Frequentflier

My unlicensed view. Service dogs are of course completely appropriate with documentation. Emotional support dogs are for me a tougher topic. I see photos of people on Instagram - models or ultra rich people of course - flying with their large dogs in the cabin so I assume they are emotional support. Those people appear from their Instagram photos to be completely healthy. I don't buy into the view that other types of animals are service or emotional support - guess I'm biased towards dogs. I would fly with our dog if I was confident it wouldn't suffer or die wherever it is kept on the plane. As long as it was treated well (better than anyone flying in Coach) I'm not concerned about the cost.

Hey BriGuy. I've provided round trip airline tickets up front. Have never been asked for a cash advance beyond that and I wouldn't send any. If a guy insisted on a cash advance I'd pass. If the guy is nervous, tell him you'll give him some of his fee when he arrives. I think both parties are somewhat nervous until meeting in person.

I often see panhandlers with dogs. About one year ago I started buying Petsmart gift cards and I give them out about once every two weeks. Where I usually see panhandlers there is a store about 3 blocks away. I love the reaction I get from the dogs owner and I feel really good afterwards. I buy them in larger dollar amounts in the winter in case the dogs owner wants to buy sweaters, coats or other items to keep their pet warm. Fortunately I've never see a dog with a panhandler that doesn't appear to be well cared for. I can imagine for these people how important their dog is; probably as important to them as mine is to me. I feel a little bad I didn't think of this idea sooner.

Someone I used to work with committed suicide with a gun. His finances had deteriorated, again, and we think he was fearful of no longer being accepted in the high society circles he hung out in. Sure, there are some people that maybe wouldn't have been "friends" with him after he could no longer afford regularly dining at the most expensive restaurants in town or he downsized his home to a less expensive zip code. Those people, I think, would have been the minority and they aren't friends. His wife and children definitely miss him and would have accepted him regardless of the size of his bank account.

1. Its not a speech issue and there are statutes of limitation on claims for libel/slander. There isn't unlimited free speech in the US, something too many Americans don't understand. The concept of free speech, as many use it, relates to prohibitions on the GOVERNMENT impeding speech or prosecuting people for it. But even the government can limit speech when it relates to secret or confidential information a citizen has agreed to keep confidential. 2. When the government isn't involved, speech isn't unlimited. One cannot say or write something about another which harms that person without consequences. Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Employers can place limitations on speech and levy consequences for those who express offensively. Being held liable in a civilian court, somewhat unfortunately, often requires the plaintiff to demonstrate economic damages (someone claims a doctor groped them without proof, the doctor loses patients - income, so the doctor can - rightfully - sue the heck out of the person making the claim). If you were an actor and I made a claim without sufficient proof (think court of law proof) and that caused you to lose a lot of money you could sue me (and if I had money) likely win. Without consequences someone can say anything they want about anyone without the thought they need to be responsible or truthful. 3. To make my point it doesn't matter to me how Spacey responded. My primary point is its not right for anyone to make the claims that have been made over 30 years later given how society reacts because the next time someone makes a claim and its denied the person targeted will have it even harder to protect their reputation and their lives because guilt is too often assumed. The damages from any false claim, whether improper acts of a doctor/actor/whomever, can be far worse than economic.

If it happened, it was wrong. What's also not right is a 14 year old kid going to an adult party at night alone, assuming that's true. There are statutes of limitations for good reasons, the erosion of those exposes anyone to any accusation, and when late makes it difficult to defend oneself. In America an accusation like this is almost a conviction. I think anyone who makes an accusation 32 years later or after the statutory period for a claim should be exposed to libel/slander damages. Think about how many times you were alone with someone in your home or office whether repair person/neighbor/fellow employee/customer/etc/etc and how they could, like this accuser, come out 30 plus years later to say you did something improper. How would you successfully defend yourself? It's not right.

I'll bet that's a very popular password.

You mean a background check for both the client and his potential new friend?

Wow! Haven't heard of this guy before. Must have been something to meet him in person. I don't find facial hair attractive but would make an exception for Adam

A+ for that response. Hope his attitude is contagious.

I can imagine there are men for whom $400/hour, $2,500/session & $6,000/night refers to the money that spills out of their pockets. Likewise who don't have a problem paying those rates and accepting limits that come with them. I'm not in that category and don't feel bad that I'm not. Could be wrong but if I was ok paying $6,000 for an overnight I doubt I'd enjoy the ego of the guy who thinks he's such a joy to be with, limits and all for those rates. Hey, its America so whatever the capitalist wants to buy or sell to a willing seller and buyer. Liam has nice photos, hope his approach works out for him. I'm going to be in LA next week, Liam lost me at the comments Very Happy Customer made above.

Whether it's on a plane, public or office restroom why is it some people don't know it's possible to flush before they're finished as well as at the end? Nothing smells worse than what comes out of some people.

