Skip Navigation

Posts
9
Comments
104
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • A war between Russia and NATO would result in the textbook definition of a pyrhhic victory. Everyone should be afraid of that. There will be no winners in nuclear combat.

  • I've simply pointed out the irony and hipocrisy. I'm making no statement on whether or not Nicaragua should be involved.

  • The West shoe-horned themselves into the Middle East decades ago. The West currently has a "vested" interest because they've made an absolute mess of the Middle East, when there was never a good reason for getting involved in the first place. Historically, the West has done in the exactly what they're now accusing Nicaragua of.

    Additionally, it's particularly ironic due to America's historical meddling in Nicaragua.

    I'm making no comment on Nicaragua making this move in good faith. I agree it's obvious that they're a pawn. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy.

  • So because Western nations are larger they've been entitled to interfere in the Middle East for the last century?

    And how much trade needs to occur between two countries to entitle one to interfere with the other?

  • The Nicaraguans “have no reason to inject themselves into a conflict over the Middle East,” one of the western intelligence officers said.

    Well that's definitely the most ironic thing I'm going to read for a while.

  • I interpreted the "you" in the reply to my comment as referring to me specifically.

    If it was meant as a general "you", then I take it back. I'm not trying build a strawman. I'm just trying to disagree with the notion that every country should have laws like Germany and Austria.

  • Accusing a stranger of being a Nazi when faced with reasonable disagreement; the mark of true enlightenment.

  • You've perfectly described the problem with what the OP is proposing. Disagreeing with that position doesn't make you a Nazi.

  • First off, waiting in line at TSA while some people get to skip should be pretty far down the list of problems to fix for any reasonable person. It's unfair, but it doesn't hurt anyone. There are finite resources available to fix problems, so why not fix the problems that actually hurt people every day.

    Second off, even if you decide TSA wait times are a high priority problem, this proposal does nothing to fix it. Again, why not spend these resources on reducing wait time for everyone?

    All this does is draw attention to people spending their way around an inconvenience, without actually fixing the inconvenience to for ordinary people. It's generating outrage without fixing the problem.

  • Don't you understand, if we make the symbols illegal then people won't have those beliefs anymore. Duh.

  • You've just described how it is a solution; it's additional ID verification capacity.

  • That's 100% my point. Why not fix the problem for everyone instead of banning a solution.

  • No, they're manufacturing outrage by saying "look at those people that are skipping the line, don't you hate that." They're just trying to get popularity points. It's a completely manufactured problem, and they're wasting time and resources that should be spent on real problems.

    If TSA lines are a genuine problem that these politicians feel need to be fixed, then they can do plenty of things without Federal TSA policy changes.

  • Improve TSA? Nah. Let's ban the better system instead.

    This is 100% political pandering. It has nothing to do with fixing a real problem.

  • Don't get me wrong, I think that's where the money should come from too. I just meant where else is the money going to come from in the current US healthcare system.

    Unfortunately, we don't live in a country where that's the case right now. I think it is still a very good thing to donate blood, despite having for-profit/privatized healthcare.

  • Fair enough. If that's the philosophy you want to live by, then who am I to say otherwise.

    Personally, I'd rather help people the best I can in the world I live in.

  • But where does the money come from? It sucks that in the US it has to come from the patient, but that's the world we live in right now. I think it's worth doing all the good you can with the tools available at the moment. Even if it's not perfect.

    I'm just assuming you're in the US. Sorry if that's not the case and your country has a different situation.

  • That's a terrible reason. You would rather a patient in need not have blood available than be charged for it?

    There is definitely price gouging in blood. But it also requires testing, transportation, and storage before it can be used. The money for all that has to come from somewhere (unfortunately in the US it's usually the patient).

  • I would have thought so too, but they're working on at least one. Although you're right about a lot of places being unfeasible--anything more than dirt/gravel in a very limited number of communities would be cost prohibitive.