Tough Crowd: Rand Paul Loses a Vote…For Using the Post Office!

Tiger Droppings

And you thought you were principled.

Over at Tiger Droppings, a LSU message board, commenter Ping Pong announces that he's no longer supporting Rand Paul because the Kentucky senator is using the U.S. Postal Service to fulfill campaign t-shirt orders.

So much for Rand Paul being a libertarian. I ordered a shirt from his campaign website and they are shipping it via the POST OFFICE!!!! He talks about "defeating the Washington Machine", yet he ships his campaign products through an entity of the "Washington Machine" instead of through a private company like a real free market libertarian would. I guess he is becoming more moderate in attempt to win the Republican nomination. He is nothing like his Father. 

 

Paul's loss is presumptive Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson's gain. The former two-term governor of New Mexico, Johnson pulled over 1 million votes on the LP ballot in 2012 and heads up the Our America Initiative. (Gov. Johnson, I promise to tell that I've seen you use public sidewalks…).

The emoticon make me think this is a joke. Or maybe I'm just hoping it's a joke…

Comments

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

Yeah, but what about the fact that Gary Johnson uses government ROADZZZZ?!

[gaoxiaen]

My favorite poem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4

[lap83]

To my knowledge, USPS is the only government agency that ever talks about trying to cut costs. Of course it still shouldn't even exist, but it's a start.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The military talks about cutting costs all the time. They simply have no incentive to not spend someone else's money.

[Thymirus]

Any specific spheres of expenditure you'd have the Department of Defense deflate?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You bet. I'd amend the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy to reflect a minimally-expeditional, non-interventionist defensive military posture and then fund/man the military to defend against the threats having a reasonable likelihood of being encountered when defending ourselves from actual attacks. No more deployed bases. No more world's cop. Military response as an absolute last resort.

Doing that one could reduce the size of the military by at least 50% and still have twice the capability of our nearest competitor. Meaning you can reduce the scope of EVERYTHING the military does while retaining all of the core functionality.

[Cytotoxic]

non-interventionist defensive military posture...No more deployed bases

Ridiculous and self-contradictory. The real world will always require some intervening and probably a few deployed bases.

Military response as an absolute last resort.

Ridiculous dogmatism. Should we also only use amputations as an absolute last resort? Even if you could save an arm by chopping off a finger?

Please leave the military strategy to those who can think it through.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Says the Canadian with no military experience whatsoever, let alone any strategic expertise.

If you knew a quarter of what you think you know you'd almost be dangerous. But, as it is, you're just pathetic.

[Thymirus]

Why is there a "need to intervene"? What obligation do we hold that would compel us to endanger ourselves and bleed for the rest of the world? Let them fight their own battles. Fuck them all.

[Thymirus]

What concerns me are the functional ramifications of such a stance applied as a general, universal approach to our national defense.

I'm an absolute martial isolationist in that I desire no involvement whatsoever in the world's affairs militarily by the United States (function), mostly because it's not our responsibility to civilize the shitholes of the world, but I'm also an absolute advocate of possessing a totally supreme, ridiculously overpowered (by your standards, I mean), able-to-instigate--worldwide-oblivion military (capability).

I'm strongly of the opinion that apart from the United States and a select few societies that remain redeemable, the world's plastered with potential aggressors, and I believe in maintaining a might so titanic, any threat, even be it the entire world against us, would pose no problem.

Shortly put, I hold a sincere belief in the necessity of our (the United States) remaining an uncontested hyperpower.

But a conflict within me arises as to this subject because I also know that the people to whom we entrust (or to whom falls) the power to control this military are hardly saints, and I don't trust politicians, those fuckers.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

but I'm also an absolute advocate of possessing a totally supreme, ridiculously overpowered (by your standards, I mean), able-to-instigate--worldwide-oblivion military (capability).

I am too. Not a fan of TR but, "speak softly and carry a big stick" is spot-on strategy when it comes to foreign policy. The primary reason for having a strong military is so you NEVER need to use it. Unfortunately, there are many who feel there is no need to have a powerful military UNLESS you are going to use it.

