The UK postal service doesn't have to turn a profit, nor pay special pension plans like in the US. To be honest Republicans here want to destroy the USPS so they can sell the most profitable parts to friends and ditch the rest. There will be small cities all around the middle US that will not get mail nor packages anymore because it is not profitable.

Unknown_K wrote:

The UK postal service doesn't have to turn a profit, nor pay special pension plans like in the US. To be honest Republicans here want to destroy the USPS so they can sell the most profitable parts to friends and ditch the rest. There will be small cities all around the middle US that will not get mail nor packages anymore because it is not profitable.

😳 That's pretty weird. Why should government-owned services turn profit?

My country, Indonesia, is pretty fucked up now, but its constitution, UUD 45, is pretty good. I like the social welfare part where the primary duty of government-owned services is to serve the citizens' needs instead of turning profit.

Unfortunately, we are getting more and more like the United States recently - the "Republican dream" United States, to be exact.

The Danish postal service is horrible, and fucking expensive to a degree, that is mind fucking blowing. Cause their sister company in Sweden is a lot cheaper when it comes to their prices. And not just that, the Danish postal service screws you over when it comes to their "so great parcel service".

To any one who understands Danish please help me here. Cause I am linking to a true story from Denmark.

http://www.dr.dk/DR1/kontant/2013/05/07171023.htm

http://www.dr.dk/DR1/kontant/2013/05/07091620.htm

The text can probably be translated easily. But the show in itself can not. So if any of my Scandinavian brethren wants to help me. Then here is your chance to show how fucking insane the truth is, and this has NOTHING to do with unions. Also, it is peculiar thinking , about what sliderider´s political view is. But that is not the first time I have thought of that..

WolverineDK wrote:

and this has NOTHING to do with unions

Yup. I don't understand why the unions should take the blame for everything.

WolverineDK wrote:

Also, it is peculiar thinking , about what sliderider´s political view is. But that is not the first time I have thought of that..

Same here. (whistles innocently)

vetz wrote:

sliderider wrote:

Socialism only sounds good until you actually have to live under it and then not so much.

Funny how the democratic socialist countries in Scandinavia does extremely well on several official "best countries in the world" lists. I am pretty sure you would define the politics here as evil communism in the US.

vetz: Mate , if I may correct you a bit sadly my country is not doing so well any more. But it used to be a lot better on so many fronts.

I just hate how hard it is to find online stores that will actually ship to Canada. It seems like every online store I go to will say something like "we only ship to the 48 continental US states", and it totally pisses me off. 🤣

As well, whenever I do find an online store that actually ships to Canada, their prices and selection usually suck compared to their US counterparts. Amazon is a good example; south of the border you can buy virtually ANYTHING from them. Here, they pretty much just sell books and DVDs! 😜

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

When unions make unreasonale demands from their employers, the employer can't stay in business. Simple. Why do western workers f […]
Show full quote

WolverineDK wrote:

and this has NOTHING to do with unions

When unions make unreasonale demands from their employers, the employer can't stay in business. Simple. Why do western workers feel so privileged that they think they deserve pay higher than what workers in other countries get for doing the same jobs?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Yup. I don't understand why the unions should take the blame for everything.

See answer above

WolverineDK wrote:

Also, it is peculiar thinking , about what sliderider´s political view is. But that is not the first time I have thought of that..

Here's my political thought. Socialism=bad, Capitalism=good. Any other questions?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Same here. (whistles innocently)

See above, again.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Unfortunately, we are getting more and more like the United States recently - the "Republican dream" United States, to be exact.

It's not the Republican dream, it is the dream of our founders from 1776, for our people to live free from government interference in their lives.

Sometimes the stupidity of one person is why people shake their heads, and thinks "what a poor human being".

Having some subsidised services is not the same as living in a socialist country.

sliderider wrote:

It's not the Republican dream, it is the dream of our founders from 1776, for our people to live free from government interference in their lives.

It's true, but too many people that believe government should stay out of business, also believe that government should dictate who is allowed to get married, or what plants it's OK to grow and smoke.

This isn't a post about gay marriage or marijuana, it's about the hypocrisy of saying on one hand that you want no government interference, but on the other you're happy that your personal views are enforced on others by the same power.

Socialism and capitalism both have their upsides and downsides. Ultimately, the best forms of government, in my opinion, are those that successfully manage to combine both philosophies.

Canada's government is a good example of this. Yes, people like to complain about it, as that's just human nature, but when you really think about it, things are pretty good here; we have good public healthcare and an effective social safety net, and we also give our citizens a good amount of personal freedom, and control over their own lives. In some ways, we're actually "freer" than our neighbors south of the border, who have to put up with things like the patriot act. 😜

It's not a perfect system, as we do have issues with wait times in our emergency rooms, and our government has been exhibiting some minor "nanny state" tendencies lately (mainly due to international pressure though 😜), but for the most part I have no complaints. There is a reason why we have long been ranked as being one of the best countries in the world to live in. 😁

Sorry, I went on a bit of a tangent there. 🤣 But Canada is awesome! 😁

SquallStrife wrote:

sliderider wrote:

It's not the Republican dream, it is the dream of our founders from 1776, for our people to live free from government interference in their lives.

