In many Indian recipes you toast and finely powder them as part of a spice mix, obviously those are left in, and it’s also a slightly different variety of bay tree. But in European cooking I’ve also only ever seen them taken out after simmering. Although I’m often too lazy and just take them out on my plate.
deleted by creator
wym bumblebees can’t fly I’ve seen them myself
But then it wouldn’t rhyme with extend :(
There are shorter ways but that’s the more formal version, you can also use “que” pretty much any time you could use “qu’est-ce que”.
trans rights extremists
fucking lol
conservatives aren’t hearing stories like this very much, they certainly don’t read the guardian
Ramos’s plight is one of only several instances that contradict Trump’s initial claims that his ongoing immigration crackdown would prioritize deporting dangerous criminals.
They really need better editing. It’s clear from the rest of the paragraph they didn’t mean the ‘only’ but it’s a rather unfortunate error.
lmao is this the english version of the flying lotus copypasta
I’m having some trouble understanding your comment. Are you somehow using both meanings of CBT simultaneously? Would you explain?
obvious troll is obvious lol
Yeah, and therefore the president should have basically no power. Their job should mostly just be going to meetings with other countries on behalf of the government, and other ceremonial stuff.
Ohh right i follow now
I thought vosotros was an informal second person plural, like ihr in German, jullie in Dutch, or kind of like y’all in English. Not the formal second person singular+plural that many European languages have.
Yes, but there is a good reason for that.
No, I understand just fine, we have income taxes here too, they’re just lower. This means that the tax system is fairer because richer people pay more. It also means that people are more incentivised to work, to contribute to the economy, and to invest. I don’t really see what something being taxed a first or second time has to do with anything. What matters is the overall tax burden, which although hard to calculate exactly, is lower here for the large majority of people but distributed more towards richer people - not those with more income but those with more wealth. It may be true that Americans would freak out about such a thing, but that is merely due to quasireligious ideas about taxation from national myth propaganda, not about the actual effect it would have on their lives, and it reveals fundamental defects in the American character.
If you could save 5,000 more but pay 2,000 more, why wouldn’t you want to take that deal? Putting it under your mattress and pretending you don’t have it is the worst idea, the wealth tax is less than the interest rate, so you can always just buy bonds and at least not lose any money like you would holding cash.
So I actually currently live in a country which has this. Income taxes are correspondingly very low and public services are extremely good. So it’s not just that I would be okay with it, I am very satisfied with the arrangement, yes. You seem preoccupied with some kind of religious sanctity of your “savings account” without actually considering what the implications of such a policy are, that’s too bad.
Nope, not only is it not stupid, it is pretty much the best possible taxation system unless your explicit goal is to keep poor people poor and rich people rich.
deleted by creator