Recent comments in /f/news

MBThree t1_ja85wgq wrote

I’m in California, and a ton of our nurses threatened/planned on striking late last year. The threat of strike was enough to get them a new pay deal, and they didn’t have to actually end up striking: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/kaiser-permanente-averts-strike-nurses-win-225-pay-hike-new-deal

3

MeatsimPD t1_ja856uw wrote

> Israel only establishes new settlements in Area C

  1. that's not true https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esh_Kodesh

  2. if Israel was following the intent of the Oslo Accords (which creates the area A, B, C system) they wouldn't be building new settlements AT ALL.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine

Don't forget that right wing extremists (the same kind who run the government in Israel now) assassinated the Israeli PM who signed the Oslo Accords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

Right wing Israelis never had any intent to follow the Oslo Accords

6

ms_mel_kruger t1_ja8552d wrote

So. . . Just did a little reading, the same stuff that’s in our cosmetics is also used for brake fluid, antifreeze, film, solvents, paint and ink (ethylene glycol) And on the polyester we wear and sweat in is also used in antifreeze (ethylene glyco) Then there’s flammable isobutylene which is used to manufacture tires (and helps give rubber it’s rubberiness) which makes me wonder how much of this stuff is in our air and water as tires wear down and are replaced whenever travel And the ethylhexyl acrylate which is used in adhesives and construction materials and probably caused the Nicky mouse voice on that viral video And finally vinyl chloride which is used to make pvc plastic and is a well documented carcinogen I do wish we had better choices than these things

0

MeatsimPD t1_ja83ihg wrote

> hasn't Israel already offered them multiple treaties that would give them ownerships of large sections (as in nearly 90%) of the disputed land, which Hamas has just rejected out of hand?

No. You should provide sources for such a claim.

Here's the last peace deal offered and the only one to include formal borders. It was rejected by the Palestinians (who weren't invited to the meeting) and the Jewish settlers organization

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan

Edit: Hamas has rejected peace offers, the Palestinian Authority has not rejected any offer for "90% of disputed territory" nor has such an offer been made

−2

asdaaaaaaaa t1_ja83fa2 wrote

Yeah, your gun will really stop a car. You do realize if you start shooting/threatening at someone, I'd be betting they'd want to run you down irregardless for their own safety. I wouldn't blame them either, there's not many scenarios where introducing a gun actually helps your safety. Especially when you're so sure of yourself, you seem like the type of person to flash a gun because someone cut you off.

1

m1sterlurk t1_ja838xn wrote

You don't seem to follow what I was getting at.

This clinical research that you wish to promote over the "pro-weed" lobby is somewhere between 50 and 60 years behind because prohibition was a hard obstacle to that research being conducted. Marijuana has been prohibited at the federal level since 1937, when its prohibition was passed with motivations provided and promoted by one Harry Anslinger. Anslinger believed marijuana caused the degenerate races to think they are equal to the white man and that smoking marijuana would cause our youth associate with Jews. The variance between the "paraphrase" I present and the "actual quote" in both of those instances is negligible.

It doesn't matter if the "pro-weed lobby's" research is 100% full of shit or 100% true. The "pro-weed" lobby didn't forcibly stand in the way of researchers with more neutral intentions. Prohibitionists did. You could "technically" conduct research on marijuana throughout prohibition, but the weed was grown at one government farm and you had to apply for permission to access it for research. If your hypothesis even hinted at trying to prove that marijuana caused less harm than government propaganda stated, you weren't getting permission.

We had the option of being more clear on the concept that "just because it takes a massive quantity of THC to cause a fatal overdose doesn't mean the quantity that will cause you to develop schizophrenia isn't unattainable". We would have found that out sooner if our laws did not operate on the assumption that smoking one joint will turn you into a permanent rapist.

Cannabis and its relationship to cancer: both in terms of what products in cannabis can be of benefit to those with cancer as well as dangers of cancer presented by various means of cannabis consumption, would be better understood if cannabis consumption of any type were not considered "getting stoned". I feel that the cancer risks from smoking it are a "no shit sherlock" thing. I used to smoke a pack and a half of Marlboro Menthols a day. I have never smoked a volume of marijuana equal to the volume of that tobacco in less than a week and I have had some periods of VERY heavy usage in my life. Research into cancer risks from other means of consumption were fully impeded by prohibition.

Idiots who think something cures everything exist across the medical and pseudo-medical fields. Have you had your chakras realigned with a tincture of 0.00001% vegan mineral oil and a shiny blue rock up your ass? You know that is a horrible idea because mineral oil and shiny blue rocks are not criminalized. When legal prohibition doesn't stand in the way, the researchers with the intentions you desire: whether it be a truly neutral approach or an approach that is predicated on the the assumption that the substance presents danger from the onset, works as a force to suppress the extreme nonsense as a natural force. Because prohibition broke that dynamic, you now see what happens when you force research "underground". Good job. It's you, hi, you're the problem it's you.

1

magellan315 t1_ja7zn3v wrote

The 1967 War was due to the fact that multiple Arab countries were massing soldiers, air planes, and tanks near the Israeli border in battle formations, should they have waited to be attacked first? The peace talks through the U.N. failed and allowed the Arabs to stall for time.

Then of course there is the 1973, 6 day war, where the Arabs attacked on the most sacred day of the Jewish religion.

4