Our current system is based on an expeditionary force capable of fighting two simultaneous wars. We are surrounded by two monstrous oceans and two relatively militarily weak nations north and south. There is no nation on earth that has the capability to fight a war on American soil.

The system we have in place is simply not needed to protect ourselves. It's set up to project our will throughout the globe (IOW, threaten folks). A strategy that is constantly creating new battles to fight.

We could do what I suggest (cut 50%) and still have twice the capability of any other nation on earth (conservatively). I'm a firm believer in continuing to have the best training and cutting edge shit. That is positively MANDATORY. The savings come from embracing a philosophy of minding our own business and not using it, which allows for a smaller force.

[Thymirus]

Our current system is based on an expeditionary force capable of fighting two simultaneous wars. We are surrounded by two monstrous oceans and two relatively militarily weak nations north and south. There is no nation on earth that has the capability to fight a war on American soil.

The system we have in place is simply not needed to protect ourselves. It's set up to project our will throughout the globe (IOW, threaten folks). A strategy that is constantly creating new battles to fight.

That's a discussion worth pursuing -- the structure of our power-projection, and how to alter it appropriately, as opposed to the actual scope of our military.

I see the two as distinct and separate facets of our martial policy. Involving ourselves in the affairs of foreign parties with our expeditionary armed forces is an awful idea. Interventionism is a nightmare. To that end, restructure the uniformed services, and explicitly refrain from interfering with anything that does not constitute a direct attack upon the United States. If such an assault occurs, annihilate the enemy with absolute, merciless prejudice, but otherwise, we remain neutral.

But reducing the size of the military, and narrowing the range of strategies and incumbent equipment that are developed and used by it, is a different matter altogether.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You say you want "a totally supreme, ridiculously overpowered (by your standards, I mean), able-to-instigate--worldwide-oblivion military (capability)"

We've had twice that for decades. Our military capability surpasses that of our nearest rival by several orders of magnitude. If we were to cut it in half, there is still no nation we couldn't whip decisively.

...provided that capability isn't squandered on bullshit like nation building in third-world shitholes, where no threat exists. Our equipment has been run into the ground over the last 14 years...with little to no ROI. It needs to be replaced. What a waste.

[Robert]

How'd that come to be the normal way of thinking? Why'd Mexico, for instance, not fall into the pattern of projecting their will worldwide?

[Agammamon]

Oh, that's easy.

1. Shrink the Navy from 300 ships and 13 carriers to about half that.

2. Drop the F-35, develop a carrier version of the F-22. The Marines, no matter how much they scream about the Harrier, don't use its unique capabilities and so don't need another one and they can replace their F-18's with the AF version of the F-22.

3. Get the military manning policy away from 'two simultaneous wars and a major conflict' which is the 'desired' capability.

4. Scrap the Stryker and put those guys in up-armored M113s and M-2s.

5. Scale back our commitments in Europe and Korea

6. Get rid of the '20 years and a pension' (Disclosure - I've got mine already) and go straight to a defined contribution plan that's portable (ie can be carried over to a civilian job to be built on) that starts from initial enlistment.

7. Get rid of 'concurrent receipt', at the least while the member is in the Fleet Reserve (or the service specific version of it).

[Cytotoxic]

This.

[jay_dubya]

So Cyto you both want to cut military spending and dont want to cut military spending? For someone so knowledgable about military matters you seem to be at war with yourself.

[MJBinAL]

The F-35, the airplane that answers no defense purpose except pork for all, needs to go. It does not fly well, is not stealth, is not fast, does not dogfight well, (it loses to the F-15 we are getting rid of for goodness sake!) NONE of it's many versions are ready for use and now the cost is much more that the F-22 that actually works, and whose high cost was used as one of the justifications for needing the "cheaper" F-35.

The F-35 is a great way to get pilots killed, by sending them into battle with an aircraft that is not up to competing with current Soviet aircraft. If this is the best we can do we should just buy aircraft from the Russians. At least that would actually BE cheaper.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The F-35 is primarily an air-to-ground platform. It isn't designed to be an air dominance fighter. It has the capability to fly in environments that the 4th gen fighters cannot.

