unicorn

Which party is the most gay-friendly?

New slide at the Georgia O'Keeffe playground: "When people read erotic symbols into my paintings, they're really talking about their own affairs."

I don't think those new rules would have prevented last week's incident, in which the turbulence came completely suddenly and violently. Like many reactionary rules, they're just window-dressing to appear to be "doing something," in order to give false reassurance over unreasonable fears over extremely rare events. There are some 100,000 commercial flights every single day, and well over 30 million commercial flights every year. These freak events happen less than once a year. As we are repeatedly advised when flying, it's wisest to keep one's seatbelt on when seated, even when the "Fasten Seatbelt" sign is off. Rather than a "Fasten Seatbelt" sign, it should read "Stay in Seat." However, these freak events can't be avoided. The truth of the matter is commercial flights are far safer than car or even rail travel. https://www.oag.com/airline-frequency-and-capacity-statistics#:~:text=SCHEDULED FLIGHT COUNTER&text=With 14%2C323%2C610 flights in total,flights per day is 97%2C439. Absolutely, it's wise the keep the seatbelt on whenever seated. However, passengers do need to use facilities from time to time (with the frequency depending on their bladder size and various health conditions they might have), and they do need to be fed and hydrated. Pilots are hopefully trained to do their best to predict and avoid turbulence. Freak events are extremely rare, and probably unavoidable.

Well, I think the main reason Trump wants to be POTUS again is that he wants to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever imagined that such a corrupt President and political party would ever come into power, but unless the impossible happens--Democrats get over 60% of the US Senate seats and a majority of the House--his win would assure him that he'll stay out of prison until 2029 (by which time he'll be pretty near death, if he makes it even that long given his terrible physical health). As you pointed out, the economies, and especially, inflation, of most western countries are improving following the problems of the early 20s. The high inflation of the early 20s wasn't due to Johnson/Truss policies nor Biden's, but rather due to rampant price hikes resulting from China's disastrous "Zero-Covid" policy and to Saudi Arabia's price gouging in the oil and gas market.

As previous posts have indicated, you have to be an active, contributing member. Although I don't think a precise number has been divulged, I'd guess it means you have to be a member for a certain amount of time, and have posted a certain number of posts/contributions.

Well, "why not?" seems like a silly "reason," since the answer is obviously to give enough time for your policies to work. I do thank you for the article, though, which suggests what might be the real reason: he's really rich, doesn't like the residence, and doesn't care that he's throwing his fellow MP's under the bus. "... from all accounts, Sunak doesn’t seem to be loving life at No. 10... Frustrated politically, life in the cramped flat in No. 10 must have seemed less and less appealing. Especially after his and his wife’s personal fortune increased by £120 million to £651 million in the latest Sunday Times rich list...". His decision, therefore, might just be a way of quitting (at the expense of his party). Now, if only Biden could pressure the President of Israel to call a prompt new election in Israel, maybe they'd get rid of BN...

The press is stating that his conservative party is expected to lose in the upcoming election, but he himself chose the early election date. At first glance, it would not seem to be in his interest to hold an early election. If one of you understands why he's doing this, maybe you might educate me. Thanks

If you had to pick one or the other, you definitely picked the better one. Teotihuacán, as you found out, is an absolute gem.

Everyone (except you) understands that the word "value of something" here refers to its market value, not the amount of what an individual was willing to pay for the good or services. Otherwise, as @caeron pointed out, the word would simply be a tautology. It would be impossible to overpay for anything, since, by your definition, the fact that one willingly spent the money meant one didn't overpay. Not that complicated to understand. As others have pointed out, what's important is that the OP had a good time. Hopefully, he also learned from the responses of @Latbear4blk and gained some useful information. I doubt he was so childish as to impugn jealousy or envy in the response, as you did.

You learn something new every day. I just learned that not all male ballet dancers are gay...

Sorry, but you're wrong as a matter of fact. Overpaying is defined by paying more than is necessary, not more than what one values: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overpayment "... payment that exceeds what is necessary." You're free to invent your own language. But on this issue, it's not a matter of opinion. You're factually wrong.

Thanks for the video. I'm amazed that the victim leaves so much out in the open. That's not something one can do here in Los Angeles. People must be very honest in whatever area that happened.

You can obviously post anything you like. What I pointed out was that it was superfluous (and a bit rude) to simply parrot a critique of @Latbear4blk's post, since you had no additional insights provided in your post. In addition, I felt your response clearly missed the mark of what he was trying to communicate (which, in my opinion, was not that complicated). Just repeating someone else's criticism doesn't make you look clever (or kind)--just snide and catty.

I don't suppose anyone here has a link to the video? It's difficult to look up stuff without both the given and family name.

I may have missed it, but did you go to Chapultepec Castle? The Frida Kahlo house?

If you agree with what another member said, the best and simplest think to do is to click the "Like" icon. If you have nothing intelligent to add, there is no reason to simply parrot what the earlier poster said and go all PhD (pile it higher and deeper) on posters such as @Latbear4blk. As for me, I certainly understood what @Latbear4blk was trying to communicate, and I doubt that it was, as you stated, that he couldn't afford to pay US$300 (or whatever) for an escort, nor that the escort may not have been worth that much to the OP. I believe that what he was trying to communicate was that Mexico is one of those countries in which if the price isn't listed, one is expected to bargain. If one pays more than 50% of the original asking price, it's probably more than one has to pay. My beau and I got back from Egypt in January. I thought I was being clever at bargaining down a vendor to $7 for a couple of cups when he started with $20. I later learned I should have paid around $4. Were the cups worth $7 to me? Sure. Was I appreciative of the advice on how to better bargain in the future? Sure, once again. Money seems to be fairly tight for the OP, so hopefully he learned something constructive from the advice.

