351–360 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing. Arguably the primary threat to modern sea lanes is Iran. Right now Iran is harrasing traffic. Previously the Houthis, generally considered an Iranian proxy, were harrasing traffic. Its all kind of the same war, this is just the end game.
> Right now Iran is harrasing traffic gee, I wonder why they're doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model. But they don't. This is clearly a pro-insurer talking point. Europe just negotiates on a state based level so therefore is able to negotiate better prices.
Medicare also negotiates on a state based level and represents more people than most European countries. Right now the US governments collectively spend more than most European countries per capita on health care. The states and Feds. Totally exclusive of the private market spending. Expanding Medicare/Medicaid may be great for other reasons but does not solve the underlying cost problems in the US.
sure but neither does blaming the EU for its healthcare system as some odd mental gymnastics into twisting it into a rationale about why universal healthcare "isn't possible" in the US.
Its a choice the US makes, while creating huge deficits fighting pointless wars at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now turn your argument towards Saudi Arabia, or any of the human-rights violating countries that the US supports or has supported recently. Your opinion is respectable, but not compatible with any idea of “justice”.
The point being that eliminating a murderous tyrant is bad, because there are other murderous tyrants?
This doesn't include generational damage in sentiment: * Europe is in trouble because they can't get gas from Russia, Qatar stopped supplying gas * Japan is in trouble because Middle East supplies its 75% of oil, which is blocked now * Ukraine is in dilemma, because US giving every support to Israel, but not to Ukraine * Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain is asking questions, if US can't defend us and is moving all defensiv…
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. People here seem to also have no perspective, since it is not in the wheelhouse of most tech people, on the fact that this is all a part of a 40 year strategy (as Netanyahu himself has openly stated) that some refer to as the “the Clean Break Strategy” or the “7 countries in 5 years memo”[1]. It clearly took longer than 5 years, but they definitely tried and even the likes of Hilla…
To wit: when you disagree with everyone, it looks like they're conspiring against you to control the masses, yada yada yada. They're not, you're just in a small minority (or an epistemological prison).
[1] Hardly surprising, since international geopolitics is exactly where you'd expect their interests to align.
Next time someone asks how we're going to pay for, eg, free school lunches, keep this site in mind.
The question is fundamentally poorly formed, and as a consequence, so is the rebuttal. A state can pay for anything, since it doesn't have to be in a budget surplus. Household budget analogies emerge any time someone wants to limit spending, or criticize spending, but one of the biggest points of Wealth of Nations (which is the foundation for modern macroeconomics) is that the budget of a state is fundamentally diffe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you, but I choose for myself what rights I support and yes, it is rights on both sides.
No... thank YOU for believing in the right of Palestinians to return to their homes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. People here seem to also have no perspective, since it is not in the wheelhouse of most tech people, on the fact that this is all a part of a 40 year strategy (as Netanyahu himself has openly stated) that some refer to as the “the Clean Break Strategy” or the “7 countries in 5 years memo”[1]. It clearly took longer than 5 years, but they definitely tried and even the likes of Hilla…
Counterargument: squabbling about "blue team vs red team" is legitimate domestic politics about issues important to voters. You're just upset because what you think the "the whole game" is about is a rare area of general agreement[1] and you happen to be on the "other side". To wit: when you disagree with everyone, it looks like they're conspiring against you to control the masses, yada yada yada. They're not, you're…
if it was indeed about domestic policies, why promises were not held given to the "team"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... so let's allow slavery to run. Obviously we look at world differently, but I was under impression that slavery wasn't abolished, it just got different form with slightly more rights. Late-Capitalism as slave owners, workers as slaves, because their health insurance tied to their work, they can be punished without notice (at will employment), wealth gap is 50-2000x between Lord in feudalism (CEO / rich / ultrari…
No offense intended, but that is an ignorant take. The law of the land in the U.S. was that one human could literally own another human being (with all the implications of property ownership, including disposing of it and abusing it at your leisure). How such a despicable mindset took hold and was allowed to go on for so long, is beyond modern comprehension. You mentioned many other injustices but none of those are "…
Human nature didn't change, it is still power hungry, small percentage of narcissistic people want to control the masses and exploit, give them a chance (I mean to current capitalists), you will become a slave.
Look at the Elon and what he did to X employees, some were sleeping in the office "proudly", who still got laid off anyways, look at the Bezos, who fought against forming unions. So you think those people are different then slave owners? deep inside they are same, power and capital hungry, ready to do anything to get more powerful (see any big tech corporate, blood bath of politics at the top to fight for staffing and stack ranking to show "impact")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterargument: squabbling about "blue team vs red team" is legitimate domestic politics about issues important to voters. You're just upset because what you think the "the whole game" is about is a rare area of general agreement[1] and you happen to be on the "other side". To wit: when you disagree with everyone, it looks like they're conspiring against you to control the masses, yada yada yada. They're not, you're…
red team was against endless wars in Middle East, red team specifically elected Trump to be America first and to stop all wars. if it was indeed about domestic policies, why promises were not held given to the "team"?
There has been no significant realignment of US geopolitical positioning between the parties, nor should you expect there to have been. That you thought there was is, to be blunt, on you. You followed a charlatan and got burned. You should have known better after you got burned the first time.
[1] Again, hardly surprising. He lies about everything.