Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
What exactly does that mean? Less people employed by the government? If so, in what areas? Where is it more important to cut?
What would you rather have? Less health care? Less education? Less military? Less intelligence? Less of everything?
One thing is certain? Given the choice between less health care and less military, what is more important? Should tax dollars be used to build hospitals or military bases? Schools? Roads and railways?
I suppose perception is a big thing too. Propaganda and fear play a big factor in what people see as more or less important.
If the government is bad at running things, who should do it? The private sector? What guarantee is there that somebody running things for profit will do it better, or more cheaply? Historically, privatization has not always been the best solution. Sometimes privatization has only made running things more expensive, because those who do it for profit want more money rather than more efficiency.
(esconder) Se procura um jogador com um nível de jogo idêntico ao seu, procure nas páginas de Classificações pelo tipo de jogo pretendido e descubra um jogador com BKR semelhante ao seu. (pauloaguia) (mostrar todas as dicas)