Ferrari Mailing List: It's bad enough being ignorant, don't be hypocritical too

[Dennis Liu (BigHeadDennis]

Brian Buxton wrote:

>Your points make sense, although your examples not so much ... but I
believe what Dr. Steve was trying to explain was that he feels the US
Government (i.e. the USPS) should provide the service he requires as part of
the mail service that he already pays for.  What is currently provided and
what he wants are one in the same, but as things are now he has to pay an
outside source more money for something he already pays for through taxes.

================

Brian, you're missing the point yet again.  

Let's say the USPS collects $100 from all of its postage sales, and spends
$100 to deliver all its mail.  Well, to be more precise, let's say that the
USPS spends $100 to deliver all its mail, so it asks for permission to raise
its rates to collect $100.  Either way, the system is in equilibrium.

Now, you are demanding that the USPS INCREASES its services.  And don't kid
yourself, it is definitely an INCREASE in services, because the USPS does
not offer those services itself today.  It costs money to design software,
build infrastructure, market, promote, sell, etc. (the stockholders of
Stamps.com and Endicia certainly know that).  So the USPS needs to make the
investment to offer the services you want, making the cost side of the
ledger now, say, $110.

But you don't want to pay any extra for the increased services you're
demanding from the USPS.

So where does the USPS get that extra $10 to cover its extra costs?

Bingo.  It now collects $110 by raising its prices.  And now EVERYONE who
uses the USPS has to pay extra, to cover the new services, because YOU
didn't want to pay for the services that you're now enjoying.

And therein lies the fallacy that liberal democrats enjoy - hey, its only
money from the government - *I'M* not paying for it!  (or, "hey, the rich
are paying 87% of all the taxes, so I'm getting $1 worth of benefit for only
$0.13 out of my pocket!!"

Seriously, Brian, if you're STILL not getting the point after all these
years, SteveK, JimC and I will chip in and buy you a good book:  "The Road
to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek or "Free to Choose: A Personal Statement" by
Milton & Rose Friedman.  Spend some time.  It's a worthwhile investment.



Brian Buxton wrote:

>And yes you can have an opinion on war even if you aren't a veteran, but it
doesn't give you the right to insult someone who has served their country
and sacrificed themselves for the benefit of the entire country, yourself
included.  Whether the insult was intended or not it was obviously taken as
such.  Tough to "read" tone, inflection, etc. in an e-mail.

============================

First off, stop wrapping yourself in the flag too.  Doesn't give me the
right to insult someone who has served their country??  Cheap, vainglorious
shot, Brian.

Of course I can insult someone who has served the country.  George H.W. Bush
was the youngest Naval aviator in WWII, and decorated at that.  And how many
people insulted him?  I think John Kerry is a pompous, moronic buffoon, and
he served too (without getting into just how decorated he may or may not
be).

I am lucky enough to know some true heroes who served in the military, and I
also know plenty of idiots who wore and wear uniforms.  

And, YOU, BRIAN BUXTON, of all people, should NOT be using taking this
utterly ridiculous position.

Why?

Because our own clyDe Romero was a Naval aviator of some note.  And you've
certainly slandered his name plenty, plenty, plenty of times.

So, what is it?  Can you be allowed to insult some who served their country,
or can't you??

Vty,

--Dennis