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.

Second from left sitting. I'm not a bolted on guy, but damn, girl is fit and is rocking those abs.

This is more for c/wtf than for this... but I'll allow it.

This is exactly what I was thinking. She is thin, but that doesn't necessarily translate into fit.

Wow... Amazing. None is my type. I guess I could go with 2, 4 or 5. But that's if I had to choose.

Can we stop the debate for a second and recognize what a beautiful pair of lips you have?

Ok, let's continue. I vote shaved or trimmed, because it's easier to suck and kiss.

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.

Wouldn't that hurt?

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.

Or some disappeared without a scar. I don't know which is which.

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