snake_case_guy

I don't know your family composition, but even here in Europe, 30€ for a quick meal for 4 is fucking cheap. Like, under the poverty-line cheap.

"Isn't much cheaper" is still way cheaper than fast food. Just changing your diet to something with less sugar, less fat, less saturated fat, less salt and a more balanced amount of carbohydrates and proteins is going to do wonders in bare months. Even if you keep your calorie intake a constant (which, with healthy food, it means you're gonna eat a fuck ton more).

Healthy food is cheaper not for the price itself, but for the net long term benefit. Less chances of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, while improved vitality, energy and fitness levels.

Should healthy food be cheaper? Yes, it definitely should. Should the estate subsidize or cut taxes on raw food and basic items? Hell yeah it should. Nonetheless, while we still fight and ask for that, eating healthy at home is still cheaper than buying in unhealthy fast food chains.

As per the article:

Flights with a rail alternative that takes less than two and a half hours will no longer be allowed, “except in cases of connection with hub airports that link with international routes”.

The only trip that I know of that takes less than 2.5 hs by train is Madrid-Barcelona and Madrid-Valencia . But Madrid is an international hub with connections to most of the international routes. So, my thinking is that this would not apply. It might only make sense for private flights, which are already very minor, AFAIK.

Again, smokescreen law, from smokescreen leftist party.

The UN is not a military defense organisation la NATO. It has military efforts, but they are all Pacific in the sense that they don't take part and only help the civilian population (e.g.: running medical and food supplies, or protecting hospitals, etc.)

The UN could go for economic and political sanctions, or try to move this in the Hague Courts in case the request goes unheard.

We've only been doing nested if statements, but in a more complex manner.

I don't know

Don't worry, third is the charm!

If not a true story, at least it has a moral: Don't judge anyone until all the facts have been laid out. And not just what each person say, the fucking facts, like video tapes. Or, if you are a God fearing citizen, as Jesus H. Christ said: Don't judge others until you have your fucking facts right. Or something on that line.

Yeah... Sum zero economy and that bullshit. I love the smell of soviet propaganda in the morning.

And I'd say it's still overrated.

From one side, not all protests were against the national government, some if not most, were and are usually against the Buenos Aires City government (which is not peronist), or against some other government. You must take into account that Buenos Aires is a city with a high concentration of institutional buildings. So everything is in Buenos Aires. There's this old saying in Argentina "God is everywhere, but his offices are/he only attends in Buenos Aires"

On the other hand, the peronist party is a highly fractured party. It's more like a coalition of different minded individuals, that gather around the caudillo in turn. That's why Perón himself said "peronists are like cats, when you hear them screaming, they are not fighting, they are matting". Once the caudillo is in power, he must maintain it, and strength demonstrations are usually in the form of "getting the street". Meaning, making a ruckus and sending people to protest. This goes for both sides, sports and detectors.

So, as you can hopefully see, Argentina's politics aren't as straightforward as thought.

Let's add a third one and give them something smaller but comparably hard hard. You know, as a control group.