across it on Digg, thought it was relevant (regardless of the fact that it's a CARTOON - I liked C&H growing up), and posted it. Jesus.

Its been said a number of times before, and I think it bears repeating. When you run out of intelligent arguments to support your point you post a cartoon.

You definitely are a hater, just for the sake of hating. I'm sorry your parents didn't love you more and you're not getting what you want out of life - misery loves company, so we're all glad you're here.

So, because I call you out I'm a hater? Please. Actually, I have a GREAT life. I have a wife, kids, and step kids that love and respect me, I have a nice place to live, and I have my own company that's doing well despite the current economic situation. What's not to like?

[InyaAzz]

I haz a sad...yet surprisingly content at the same time.

[Disclaimer]

Its been said a number of times before, and I think it bears repeating. When you run out of intelligent arguments to support your point you post a cartoon.

Yea, if you review the thread... it was YOUR move, chief - except you wrote that you were done with this thread - yet, here you are. I didn't run out of anything... I just like Calvin and Hobbes. Besides, why can't someone interject a little humor (or even if it's not 'funny' - then at least change it up enough so both parties in a discussion can sit back and take a short break from what they're debating) - you're not that much of a tightass that you can't appreciate that, are you?

So, because I call you out I'm a hater? Please.

How is that calling me out? I'm getting 'called out' for posting something other than a long diatribe on why your reasoning is flawed? I shouldn't post anything but paragraph after paragraph of analysis, with sources citing supporting material? Most of which you don't bother reading anyway... because you know everything, apparently. Coming from the guy who was worried about his kids listening to Obama's "brainwash" speech about staying in school...

I guess you can't please them all. Seems that most people on here are laid-back enough that they don't expect others to be internet hardasses all the time - what's your excuse?

[Todd#43]

Yea, if you review the thread... it was YOUR move, chief - except you wrote that you were done with this thread - yet, here you are. I didn't run out of anything... I just like Calvin and Hobbes. Besides, why can't someone interject a little humor (or even if it's not 'funny' - then at least change it up enough so both parties in a discussion can sit back and take a short break from what they're debating) - you're not that much of a tightass that you can't appreciate that, are you?

Ahhh....this is the old "post office" thread, I went to the newest post because it showed up in my CP. Oddly enough, you resort to name calling because you made (another) weak point.

How is that calling me out? I'm getting 'called out' for posting something other than a long diatribe on why your reasoning is flawed? I shouldn't post anything but paragraph after paragraph of analysis, with sources citing supporting material? Most of which you don't bother reading anyway... because you know everything, apparently.

Yup, I mention that you posted another cartoon, and you get your panties in a bunch. So easy to push your buttons.

Supporting material? You mean the stuff from the huffpost and kos? Hardly call that "supporting" material, but if you think it is, go for it.

I'm fairly certain that I do know more than you based solely on life-experience.

Coming from the guy who was worried about his kids listening to Obama's "brainwash" speech about staying in school...

You really must be a chick - based on the fact that you have to bring something up from 47 threads ago. Yes, I opposed the "speech" to school kids based on the material that was released BEFORE the speech was to be given. Of course, after all the flap about the speech they released the speech prior to it being given. Had they done that from the get-go, and left out the "pre-speech required reading" I wouldnt have had a problem with it. As it was, my son's school had already made the decision not to air the speech. What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

I guess you can't please them all. Seems that most people on here are laid-back enough that they don't expect others to be internet hardasses all the time - what's your excuse?

I don't know that I expect anyone to be a "hardass" (internet or otherwise), and I'm fairly certain that you dont fall into either category.

[Disclaimer]

Ahhh....this is the old "post office" thread, I went to the newest post because it showed up in my CP. Oddly enough, you resort to name calling because you made (another) weak point.

I didn't call anyone any names... and what "weak point" did I make?

Yup, I mention that you posted another cartoon, and you get your panties in a bunch. So easy to push your buttons.

Supporting material? You mean the stuff from the huffpost and kos? Hardly call that "supporting" material, but if you think it is, go for it.

I'm fairly certain that I do know more than you based solely on life-experience.

Got it, so anyone younger than you is an idiot. Makes sense.

Funny you mention the post office thread because I didn't post ANYTHING from Kos or HuffPo there... it was all taken directly from the USPS financials or articles YOU sourced... So, gotta raise the BS flag there, good try though. I rarely quote Kos or HuffPo - not saying I haven't, but it's rare. This is how I can tell you don't bother educating yourself with the information I cite, or else you'd realize it's not from either of those sources.

You really must be a chick - based on the fact that you have to bring something up from 47 threads ago. Yes, I opposed the "speech" to school kids based on the material that was released BEFORE the speech was to be given. Of course, after all the flap about the speech they released the speech prior to it being given. Had they done that from the get-go, and left out the "pre-speech required reading" I wouldnt have had a problem with it. As it was, my son's school had already made the decision not to air the speech. What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

Right, I didn't realize how rational it is to make sure everything your kids hear or say goes through you first. Do you make sure to get their teachers lesson plans to review them prior to sending them to school? And do you make sure none of their friends have a liberal slant, so they won't inadvertently contaminate your children with their absurd and filthy views on the world?

I suppose it doesn't have an bearing on this thread other than to illustrate character.

I don't know that I expect anyone to be a "hardass" (internet or otherwise), and I'm fairly certain that you dont fall into either category.

Well, then why can't you lighten up, pops?

Edited October 23, 2009 by JRMMiii

[wrillo]

So how bout this rainy weather?

Seriously though, before I tried to engage in an intelligent conversation I would make sure I don't have an avatar that makes me look like an asshat.

upside down flag man!