It is certainly less than intended, but it's significantly more capable than its gen 4 counterparts. The F-22 and F-35 were designed to be complimentary from the start. They are NOT interchangeable so comparing them is truly apples and oranges.

[Agammamon]

Fine, but the Navy and the Marines still don't need a 'next gen' ground attack platform.

The F-18 is perfectly suited to that job for another 20 years. The chance that marine A2G craft will be deployed in a conflict where the AF doesn't already dominate the sky is vanishingly small. And if the Navy AC are fighting other AC - then they already know where we are.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The F-18 is perfectly suited to that job for another 20 years.

No, it isn't. To begin with, it's not all about the air threat. It's about the ground threat.

Second, the Hornet wasn't all that great a platform out of the box. The AF rejected it, and the Navy made it heavier before accepting it.

Third, the advances in avionics/treat detection in the F-35 will more than make up for any loss of turning performance. When missiles can shoot over the shoulder, across the turn circle, 9 Gs sustained (which the Hornet could NEVER do anyway) is for dick measuring.

[Agammamon]

Except neither the Navy nor the MC are using the F-18 to penetrate a sophisticated AD system.

The AF is going to do that. The Navy's tactics have been to use automated, disposable weapons (IOW, lot's and lot's of missiles) to grind the AD system to dust. *Then* send in the planes.

Marines mostly don't fly until the AF/Navy have cleared the sky.

For *providing* AD for the fleet - the F-18 is just as visible as the ship's its protecting, sensor data for the fighters is provided from other platforms even today, and the F-18 can fire missiles that can match the F-22 in maneuverability (and in the near future, greatly exceed it).

Really, if it weren't for politicicking and the Marines screaming for a Harrier replacement, the Navy could certainly have afforded to skip a generation and start to go straight to drones.

As its is, we got a plane that the AF doesn't really need, is only somewhat better than what the Navy is running right now, and has a capability the Marines love to have but never use.

[Thymirus]

I'd be extremely skeptical of any reductions in naval projective capability. This may be a position that meets with hefty disagreement here, but keeping the United States safe through incalculably overwhelming power seems desirable to me, and a global, uber-blue-water navy is the mechanism by which to apply that power.

Hasn't the F-35 buttfucked every prediction as to its cost and the length of its development so far? I guess it's too late to drop it at this stage, as the military sees it. Oops.

[Agammamon]

The thing is - who is the Navy going to fight.

I even have a bias *for* a large navy (I retired from it) but really, most of the capability is wasted.

Even prepping with a war with China means being able to fight *one* major* conflict and not a globe spanning war. We could easily cut the number of carriers down to 10 (probably 8, and even, maybe, 6 - two on the east coast and 3 on the west and one in Japan).

And instead of build 10,000 ton *destroyers*, more independent operation frigates (at 4k ish ton displacements) along with converting more SSGNs to handle the first strike 'shock and awe' bombardments of our next invasion.

[Mr. Anderson]

The military can't meet its recruiting goals with 20 years to retire. How do you suppose we man this new Military after you remove the greatest attraction? I suspect the ridiculous turnover from people doing one term will cost as much as you save.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Meh. Only 17% of all military personnel make it to retirement.

[Agammamon]

Uh, the turnover for people doing one term *already* is ridiculous.

Its somewhere around 25% (depending on rate/MOS) at the 4 year mark.

Only a tiny fraction make it to 20 years and a ton of guys get screwed at the 12-15 year mark when they find they can't advance anymore - there's no *guaranteed* 20 years, hasn't been for a long time. If you don't make E-6 in the navy you'll get your walking papers long before that. For E-5, 12 years is the limit. Don't make E-6 before then and you're out.

Hell, now the Navy has a board for E-7's hitting the 20 year mark to see if they'll be allowed to stay in.

Making manning goals is *not* a problem the military is having.

So you put in 12 years and walk away with nothing - unless you get another federal government job.

[Agammamon]

Plus, how much do you think an E-3/4 is going to walk away with in his 401k after 4 years.

