-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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 Todd Gack
-
-
10 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:
You are a fucking imbecile. A true troglodyte. I hope you didn't go to UT.
I read this in the voice of Larry David and holy shit lol
-
On 3/20/2020 at 7:02 PM, ZB'Tejas said:
Picked these up today and going to break into them. One on the right was the #1 rated Whiskey in 2019.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe Dickel tasted like someone dropped a bottle of multivitamins into a bottle of Jim Beam. Worst bottle I've ever had, even as a mixer. Hopefully your experience is better.
-
1
-
-
so uh.. Sean Spicer is a WH reporter now? is this real life?
-
2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:
9/10 who tested positive had no symptoms. Don't neglect that detail.
doh! yes, left out the key word. thanks.
-
53 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:
In case anyone is wondering why wee should increase testing.
and apparently 9/10 of all people tested had no symptoms. this fuckin virus...
-
Can someone hold my hand through this? part (c) basically states that it's secondary to insurance. So does this mean that it covers 100% for the uninsured and it covers the balance for people who have insurance? Meaning, it would basically allow to the CDC director to use funds to help people w/ insurance pay toward their deductibles?
§ 71.30 Payment for care and treatment.(a) The Director may authorize payment for the care and treatment of individuals subject to medical examination, quarantine, isolation, and conditional release, subject to paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.
(b) Payment for care and treatment shall be in the Director's sole discretion and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Payment shall be secondary to the obligation of the United States or any third-party (including any State or local governmental entity, private insurance carrier, or employer), under any other law or contractual agreement, to pay for such care and treatment, and shall be paid by the Director only after all third-party payers have made payment in satisfaction of their obligations.
(d) Payment may include costs for providing ambulance or other medical transportation when such services are deemed necessary by the Director for the individual's care and treatment.
(e) Payment shall be limited to those amounts the hospital, medical facility, or medical transportation service would customarily bill the Medicare system using the International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification (ICD-CM), and relevant regulations promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in existence at the time of billing.
(f) For quarantinable communicable diseases, payment shall be limited to costs for services and items reasonable and necessary for the care and treatment of the individual for the time period beginning when the Director refers the individual to the hospital or medical facility and ends when, as determined by the Director, the period of apprehension, quarantine, isolation, or conditional release expires.
(g) For diseases other than those described in paragraph (f) of this section, such payment shall be limited to costs for services and items reasonable and necessary for care and treatment of the individual for the time period that begins when the Director refers the individual to the hospital or medical facility and ends when the individual's condition is diagnosed, as determined by the Director, as an illness other than a quarantinable communicable disease.
(h) For ambulance or other medical transportation, payment shall be limited to the costs for such services and other items reasonable and necessary for the safe medical transport of the individual.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:
Add another state to the list that's ready for single-payer!
Fantastic that they're in favor. Not so much that their vote is basically ensuring the 1 candidate (out of 3) who will fight for it will essentially be finished after tonight.
-
3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:
This attitude seems fundamentally at odds with the reality of the great progressive victories that have actually happened. Loud and annoying protests are what led to civil rights, LGBTQ legal rights, gay marriage, etc. Literally the same legislators changed their minds in many cases because of the screams of protestors wearing them down and turning public sentiment.
Sure guys, combative protests might have created every other good thing that we've done, but let's not protest combatively this time.
They both (protests and legislation) have their place in the process but b_t is actually correct that only one side of this argument is acting condescending and elitist. And simultaneously ignoring that throughout history the dealmaking has never happened until it's been forced by protests.
And let's not even get into the hypocrisy around here of chastising someone for pointing out Biden's horrific legislative legacy while also mocking Sanders' legislative history. He is also correct that there is a real threat of a Biden administration instituting regressive policies so he can feel like he accomplished something. The nomination is effectively over, but the establishment fans are reacting the exact wrong way. Now is not the time to chastise the progressives, it's the time to hold Joe Biden accountable for his past and make sure he understands that protecting banks at the expense of people won't be tolerated. That reaching across the aisle isn't actually a good thing when it results in the Defense of Marriage Act.
Yes, he is an abrasive asshole. Oh well, he's also making a lot of great points that people are ignoring because it's easier than refuting them. And I guess because ripping on b_t is the cool thing to do. Which, for the record, he absolutely deserves and I happily do when warranted. But y'all are missing the forest because of that one asshole tree right at the edge.
I agree with all this. But I think people may be somewhat tainted by recency bias in that recent protests against gun violence have come up pretty empty from a legislative standpoint. The "let's do a fucking march!" crowd needs a W on something so that we feel better about organizing and marching for something as transformative as M4A or tuition-free college.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:
Season 3 drops 3/27
-
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/michigan/ - Sanders better than Biden
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/wisconsin/ - Sanders better than Biden
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/pennsylvania/ - Sanders better than Biden
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/ohio/ - Nothing even close to recent but Sanders better than Biden
RCP has Sanders +5.3 on Trump in Michigan. Biden is +5.2.
In Wisconsin it's Trump +1.0 over Sanders but +1.7 over Biden.