That's about US$120, which would still put you way under the budget you announced earlier in the string. Of course, we all have our own preferences, and it's up to you to decide on what level of comfort and convenience suits you and your budget. It sounds as though you missed most of the city's more unique sites, so hopefully in a future visit. To each his own, of course. 😉

Name-calling is childish, invoked by people who can't win a rational argument. The DA's masculinity and appearance are obviously irrelevant to the facts in the case. The jury spent weeks hearing evidence and deliberating over the facts of the case and the law (including one week in deliberations alone). They unanimously determined that the law was broken. The governor was simply scoring political points in a solidly red state at the expense of the law and justice. He can't make it legal to murder for racist reasons, since this would violate the US Constitution. So he just nullifies murder laws with the stroke of a pen.

You are probably right that Rittenhouse will have "life challenges." The huge difference between the two cases was that Rittenhouse was literally chased and attacked, whereas Perry was not. I stay clear of emotional demonstrations, since there a lot of hotheads, and things can get violent pretty quickly. Violence begets violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse "...After a man chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, the youth fatally shot him. His name was Joseph Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse fled and was pursued by a crowd. He fatally shot a second man, Anthony Huber, after the man struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle. Gaige Grosskreutz also approached Rittenhouse, armed with a Glock pointed at him, but Rittenhouse shot and wounded him first..".

Brazilians do need visas for the US, Canada, and Australia: The US sets its visa policy not on threats/reciprocity, but on objective factors. It grants eVisas to countries by a simple formula based on the percentage of people from that country who overstay their visas. I believe the number's 2%--when the number is under that figure, no visa application is necessary from citizens of that country, when it's above that number, visas are required. Now what should be negotiable is the wait time for visa application appointments. Given the hefty fee the US charges for visas, the money is there for staffing, and I agree that there's no reason to be assholes about getting a visa interview. Requiring advance visas has advantages and disadvantages for the country requiring visas. The advantage is reducing the chance of travelers overstaying their visas. The disadvantage is the loss of tourism $$. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages is the only wise decision for a country. If there are few US citizens who overstay their visas in Brazil, it's simply foolish and shooting oneself in the foot to require advance visas. That being said, Brazil can and should negotiate adequate staffing for scheduling visa interviews. The visa fees should cover those costs, so it's simply a matter of hiring/training the additional staff.

Thanks for the report. You had a number of posters (including myself) who tried to dissuade you from the hotel you chose, a low-budget facility. This is not Switzerland. One can get a 3* or even 4* hotel in Mexico City for not a lot of money. It's probably especially important if you don't speak Spanish, since English-speaking staff will be available in 3*, and especially 4* facilities. At least 50% of Americans can at least get by in Spanish. There are a bunch of low-cost websites which can get you to speak essential Spanish in a few months' of 1-hour lessons (they advertise 15-20 minute lessons, but take longer). If you don't use it, you'll lose the language, but at least it'll help you for your trip, especially if you choose low-budget options, and not going on guided tours. For the amount you overspent on escorts, you could easily have afforded one of the places I recommended. When there is a possibility of confusion, one usually adds "MN" to the $ sign when referring to the pesos and "US" to the $ sign where referring to US currency. For example, one can say "I spent MN$2000 on the escort." (MN stands for moneda nacional). If you decide to go to Colombia, I would even more strongly recommend that you choose 4* facilities, as budget/backpacker hotels can be downright dangerous. And if you plan to make future trips to Latin America, I recommend picking up some Spanish (or Brazilian Portuguese, if that's where you plan to go). It's certainly no challenge to find people to practice Spanish with in Los Angeles. I'm glad you enjoyed yourself.

There are two possibilities I can think of, off-hand. One is that the escort wouldn't mind meeting in exchange for minor contributions, such as a nice meal. The other is that the escort genuinely has the hots for you. Keeping general safety in mind (i.e. be careful bringing them to a place you where you have valuables), you could definitely take him up on the offer (assuming you enjoyed your time). I've had offers for reduced-fee future meetings, or offers to consider sugar-daddy situations, but never completely free repeat hook-ups.

What extraordinary lies. He made multiple comments in multiple social media postings in which he declared himself a racist. They were not jokes, and you know it. You also know damned well that the parole board is in no way "independent." They are considered a branch of the executive government and consist entirely of members appointed by the governor himself (with no control on his appointees, since the Senate's approval is perfunctory when the Senate majority is the same party as the governor). https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/opinions/partI/079.html "The Board of Pardons and Paroles is in the executive branch of state government. Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Board_of_Pardons_and_Paroles#:~:text=In 1935%2C the Texas Constitution,authority subject to board recommendation. "In 1935, the Texas Constitution was amended to create the BPP as a member of the executive branch with constitutional authority, and making the governor's clemency authority subject to board recommendation." As you well know it's factually incorrect that they are "independent" of the governor. Also, as you know, neither side can "stack" a jury. Both sides are entitled to the same number of peremptory challenges (in California, it's 6 for misdemeanors and 10 for felonies--it looks as though it's 6 in Texas). https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&ContentID=60713&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm#:~:text=Number of Peremptory Challenges,three in the county court. "...Generally, each party is entitled to six peremptory challenges in a case tried in the district court and to three in the county court...". It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. However, you are making statements of fact which are incorrect--and you know it.