www.ditl.org

Rochey wrote:And Saudi Arabia has a majority of theocratical Muslims. Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Nice strawman.

You're allowed to have your views and base them on whatever you please. In the case of the people in government if their constituents don't like how they're governing they can elect someone else. You might not like their viewpoint but they can have it.

sunnyside wrote:...maybe you support gun rights but want to tax churches...

How'd you read my manifesto!?

Rochey wrote:The problem with the public perception of socialised healthcare in the US is that it's a heavily propagandised version of it. No, you're not going to be waiting hours to get heart surgery. No, there isn't a limit to how much healthcare you can get. No, there isn't some sort of appointed doctor for different people. Etc, etc, etc.

Wrong. It may be a fallacious version of the Canadian or UK systems, but the horror stories to which you refer are symptoms of many NHC programs worldwide, evidenced to me by first-hand accounts of both doctors and patients in those systems. Just because a thing works a certain way in your country doesn't mean that's the only way it could ever pan out.

I think this is a two question thread. The federal government runs pretty well on its own when not bothered by elected officials. The state and local governments seem to fuck up on a regular basis. The most common problem with government is the elected guy who knows nothing about what he's doing messing things up and not listening to the people who have been doing the job for the last 40 years.