It's true, but too many people that believe government should stay out of business, also believe that government should dictate who is allowed to get married, or what plants it's OK to grow and smoke.

This isn't a post about gay marriage or marijuana, it's about the hypocrisy of saying on one hand that you want no government interference, but on the other you're happy that your personal views are enforced on others by the same power.

Those are very often not the same people. I'm a free market conservative and that's primarily what drives my politics. In my personal life I share many of the views and religion that are associated with a so-called "social conservative", but when it comes to politics I find those type of voters to be an annoyance.
It's true that we generally end up voting for the same people in a general election, but not in the primaries. When we vote for the same people, we do it for different reasons.

My view on both of the social issues you raised is that they Constitutionally belong to the states, not the federal government. If it was up to me, the Feds would have zero say in either of them.

shamino wrote:

Those are very often not the same people. I'm a free market conservative and that's primarily what drives my politics. In my personal life I share many of the views and religion that are associated with a so-called "social conservative", but when it comes to politics I find those type of voters to be an annoyance.
It's true that we generally end up voting for the same people in a general election, but not in the primaries. When we vote for the same people, we do it for different reasons.

My view on both of the social issues you raised is that they Constitutionally belong to the states, not the federal government. If it was up to me, the Feds would have zero say in either of them.

It's a real shame that rational, balanced voices like yours are drowned out by extreme loonies on both sides.

😀

SquallStrife wrote:

This isn't a post about gay marriage or marijuana, it's about the hypocrisy of saying on one hand that you want no government interference, but on the other you're happy that your personal views are enforced on others by the same power.

QFT , aka. Quoted For Truth.

SquallStrife wrote:

shamino wrote:

Those are very often not the same people. I'm a free market conservative and that's primarily what drives my politics. In my personal life I share many of the views and religion that are associated with a so-called "social conservative", but when it comes to politics I find those type of voters to be an annoyance.
It's true that we generally end up voting for the same people in a general election, but not in the primaries. When we vote for the same people, we do it for different reasons.

My view on both of the social issues you raised is that they Constitutionally belong to the states, not the federal government. If it was up to me, the Feds would have zero say in either of them.

It's a real shame that rational, balanced voices like yours are drowned out by extreme loonies on both sides.

😀

I absolutely agree. It is sad, we have to hear on people who are in some ways a giant annoyance, instead of people. Who has common sense, and then me who sadly feels pushed against the wall. And people are trying HARD to fit me in a box. When in fact I am to much of a chaotic being to be put in a box , or labelling me. It is no wonder, why I attack some times with so-called fire and brimstone words. Which you can call profanities.

I was lucky enough to mail out two MXM video cards (mobile/laptop) that weighed under two LBs and the economy shipping was 30 bucks, and with NO tracking or insurance, in fact you had to get the 50 USD shipping if you wanted to be able to pay EXTRA for shipping and insurance, that's right you can't pay extra for that stuff unless you pay for the more expensive shipping option.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

Socialism and capitalism both have their upsides and downsides. Ultimately, the best forms of government, in my opinion, are tho […]
Show full quote

Socialism and capitalism both have their upsides and downsides. Ultimately, the best forms of government, in my opinion, are those that successfully manage to combine both philosophies.

Canada's government is a good example of this. Yes, people like to complain about it, as that's just human nature, but when you really think about it, things are pretty good here; we have good public healthcare and an effective social safety net, and we also give our citizens a good amount of personal freedom, and control over their own lives. In some ways, we're actually "freer" than our neighbors south of the border, who have to put up with things like the patriot act. 😜

It's not a perfect system, as we do have issues with wait times in our emergency rooms, and our government has been exhibiting some minor "nanny state" tendencies lately (mainly due to international pressure though 😜), but for the most part I have no complaints. There is a reason why we have long been ranked as being one of the best countries in the world to live in. 😁

Sorry, I went on a bit of a tangent there. 🤣 But Canada is awesome! 😁

It's not the job of the government to provide healthcare or social safety nets. It is the job of the people to take care of these things for themselves. Government interference in those areas does nothing but foster a culture of dependency and discourages people from taking responsibility over their own lives.

cdoublejj wrote:

I was lucky enough to mail out two MXM video cards (mobile/laptop) that weighed under two LBs and the economy shipping was 30 bucks, and with NO tracking or insurance, in fact you had to get the 50 USD shipping if you wanted to be able to pay EXTRA for shipping and insurance, that's right you can't pay extra for that stuff unless you pay for the more expensive shipping option.

I know USPS 'First-Class' package/letter(AND some 'Priority' items as well) has the option of 'Registered'(R) mail, at 'only' $12.95(flat rate) extra on top of regular postage. Which may help occationally, for cheap/lightweight but 'rare' items for instance.

