“Can we have it back?” 🥺

“Umm… no. We’re still looking at it.” 🧐 🎩

For example in Australia with door dash. A family bundle $24.95 maccas meal costs $29.95 on door dash, say 3x these base price $74.85, approx $80 like the example given. Already the cost is $15 extra. Then it's $8.95 delivery. And then there's the random service fee which isn't a set amount and you won't know the price until the time you go to order. I've had it around 10% before, sometimes higher sometimes 0. So yes it easily and often works out even here at around $30 off additional prices to pay on a $80 order.

Director of The Met was quoted as saying "Clearly those artifacts belonged in a Museum" before directing his security agents to throw the reporters over the side.

The "They'll just sell or destroy them" defense is sort of awful. They aren't necessarily wrong, but they also neglect the fact that they've sold and destroyed a lot of them themselves already.

That's how most politicians work though...

All conservatives in Canada and the USA are racist, misogynistic bible thumpers? Lmfao you need to get off Reddit for a bit.

The ones that [I] knew about ended up in other schools. (Possibly ones that specialized in maintaining discipline and safety.)

[removed]

there are conservative people, then there are american style of MAGA like conservative people.

they were/are very much influenced by us politics.

British museum looking at the Met: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

They're just expelled to a different type of school if they are. Kids have a right to be educated. If he'd been at Wendy's rather than a school. . . .

This is the best thing (outside of taking the guns away) that could have been done. I suspect they prevented something much worse from happening.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

We used to live in the neighborhood near that high school. It would be incredibly easy to get a gun on the street if he had some money.

Imagine taking a cut from the restaurant 's sale, and then still charging a delivery fee on top of it.

[removed]

Huh. I didn't hit it. Try opening it in an incognito tab.

> You bring stuff up like saying rent 200% of mortgage and then admit the mortgage amount is irrelevant

I just brought up the exceedingly high cost of rent from the renter's side. You decided to make it about the landlord being coerced to rent for lower based on their situation. They don't have anything to do with each other even though you keep attempting to conflate them.

> Then you make up a definition of hoarding that is also silly,

Sigh. Maybe this is cute for you, but it's just sad for me to have to interact with.

> having 10 $1 bills is not hoarding and neither is owning 10 rental properties

I can tell you must be a landlord, because no ordinary person would make such an asinine comparison of $10 to 10 rental properties. $10 isn't enough for a combo meal at McDonalds. 10 rental properties requires a literal management group. If you have so many rentals they have to be organized, you have too many.

> Hertz isn’t hoarding cars by having a rental fleet, Marriot isnt hoarding hotel rooms by owning Thousands of hotel rooms

These aren't properties, these are assets. Try and keep your comparisons in the same ballpark.

> landlord isn’t hoarding because they rent out more than 0 rental properties

> You want to control people with what they buy, I don’t. You give no rational explanations just the usual mistaken belief that somehow you are entitled to something just because.

> You utterly ignore reality, wanting there to be no landlords

Are you even responding to my posts anymore, or just arguing with the increasingly agitated voice in your head? I brought up "no hoarding" and what you instead decided to read was "NO LANDLORDS. NO RENTALS FOR ANYONE."

You understand what "too much" means, right? You know what "greedy" means, right? It means you are taking more than your share. It's the core of the whole "1%" movement. I'm curious if you have a reason that you want to encourage that the richest people in this country get richer off the most finite resource we have (land) while everything gets smaller and more expensive for everyone else. Are you just ignorant to how capitalism works, or do you genuinely just enjoy people having less money and less property?

What it seems to come down to is: I believe that landlords are probably fine when they don't control excessive amounts of land. You believe landlords are fine and that they SHOULD control excessive amounts of land.

[removed]

[removed]

they can't wait for the next one

🤷🏻‍♂️then idk. Maybe we just salt the earth so they can’t grow anything and these properties look barren and ugly.

Fellow special ed teacher here, you are spot on, the only issue is if the manifestation hearing finds that the discipline issue was a result of the disability, that's when it gets murky (so I have been told, I have never seen it first hand).

It’s true. The prop system in CA is flawed and if it did succeed they would have just put it on a new prop the next year as well. I am always inherently skeptical when there is a prop with tons of funding going towards it. Research people!!!