And keep in mind that he can't touch that money before retirement without a huge tax bite.

This policy would leave little extra incentive to drop out after one term and would help out the people who've put in a decade and a half to find that there services are no longer required.

[Greg F]

Only a tiny fraction make it to 20 years and a ton of guys get screwed at the 12-15 year mark when they find they can't advance anymore...

I got one of those 12 year rejects for a supervisor once. In one way it was encouraging to know the military got rid of the dead weight. OTOH, it was discouraging to know that someone that stupid could stay in the service that long. Even worse that the company I worked for would hire someone as brain dead as this guy was.

[juris imprudent]

It might help to actually audit the DoD and see if they know how they've spent our money. I assume you are familiar with unaccounted for funds in Afghanistan.

[Agammamon]

Oh, but the law *didn't require* them to account for those funds before 2004.

And you know how it is, if they didn't have a policy covering it, how are these people supposed to know?

Its like cops raping people and then claiming they just need 'more training'.

[Thymirus]

Oh, no argument there. "Wasteful" doesn't even begin to describe them.

[edkocyk]

I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
http://www.work-mill.com

[cavalier973]

It can talk about cutting costs because it knows that Congress will always step in and nullify any attempts to actually cut costs.

[sarcasmic]

USPS is the only government agency that ever talks about trying to cut costs

My stepbrother is a mail carrier, and he says the cost cutting is a joke. Basically, a management job is a job for life. There are way too many chiefs for the number of Indians, but it's not going to change because letting managers go is simply not an option. So yeah, they may talk a good game when it comes to reducing costs, but in practice it's a joke.

[lap83]

Yeah that makes sense. They're unionized too, so you know there is rampant inefficiency from that fact alone. It's weird to me though, how none of the other agencies even feel the need to make the impression that they should cut costs. Maybe they don't have as many lobbyists.

[Greg F]

My stepbrother is a mail carrier, and he says the cost cutting is a joke. Basically, a management job is a job for life.

I know of one Postmaster that lost their job. Got caught watching porn on the job.

So yeah, they may talk a good game when it comes to reducing costs, but in practice it's a joke.

Where I live they actually did try to reduce costs by closing a bunch of really small post offices. Were talking post offices that are smaller than a house trailer and have maybe one or two carriers. The political fallout was intense and the USPS dropped the idea.

[Aceallaigh]

USPS is the ONLY constitutionally mandated government agency. It requires an amendment in order to not exist.

[Brendan]

It's authorized, not mandatory.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

AYN RAND USED SOCIAL SECURITY!

[alecj]

I hope its a joke. One of the few things actually mentioned in the Constitution is the Post Office. Its not the best way to send things through the mail, but it is Constitutional. Im sure Rand Paul is aware of this....

[Mr. Bourgeoisie]

I'm a big LSU fan and read Tiger Droppings quite regularly... Very tough crowd.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Oh God, tiger droppings is a cesspool. I try to sock to the college board on SaintsReport, but not many people really post there.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

*stick

[SIV]

Tiger Droppings is a good source for finding excellent restaurants in Louisiana.

[Hamster of Doom]

I've decided that when I grow up, I want to be Ernest Hemingway. Private island/remote mountain hermitage, with only OpenOffice and rum to keep me company. Lots of rum.

[Heroic Mulatto]

And six-toed cats.

[cavalier973]

What is your favorite brand?

[Hamster of Doom]

Sailor Jerry's! If I'm going to defile myself, there are no half-measures.

Castillo is reliable. Appleton if you want to drink with your father-in-law, but those bastards probably sip with a pinkie sticking out. Bacardi is a great cooking rum.

[robc]

OpenOffice or LibreOffice?

[lap83]

That sounds good, except for the suicide part.

[Timon 19]

OpenOffice? Apache might end up redeeming it, but it's still a ways back from being on par with LibreOffice.

[GILMORE]

"The emoticon make me think this is a joke"

I would think after all the polling, Nick would speak *fluent* millenial-snark

I personally only send my paleo-mail via carrier pigeon and orphan-footpad-couriers, depending on the worthiness of the recipient

[Thymirus]

Privatize the United States Postal Service entirely, and summarily annul all regulations forbidding direct competition with it in its provision of postal services. It'll either adapt, or it'll wither and die.

