And Hitler was a leftist, because Nazi means National Socialist, ergo Hitler was a socialist. And Steve wants to do something that Hitler did, so what does this tell us about Steve? :-P
Now as a private business, the UPS and Fedex will only deliver their mail/packages to their lucrative routes, they are in the business of making money. The USPS does not have that luxury, the USPS is constitutionally obligated to be there to provide ALL of America with mail service and delivery, that means every valley, mountain, dirt road, or desolate desert that has a mailbox must be delivered.
Benjamin Franklin was well aware of the importance of post offices and the delivery of mail and saw to it that this vital system to a new government would be protected. The Constitution of 1789 mandated the establishment of post offices and post roads. Congress made the U. S. Post Office a part of the federal government.
The reason that some people are against the complete privatization of the postal service is that companies have no reason to deliver mail to the less profitable routes. Most delivery services just dump their mail/package to the USPS to do it for them if they find out to be unsuitable for delivery (no profit).
The choice to live in a remote rural location many miles away from your nearest neighbor is exactly that, a choice. Choices have consequences.
Why is it that the rest of us should be subsidizing mail delivery for that small handful who have made a choice to live in such isolation. If they wish to receive mail there is no legitimate reason they should not be required to drive to the nearest small town to get it.
Now, the point of contention may stem from the following question:
Does the Postal Clause intrinsically require the government to create a system by which each citizen is entitled to having their mail delivered to their home?"
If the answer is yes, then it's irrelevant where people choose to live, if the answer is no, then you've got a fair point, and it should be addressed post haste to help the USPS become solvent again.
As a leftist (but a real leftist, not your fake form of leftism that you call liberal), I have no problem with private and profitable public services whatsoever.
Thus, your argument is invalid. Next time try harder.
On a side note, your use of baiting language seems to have worn out somewhat and doesn't impress anybody any more.
Wow, you are one of the only people I have seen here who freely admits to being a leftist and not a progressive or a liberal. I appreciate your honesty. I think the OPs example of the postal system was a poor choice, as even Obama himself has used this example and basically admitted to USPS's faults in comparison to the private postal carriers superiority. He could have stated his case using a better example. I do however agree that we need to scale back on big government taking care of everyone and making light of an individual's personal responsibility in their life. I'll use an example that any sane person has to question the logic of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRY7Wvim8-8 Being an artist is wonderful, but they need to pay their bills too & it shouldn't be on the backs of others.
t's easy for me to be honest, being so detached from US politics since I'm not American and I don't live in the US, I'll give you that.
For the record I'm an ANCYL member (www.ancyl.org.za)
"the OPs example of the postal system was a poor choice"
Hey, it's amazing the OP even managed to make a point. This shows he's been undergoing some evolution which is admirable (I suppose). You haven't seen his other posts, have you? ;-)
Comments 178
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Benjamin Franklin was well aware of the importance of post offices and the delivery of mail and saw to it that this vital system to a new government would be protected. The Constitution of 1789 mandated the establishment of post offices and post roads. Congress made the U. S. Post Office a part of the federal government.
The reason that some people are against the complete privatization of the postal service is that companies have no reason to deliver mail to the less profitable routes. Most delivery services just dump their mail/package to the USPS to do it for them if they find out to be unsuitable for delivery (no profit).
Reply
Reply
The choice to live in a remote rural location many miles away from your nearest neighbor is exactly that, a choice. Choices have consequences.
Why is it that the rest of us should be subsidizing mail delivery for that small handful who have made a choice to live in such isolation. If they wish to receive mail there is no legitimate reason they should not be required to drive to the nearest small town to get it.
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause
Now, the point of contention may stem from the following question:
Does the Postal Clause intrinsically require the government to create a system by which each citizen is entitled to having their mail delivered to their home?"
If the answer is yes, then it's irrelevant where people choose to live, if the answer is no, then you've got a fair point, and it should be addressed post haste to help the USPS become solvent again.
Reply
Thus, your argument is invalid. Next time try harder.
On a side note, your use of baiting language seems to have worn out somewhat and doesn't impress anybody any more.
Next time try something different.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRY7Wvim8-8
Being an artist is wonderful, but they need to pay their bills too & it shouldn't be on the backs of others.
Reply
For the record I'm an ANCYL member (www.ancyl.org.za)
"the OPs example of the postal system was a poor choice"
Hey, it's amazing the OP even managed to make a point. This shows he's been undergoing some evolution which is admirable (I suppose). You haven't seen his other posts, have you? ;-)
Reply
Reply
oh.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Reply
Leave a comment