(gives worldwide tracking!, $46 insurance, etc)
http://pe.usps.gov/text/Imm/immc3_008.htm

I.e. sub 32 oz/2 lbs to Europe would end up like $24.15+12.95= $37.10 as international Registered First-Class package.
(how come you paid $30 ?? they must've conned you... 🤣 )

http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/notice123.htm

sliderider wrote:

It's not the job of the government to provide healthcare or social safety nets. It is the job of the people to take care of these things for themselves. Government interference in those areas does nothing but foster a culture of dependency and discourages people from taking responsibility over their own lives.

Lol, that's the most retarded thing I've read on these forums!

badmofo wrote:

sliderider wrote:

It's not the job of the government to provide healthcare or social safety nets. It is the job of the people to take care of these things for themselves. Government interference in those areas does nothing but foster a culture of dependency and discourages people from taking responsibility over their own lives.

Lol, that's the most retarded thing I've read on these forums!

I agree. I read the first sentence and immediately thought "what a bunch of bullcrap, neocon rhetoric". 😜 People who speak ill of publicly subsidized healthcare often don't realize what a good thing it is to have, even if you're not a fan of "government interference".

One thing I should probably point out, there actually ARE privately subsidized hospitals and treatment centers in Canada, they're just not very common. They pretty much exist for extreme cases where a person is actually willing to pay money for immediate treatment. It's good that we have this option, but I think it's unacceptable to base an entire healthcare system around this strategy, as it benefits only a few while leaving many others to suffer.

EDIT: Mods, do you think we can split this debate off to another thread? I mean, healthcare is an interesting topic and all, but this thread is supposed to be about the cost of shipping things to the 'States. 😜

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

I agree. I read the first sentence and immediately thought "what a bunch of bullcrap, neocon rhetoric". :P People who speak ill […]
Show full quote

badmofo wrote:

sliderider wrote:

It's not the job of the government to provide healthcare or social safety nets. It is the job of the people to take care of these things for themselves. Government interference in those areas does nothing but foster a culture of dependency and discourages people from taking responsibility over their own lives.

Lol, that's the most retarded thing I've read on these forums!

I agree. I read the first sentence and immediately thought "what a bunch of bullcrap, neocon rhetoric". 😜 People who speak ill of publicly subsidized healthcare often don't realize what a good thing it is to have, even if you're not a fan of "government interference".

One thing I should probably point out, there actually ARE privately subsidized hospitals and treatment centers in Canada, they're just not very common. They pretty much exist for extreme cases where a person is actually willing to pay money for immediate treatment. It's good that we have this option, but I think it's unacceptable to base an entire healthcare system around this strategy, as it benefits only a few while leaving many others to suffer.

EDIT: Mods, do you think we can split this debate off to another thread? I mean, healthcare is an interesting topic and all, but this thread is supposed to be about the cost of shipping things to the 'States. 😜

Wait until you get older and the government has decided that you have outlived your usefulness as a tax payer and then you'll see the dark side of government healthcare first hand.

Or maybe you won't have to wait that long. Maybe your girlfriend will die of cervical cancer in her 20's because the government wouldn't pay for her to have a Papp smear test or maybe you will have a baby born prematurely die because the government wouldn't incubate it because it costs too much or you'll have a loved one die lying on a table in the hallway of a hospital because there weren't enough beds or maybe they'll die of starvation because there weren't enough nurses to keep tabs on everyone. All these things and more have happened under the NHS in England and even the government itself admits that the system does not work.

badmofo wrote:

sliderider wrote:

It's not the job of the government to provide healthcare or social safety nets. It is the job of the people to take care of these things for themselves. Government interference in those areas does nothing but foster a culture of dependency and discourages people from taking responsibility over their own lives.

Lol, that's the most retarded thing I've read on these forums!

no, what you just posted is the most retarded thing. People should be responsible for their own lives. It's not my job to pay for your healthcare, and it's not your job to pay for mine it's only my job to pay for my own and only your job to pay for your own. By using the force of government to take money from others to provide for your own needs you are committing an act of greed and theft. Social safety nets fall exclusively in the realm of private charities.

If I robbed you at gunpoint, then ran down to a clinic to pay for some health issue that I have been experiencing, would that negate the act of theft? If I robbed you at gunpoint and then gave your money to a retired senior citizen, would that negate the act of theft? If I robbed you at gunpoint and then gave your money to a shelter for the homeless, would that negate the act of theft? Of course it wouldn't because I am imposing my morality and values on you without your consent. How are social safety nets any different? They use force (of government) to take money from some and give it to others while giving them no say in the matter. Every time you go to the government for help, that is exactly what you are doing. You are using the force of government to take money from your fellow taxpayers to provide a service for yourself. Theft is theft no matter how much you try to cloak it in virtuous intentions.

Another point, the government (no matter which country you are from) is always the least efficient of provider of ANYTHING. Do you really want to entrust your health and your old age pension to the least efficient provider? Individuals are able to make better use of their own money to plan for their future needs when they don't have the government taxing them to death to pay for everyone else's. Look at what's happening in Europe. They are all going bankrupt under the weight of social obligations that they can't afford to pay. A lot of people are going to be hurt when the money runs out and the governments stop mailing out pensioners checks and payments to doctors and hospitals for healthcare. Do you want to be one of those people?