Of the long list of indiscretions that would impel me to a change of heart as to my support for his candidacy, this ranks last.

[Hyperion]

Yeah, using a service that we were already forced to pay for is right up there top of the list for pulling my support for Rand Paul. It's right behind him possibly being the Aqua Buddha.

[Aceallaigh]

Postal Service is actually mandated in the Constitution. You can't just privatize it in it's entirety.

[Statutory Ape]

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power...To establish Post Offices and post Roads"

Not mandated. Allowed. It has the power to declare war, too, but that doesn't mean we have to be at war all the time (even though it seems like we are).

[Hyperion]

Actually the post office is one of the few services that I am willing to pay for. Along with roads and bridges and a military strong enough to protect us from foreign invaders, not one strong enough to go all around the world being police.

This is honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I'm sure that Paul used the post office because most of the time i's way cheaper than Fedex. And UPS is a steaming pile of shit.

[Thymirus]

Governmental construction of roadways and bridges is entirely unnecessary, inefficient, comparatively counterproductive, and morally unjust, but it's right at the bottom of my list to give a shit about when it comes to what I'd like the government not to do, or do. Fuck it.

I'm very much a proponent of a Titan-strength military, though.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Any military which is only used for defense can be easily replaced by a well-armed public.

Conversely, any military which cannot be replaced by a well-armed public is an offensive military.

[Hyperion]

As I understand it, the armed citizenry of the USA would constitute the largest standing military in the history of civilization. This is why the USA cannot be invaded by a conventional military. And why we can never give up our 2nd amendment rights.

You want to invade the USA, then the gun hating left go first, thank you, then we're going to kick the fucking shit out of you.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Any military which is only used for defense can be easily replaced by a well-armed public.

No.

Don't confuse the strategic definition of defensive with the tactical. If you are attacked by another nation and expect the attacks to continue one must act offensively (tactically and operationally speaking) to defeat that nation in the name of our strategic "defense".

Having a defensive military strategy does not preclude offensive operations.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Defense costs less than offense; let the attackers stress their economy and society more than we stress ours.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that if the stated purpose of a military is to be used for defense only, and never for voluntary wars or on behalf of treaty allies, then an armed public is a fine replacement.

[Chmee]

An armed citizenry is fine, but for the most part aren't trained sufficiently to be effective against a well trained invading force. Sheer numbers might seem like a good offset, but there's no organization, no plans in place to make it happen. Just try to get a couple of thousand people from all over your county together for a BBQ tomorrow that they must attend (even throw in free beer and ribs!) and you might understand the problem. He!!, people spend months just preparing for a wedding and stuff still doesn't go off well.

[Agammamon]

Yeah, sort of.

But we wouldn't *defeat* an invader any more than the Iraqi/Afghani insurgents defeated *us*.

[Scarecrow Repair]

You don't have to defeat an invader so much as make the invasion so costly that they give up. I don't think that takes nearly as much out of a society as an offensive invasion.

[Cytotoxic]

Any military which is only used for defense can be easily replaced by a well-armed public.

Bullshit.

[Scarecrow Repair]

That's a cogent, well-thought, clearly described rebuttal. But if you have a newsletter, I won't be subscribing.

[Hyperion]

I'm just picking through a list of things that the government currently does and trying to come up with at least a few things that I'm willing to accept. I'm not saying that any of those things are necessary, outside of the military.

When I lived in Indiana, they privatized the department of motor vehicles. I always would go there, no matter what day or time of day, and there would be a line of pissed off people lined up for blocks. You would be lucky if you arrived when they opened and would even get to talk to one of the cranky and totally clueless luddites behind their desk.

My very last visit there was after they were privatized. I arrived around 10am and was worried I'd arrived too late and that I would have to come back. There were no lines outside and only few cars in the parking lot. I walked in and there were 2 people there, and I had my choice of about half a dozen smiling and friendly employees anxious to help me. I was out of there in 5 minutes.