I wouldn't rent my personal home to anyone, ok the Pope would be alright. Do most people who put their homes on Airbnb do it for money? And if someone needs Airbnb money isn't the writing on the wall its time for them to sell, get a better job or something? I know tons of people are ok with properties being used by Airbnb customers. I'm glad my municipality only allows if for peoples primary homes and has to be for a month I believe. If I wanted to live next to a hotel I'd have bought a home where they are zoned. I'm lucky none of my neighbors are into Airbnb and the rental properties I have that are in HOAs prohibit anything less than 6 months.

A guy that hasn't been reviewed on this site by a reputable member, is comparatively very good looking and wants many hundreds of dollars up front. Help me out with this, how often do these circumstances work out well?

No! Completely unacceptable and reprehensible. Rape is not acceptable under any circumstances.

I think six months in jail is insufficient. What he'll find very difficult is a lifetime as a registered sex offender and finding a good job with three felony convictions related to sexual assault. Or maybe his family is rich.

If Kerry became versatile he'd never be able to keep up with all the business coming his way.

Don't sign the pre-nup Kerry without a seven figure minimum payout no matter what causes the break up Its where he winds up keeping the "riches and huge house" when your first grey hair shows up or you can't "love on command" or his riches and huge house catch the eye of an insatiable younger man that chases josh282282. It may be your first time offered millions by an older man Kerry but I suspect 1 percenters like Josh are adept at the chase and closing the deal.

I think you meant to start with "WHEN I make it to 86". You can do it. More fun, less stressing out about too many things and one glass of red wine per day. Never smoke tobacco.

Thinking his husband is even better looking.

Safety first - wear a seat belt when reading AdamSmith's posts.

Of course you're right that technically people are innocent until proven guilty but if Americans really believed that, shouldn't someone's arrest and what they are charged with be kept confidential unless/until they are convicted? I think one reason this information is public is so that the government doesn't arrest and incarcerate people secretly, but perp walks and prosecutor/police press releases never go away even if someone is found innocent. How many times do we recall seeing the arrest on the front page (and nearly constantly repeated on CNN) yet if the person is found innocent that news is in small print on the back page? So IF this guy is found innocent I suspect for the rest of his life when someone Googles his name the arrest for possession of this porn will appear and people will still wonder. Remember the IMF chief arrested in NYC for supposedly sexually assaulting a maid? Several perp walks, lots of press and then the "victim" was determined by the prosecutor to be unreliable and the charges dropped. And for the prosecutor - no negative ramifications for what the case did to the man's reputation or reimbursement of legal fees, etc. The scales of justice aren't balanced at all. The government has unlimited resources and nearly unchecked power. And our elected employees want to give more. I doubt anyone disagrees that if this guy is guilty he should receive a very tough sentence.

Sorry but the "legal scholar" at your school has more to learn or he/she should just admit they aren't much of a scholar. Hastert is guilty of lying to Federal Law Enforcement Officers and structuring cash withdrawals to avoid reporting. Facing up to six months. Had he not agreed to plea there are likely other charges with more potential years (otherwise people have no incentive to plea). He didn't get convicted of just taking his own money out of the bank as the "legal scholar" claims. If he was trusted enough by voters & members of the House to become third in line to the presidency he should have been smart enough to not obstruct reporting Congress put into law and not to lie to Federal agents. Don't want to answer their questions, fine, that's your right. But if you answer it needs to be the truth. Stupid is as stupid does. Its true we don't officially know why he was paying someone $3.5 million in cash. Maybe there is more to come. There are tax consequences for giving someone $3.5 million so I hope gift or other taxes are paid by someone. When Hastert pled guility he admitted the wrongdoing (and that he knew what he was doing was wrong) to the Federal judge. There is a part of the article (linked below) which states "Federal officials told ABC News Hastert's alleged wrongdoing involved the sexual abuse of a male student while Hastert was serving as a high school teacher and wrestling coach decades ago." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dennis-hastert-file-guilty-plea/story?id=34788127

Shkreli's problem is he gloated about the price increase, even saying if he were faced with the pricing decision again he would raise the price even higher. His company isn't the only one who has jacked drug prices up dramatically. Difference is the CEO of the other companies weren't arrogant when interviewed and Wall Street/investors rewarded them with higher stock prices.

1. I don't think it's in Uber's best interests to publicize possible net earnings of drivers as those numbers won't be as enticing as the gross figures and without drivers, well, you know.. 2. I've never used Uber. 3. I think Uber filled a need - cleaner vehicles, drivers that are presentable/courteous/customer service driven. None of those qualities are out of the reach of taxi companies if they really wanted market share back. 4. I think Uber drivers should be treated like employees, covered by insurance, FICA taxes paid/withheld, etc. 5. I think it's unfair, as an example, taxi owners in NYC paid millions for medallions (their loans packaged into investments bought by others) because that was the government requirement for the service they wanted to provide and then faced unregulated competition. Should probably be a phase out period. Yes, # 3 issues applies to those taxis.