-
Posts
6867 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Ghost of LL
-
-
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:
pAsS tHe ToRcH tO tHe FrEsH yOuNg MeSsEnGeRs
I really don't understand this "abolish private insurance" drive. If you're pushing for Medicare for all, doesn't that necessarily imply extending the current Medicare structure? Medicare doesn't ban private insurance. It expressly allows for supplemental insurance and Part B plans.
-
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:
Also new Surly motto?
Wear it with pride, my friend.
-
28 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:
so they should be turned away left to die on the street? what do you think we do now?
It's not even a matter of dying in the street. People who have communicable diseases that go untreated run around and infect other people. It's not an immigration issue; it's a public-health issue. We need to treat people who suffer from illnesses, irrespective of their immigration status, in order to protect the public at large.
Look--last year there was a resurgence in whooping cough. Right wingers tried to claim that it was brought by illegal immigrants. It wasn't. That was just another racist lie.
But whatever--let's imagine that it was brought by immigrants. What sense would it make to refuse to provide those immigrants medical treatment and instead leave them untreated to infect others? That's not just vile; it's intensely stupid.
Which is to say that it's completely within the GOP's wheelhouse. "Vile and intensely stupid." might as well be the Republican Party's motto.
-
7
-
-
So did you think Bernie had a good night last night?
-
26 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:
Everyone is too quick to write Biden’s epitaph based on this one debate, but I don’t see that yet.
I will say one thing, however, he looked old.
If Biden continues to perform like that, he will not be the nominee.
Have you seen any indication that Biden won't continue to perform like that?
Between now and the next debates, is he going to get younger? Is he going to not have a questionable record on race, social justice, and combating economic inequality? Is he suddenly going to be able to express succinct coherent thoughts?
-
1
-
-
Bernie demonstrated last night just how much American politics has changed over the last four years. He looked very 2016 up there talking about Medicare-for-all as though it were some new and revolutionary idea. It's not. It may not be an idea that everybody (or even most people) support. But it's neither new nor revolutionary.
So with no new or revolutionary ideas, Bernie just looked old.
So good for Bernie for mainstreaming his ideas. He should retire on that and be very satisfied with his career. But now he just looks like an old ballplayer whom the game has passed by.
-
1
-
-
The entire raison d'etre for Joe Biden's campaign is "I can beat Donald Trump." That is 100% the basis for his current support. Nobody loves Joe Biden because his policy positions. He doesn't have any. Nobody loves Joe Biden because of his intense personal charisma. He doesn't have that.
They'll vote for him because they think he is the best chance to beat Trump.
Did he look like he would beat Donald Trump last night?
He couldn't put together a cogent two-minute thought. On two separate occasions, he had to bail out of his own rambling with "oh, my time is up, ok." No, Joe--your time isn't up. Keep going. Oh, you can't? Ok, then.
Harris just gutted a septuagenarian in front of a national audience. Does anybody think she wouldn't do the same to another septuagenarian if she got the nomination?
-
1
-
-
Biden is a dead man walking. He's done. Feel free to bookmark and call me out on it later.
Yep. He got shook tonight.
Harris might come out of this as your front runner.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
I know. You're just asking questions.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

I can draw conclusions based on evidence. It's not exactly a superpower.
1 minute ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:
Where did you see that I was supporting / defending him?
JFC
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWhen you complain that this photo was published "because of who's in the white house," you adopt a right-wing meme that the media is out to get Trump. You're certainly careful not to say it outwardly, but it is the undercurrent beneath all of your posts.
-
4 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:
Negative
I do not support Trump
But thanks for jumping to conclusions
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkFor a non-supporter, you seem very eager to defend him against the purported agendas of the media.
Sorry, but your denial just isn't ringing true.
-
7 hours ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:
I don't see media running pictures of opiod deaths on the front page. I don't see DWI deaths photos. Is it an agenda? Is it because these crisis aren't as shiny as the border region because of who's in the white house?
Aaaaaaand there it is. You don't want to see it because you view it as an implicit rebuke of this Administration's monstrous policies.
Well, Trump--and, by extension, you--stand rebuked.
And don't think for a minute that you can just hide your eyes and avoid culpability. You know. And if you didn't know, now you know.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:
I didn't say I didn't "want the news", I can read the article just fine. I stand by my opinion that it's sensationalized media and the pictures didn't need to be posted.
Perhaps you should focus your outrage on the governmental policies that led to the kid dying, rather than the newspaper that published a photo of the dead kid.
I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the photograph being "sensationalized." That's a nonsense word that conveys no information other than your subjective judgment. Photographs are important because of how we humans digest and internalize information. The photograph conveys what's happening on the border in a way words never could.
And that's precisely why you object to it.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:
I don't think they should be showing pictures of dead children in the news.
So you don't want the news. You want a sanitized version of the news.
That's fine. I think most people just disagree.
-
5
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:I never said it wasn't important. Just don't like to see pictures in the news of dead kids
Sorry I'm the only one who thinks this way.Can we just speak frankly for a minute, because we seem to be dancing around something important.
Is it that you think a photograph of a dead child should never be photographed, no matter how newsworthy?
Or is it instead that you don't want to see a photograph that lays bare the consequences of our country's abhorrent and inhumane treatment of refugees?
-
10
-
9 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:
How many pictures of a dead toddler do you need to see? I don't think there is a need to show one, much less two.
Are they going to show pictures of every child that dies tragically ?Not every picture of a child who died tragically is germane to the leading political controversy of the day. Nor does every such picture have the potential to significantly impact that controversy.
Is it your argument that a newspaper should not publish this photograph, knowing that it depicts the instant of death of numerous people (including children):