That experience pretty much convinced me of the potential of privatization.

[Agammamon]

I had a similar experience.

Living in CT and having to go to the DMV was horrible. Long lines, buildings that hadn't been renovated since the '70's. NOTHING possible online.

Got to CA (and later AZ).

CA is decent - DMV itself is state run, but tons of little private offices where you can get everything done.

AZ - all privatized. My license is good not for 4 years, but until I'm 65. Replacements can be ordered online. Same with registration - no need to wait for mail (they don't actually even bother to mail you a renewal) and send in a check.

[Timon 19]

I wonder if that explains why my visits to the DMV in east Akron, OH are surprisingly pleasant and the people are friendly and helpful.

It's really totally not anything like the horror stories you used to hear, so I wonder if Ohio did something similar and I missed the announcement.

[DJ1706]

"This is honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I'm sure that Paul used the post office because most of the time i's way cheaper than Fedex. And UPS is a steaming pile of shit."

It's not only cheaper, but domestically, it's more reliable. A $5 Priority Mail package WILL make it there in two days. Exceptions happen but are extremely rare, and and I've shipped THOUSANDS of parcels that way.

The USPS is an agency (which is semi-private) which actually gets it right. And it's fee-based.

[Hyperion]

I've dealt with all of them and ship packages and international packages all of the time. I use the USPS whenever I can, because it's just a lot cheaper and I've not had many problems with them.

I've had so many bad experiences with UPS that I just totally avoid them when I can. I still use Fedex, but they are too expensive most of the time.

But despite the claims that I've heard that UPS is the worst company ever, I have to defend them. Comcast is the worst company of all time, and they have no rivals for that title.

[Agammamon]

Sure, UPS is the worst company ever - buts its the best *government agency* in the world.

[Akira]

People say that UPS is the worst company ever?? I had no idea that this perception existed... My UPS guy is a major bro. He's always very friendly, and several times he has gone out of his way to make sure that my packages are protected from any inclement weather.

[Almanian!]

WILL make it there in two days

Except my experience has been the OPPOSITE. I have yet to have an overnight or two-day USPS pckg make it in the prescribed time.

FedEx? Never, ever had a problem - business or personal.

I send Christmas cards through the postal service, and get my magazines that way (I prefer dead trees, not online). Otherwise....don't use 'em.

[robc]

Usps tracking sucks.

[Cdr Lytton]

Tracking isn't the right word for what that is.

[Sevo]

Cdr Lytton|4.12.15 @ 5:52PM|#
"Tracking isn't the right word for what that is."

And when they do lose something, you can try to get compensated for the rest of your life; you'll never have the right forms to collect the insurance.

[DJ1706]

Don't know what to tell you. All I can say is that over the past 9 years, I've shipped by Priority Mail almost daily, and the number of packages gone awry has been fewer than ten out of a thousand times that.

And the tracking kept me on the winning side of every PayPal dispute yet lodged.

[RAHeinlein]

Exactly.

[cavalier973]

"I'm mad cause Paul is demanding the gubmont to provide the service it forces him to pay for!"

[Hyperion]

Yeah, he should have used Fedex and just passed along the extra costs to his supporters. Nothing says libertarians more than not using services that your tax dollars have already payed for.

[AlmightyJB]

Yeah, they used to criticize for accepting money for his state for programs he voted against. Like it is hypocracy to at least try and get as much money back as possible that you didn't want to spend in the first place. It would be dufferent if your state could opt out of paying for it.

[Hyperion]

Right. I'm totally going to not accept that 5k tax return after I already payed in 40k, (;

[Akira]

I wrangled with this for a long time... I just quit my job to go to college, which means losing health insurance, and I was having a hard time convincing myself to get on Medicaid.

I realized a few things:
1) I've been in the workforce nearly 14 years, paying taxes into Medicaid the entire time. I made about $4800 last year doing freelance writing jobs in my spare time (good god, I sound like the spambot) and 31% of that went to taxes, mostly for SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Once I finish college and get a job, I'll go right back to paying into those funds and most likely never use them again.

