[Firmwarrior]

Yeah, fair enough.. I don't want to get into a big flame war here, but you should look up the concept of the "motte and bailey" fallacy or "moving the goalpost"

You pop into a conversation about private industry vs government and insist that government organizations have often been much better historically, but they're underfunded now so they're all suffering. Then someone points out that one of your examples is grossly terrible and has always been terrible, and you retreat back to a nearly-meaningless interpretation of your argument: "Oh, I wasn't saying we should actually have the government run things, I just wanted to say that possibly there have been good government bureaus at some point in the past! If you very carefully cherry-pick just the right instant in time and space!"

To that, all I can say is ".. OK"

I don't think you set out to be a troll or anything, and the post office is a pretty good example of exactly what you're trying to say. But you're getting really combative and watering down your core argument that "The Government CAN get things done and has in the past" by attacking people in defense of the nearly-universally-hated VA

[PuppyTailWags]

I haven't motte and bailey'd anything. I made one statement that at some point these organizations offered efficient services, and cannot verify if that is still the case. I was very clear about this. I haven't moved any goalposts. Yes, this is a largely vague statement because I am not researched enough to say "in X time the USPS, in Y time the VA, in Q time the IRS...".

I think you're actually trying to hold me to a more precise standard than I ever set out to say. It's like strawmanning my argument. I don't know where my being called combative is coming from; I'm merely pointing out that I never said the things that are being argued against.