Should western newspapers not have shown this photograph, relecting the Japanese atrocities in Nanking:

-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Recent history is replete with instances of dead or suffering children changing public perception. Just a couple of instances:


The image itself has the power to change perceptions. It is what is framing a debate today. It is newsworthy. And the Statesman would have done its readers a disservice had it opted not to publish it.
-
22
-
21 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:
Said it before, but the North Carolina Supreme Court is now 6-1 in favor of Dems. It might take some time, but they are going to fix the gerrymandering bullshit, and when they do, people will be surprised at how blue the Tarheel State really is.
Would you say that it is more of a Carolina blue or a royal blue?
-
I think Tillis comes by unpopularity naturally.
Honestly, North Carolina really should be a close state. The GOP will cheat. But that seat was held by a Democrat before Tillis took it in 2014. It is winnable.
I'm really torn as between MJ and Royce West. I like MJ, and think she'd be a good candidate. But West would also be a good candidate. And once in office, he would know how to build a party machinery (for better and worse).
-
You know, I hate him. But his shenanigans on the last day that the House could pass Senate Bills made me very happy, as I had a client that would have been very adversely affected by a bill that was about sixth on the agenda when the clock struck midnight. So I have a small soft-spot in my heart for Sticky.
But yeah--fuck him.
-
Honestly, what's the difference between Joe Biden and Mitt Romney?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gravy Train said:
I'd argue work isn't the primary motive for a significant number of migrants who have yet to settle here. Asylum claims have risen 1,700 percent over the last 10 years due to gang violence and worsening economic conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Those nations haven't fostered educations or skills that could translate to much useful work here anyhow, making the U.S. just a slightly-nicer destination to continue persecution.
Where does the list of free shit conclude, since they must wait a minimum of 180 days for a work permit from USCIS, assuming their permit for residency passes at all?
I don't think you have a very good concept of just how much low-skilled labor this economy consumes.
-
If you read all polls right now with an implied "(I guess)" before Joe Biden's name, it becomes a lot easier to understand where this race is at.
(I guess) Joe Biden polls pretty well so long as people haven't yet decided on better alternatives.
-
9 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:
Reread what it says...
Tom Fox had just gotten to courthouse and was about to go inside to cover a trial when he saw this guy get out of a car with weapons, and ducked behind the wall
The way it reads, he saw the guy before any shooting started, so my question is did he call 911 when he saw this? If this idiot had killed someone, and this guy saw him get out of the car with weapons and didn't instantly call 911, then there would have been blood on his hands.
I think the point is that it wouldn't have mattered. In the time it would take to dial 911, let it ring three times (in Dallas, probably more like ten), listen to "911, what's your emergency," and say "holy shit, there's a guy at the federal courthouse . . . ," the dispatcher doesn't have any time to put out a call before the shooting starts. And once the shooting starts, the federal marshals are already there ready to return fire.




Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch
in Cloak Room
Posted
Ok. So this is common in the UK. There's the NHS. But plenty of people have supplemental insurance that allows them to go to doctors who are outside the NHS. They can still go to the NHS, of course. But they can also go to a doctor that doesn't participate in NHS.
Under Sanders' bill, that's not allowed?
How about if we factor out insurance altogether. Can I fund separate medical care out of my own pocket? For example, there are plenty of concierge doctors now who charge $X/month and you go to them as your primary-care doctor (or, more precisely, they come to you). Is that going to be illegal?