2) I'm not making some kind of "statement" by refusing Medicaid. I'm not hurting anyone but myself.

3) I'm very healthy (exercise every day and eat healthy) so I'm unlikely to actually make any claims on it anyway.

That said, I have zero doubt that if I ever ran for office on a Libertarian platform, the progs would dig up the records proving that I was covered by Medicaid and trot them out as a supreme damnation of my character.

[Hugh Akston]

This is just further evidence for my belief that people who vote are retarded.

[jay_dubya]

ha! agreed

[AlmightyJB]

That was trolling. That said, I hate that amazon is now using usps more. If they can cram something in my mailbox no matter how much they deform it they will to keep from having to put it on my porch. If it won t fit, it better not be raining too hard or I ll have to wait for the next day to get it. Sometimes they ll still mark it as being delivered. I could on on about how much usps employees suck but whats the point.

[Hyperion]

I recently did have a bad experience with USPS, but it was because of a new route deliverer, who apparently had no idea what he was doing.

I had an overnight coming from Amazon and it didn't show up, which is weird. The next morning, I checked my mailbox because even though I was sure that box would not fit, I couldn't believe that Amazon did not deliver something because that has never happened before. Mailbox was empty.

So that afternoon I contacted Amazon and told them I didn't receive my package. They gave me a full refund, no questions asked.

The next day as I was headed to work, I walked past my mailbox and saw a note stuck to it. It said that my mailbox was full and that I needed to go to the post office and get my mail. WTF?

So the day after, I went to the post office and the lady brought out all of these small parcels that my wife had ordered. They wouldn't fit in the box, so the clueless new mail guy took all of them back to the post office, including my overnight parcel which wouldn't have fit in the box anyway. I expressed my displeasure at this and the lady just sighed and said sorry.

Then I had to call Amazon back and ask them to reverse the refund. I explained to them and they gave me a 20% discount on the order and $20 off next year on my Amazon prime and it wasn't even their fault

Amazon has the best customer service, ever. They are the anti-comcast.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Company that exists in a (largely) unregulated free market has better customer service than company that is a monopoly by local government fiat? I seem to have misplaced my shocked face.

[Almanian!]

I seem to have misplaced my shocked face

You might want to check at the Post Office - I heard they have a new carrier there who doesn't have a clue...

[Chmee]

What monopoly does the USPS have? Only that no one can deliver postage in the letter box designated for them. UPS, FedEX, DHL, etc, all of them take advantage of the free market available to deliver letters and packages. They just can't leave them in your mail box.

Did you know that UPS and FedEx use the USPS delivery system to get their packages shipped around? Why? Because they can do it cheaper and faster. Fancy that.

[Cytotoxic]

I fear Amazon just isn't making enough money to keep this up.

[DJ1706]

Why am I reminded of "Keep the government out of my medicare (Morans!)"?

[Almanian!]

I don't know - why are you?

[MPB]

Fucking retard. The PS IS a private company, just one with more government intervention than other private companies.

[Cdr Lytton]

Just like Amtrak is a private company, right?

[Thymirus]

Utter bullshit. The United States Postal Service is an executive agency of the federal government.

[Vampire]

And it calls people retarded. Lolz!

[Agammamon]

Are you going to next tell us that the USPS would be making a profit if mean old Congress wasn't forcing it to cover its pension obligations?

[Vampire]

What if it does tell us such nonsense? Shall I proceed with biting?

[Sevo]

"Are you going to next tell us that the USPS would be making a profit if mean old Congress wasn't forcing it to cover its pension obligations?"

I LOVE this bullshit! 'Gee, it would make money if it didn't have to cover its costs!'.
So would the Tucker Car Co.

[Chmee]

That would actually be true. They're not being asked to just cover their pension obligations, they're being required to cover pension and healthcare obligations for the next 75 years, for USPS employees who haven't even been born yet. I would like to see any organization, public or private that could possibly survive that kind of cash bleed. We can't even get our esteemed Gov Christie to make good on his pledge to fund the State's pension, which he's consistently failed to do since he's been in office.

[Coke Zero]

"Went in dumb, come out dumb, too..."