Sanders +3.0 in Pennsylvania. Biden also +3.0.To be honest, I'm the one who is wondering where this narrative that the data shows Biden outperforming Sanders versus Trump in battleground states is coming from. But wait! There's more!
That's already baked in. He's already got a big SOCIALIST tattoo on his forehead to the people that the GOP effectively scares with their messaging. It's already done. He can't get more socialist than socialist.
But Biden is about to get trucked. There will be "Progressives against Biden" PACs that form and are actually run by GOP operatives that point out all the regressive policies Biden has championed. Biden loses the vote of women who hate Trump's creepiness as soon as all of Biden's creepy touching and statements get played on air non-stop for months. Hell, Biden can't even attack Trump on Social Security cuts without questionable statements from his past coming out. And I haven't even mentioned the Hunter Biden thing that will get the Trump supporters frothing at the mouth to vote against him.
The polls I just linked have way more room to get worse for Biden than they do for Sanders.
Fucking hell.. somehow the dems are gonnna fuck this up again.
brb, gotta go donate to Bernie again.
-
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:
I think Biden would pick Mayor Pete, to appeal to the yoots while still being "moderate"--whatever that means anymore.
Pete/Pence VP debate would be very colorful.
-
1
-
-
Is this bad? Seems bad...
-
48 minutes ago, Lobo said:
Next thing you know, he’ll be taking Smucker’s medication.
They have the same symptoms!
-
7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:
i understand that this is going to be a 100 round heavyweight fight that will go in circles for the next 8 months, but here's what people need to realize:
1. this is not about whether socialism is good or bad
2. this is about whether shouting socialism will work for trump
when people (or pundits) complain about socialism being a part of the platform, it's mostly their concern over point #2 above, not about #1. they could give a shit about policy. they're worried that it's giving trump an effective button to push in the election process. the problem is either that people don't have a firm grasp on this, or they just can't tell the difference.
I get this, 'cause I had a similar concern w/ Liz telling people taxes would go up to pay for M4A. It may not have mattered that their overall costs would go down, the "She'll increase your taxes!!" button would've been pushed over and over, in ad after ad.
With Bernie, I think he'll do a good job owning the label. His demeanor won't change. He won't stutter. He'll calmly explain what it means to be a democratic socialist and he'll provide context. And I really hope he asks trump point blank at the first debate, "Donald, what is the definition of socialism." Then he can immediately hit him with the farm bailouts.
-
10 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:
Who says Bernie won't compromise? The idea is that you don't do so until you are forced, everyone is making predictions about the future before we've even gotten to the second state in this presidential primary cycle.
You are also completely ignoring all the grassroots social movements that have been successful in this country that have driven change that is literally outlined in the tweet thread I posted. If it doesn't work, then my point is we will have at least tried to go through a process where we drive social change through a movement rather than hoping a few hundred politicians cast the right vote.
In a Sanders presidency, the majority (bipartisan) vote against MFA is an absolute certainty. The question is how big of a movement do those corrupted votes elicit in response. I ultimately think it won't matter as the pull of corporate greed is too strong amongst too many politicians. Marching in your streets and calling your state reps will only serve to make them become hermits. They'll still vote to preserve the massive healthcare machine as-is.
But the key question IMO is how many old guard dems are challenged by the future AOCs and Ro Khana's of the world. And how much awareness do the marches in the streets raise among the general population so that they will actually vote out these corporate dems.
-
Maher is hit and miss, but this is spot on.
-
9
-
-
5 minutes ago, crash_davis said:
cause it's been awhile since we've had a kate sighting
r/gifsthatendtoosoon
-
19 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:
$5 Barron isn't actually his kid:
lol one of the comments... "I'm not convinced that Eric's father isn't Gary Busey."
-
3
-
1
-
-
-
8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:
No we won't
First - if Sanders gets the nomination, he will win against Trump. Trump is an intellectual lightweight who flies by the seat of his pants. He does not have the intelligence to confront Sanders. Sanders has a genuine message for the working and middle classes. He has never wavered.
Trump can't claim he is part of the rigged system.
Trump can't attack him from a faux-left perspective, as he did in 2016.
That leaves Trump one lane - tired, wheezy, angry superiority complex - where Trump looks his ugliest and disgusts the most Americans.
It's math. Confine Trump to that little corner and he loses - every time.
If Sanders were to lose it will be because corporate media pushes false narratives that support their bottom line - not what is best for America.
I very much believe this will happen and I also think that plutocrats will funnel absurd amounts of money into trump's campaign to wage an amplified fake news war on social media.
Having said that, Bernie wins easily if young people vote because most of them at least can recognize bullshit on FB when they see it.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:
Everyone who bet Biden/Klobuchar, get excited!!
I know we're all thinking it, but nobody is going to say it. So I will. Klobuchar is too ugly to be President. There.
-
-
14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:
It's not "physics". The physics argument you describe is the same argument Al Gore makes. CO2 absorbs a particular wavelength of energy. Everyone understands this. However, that energy is absorbed into what is called a "complex system". That term has a particular meaning in science.
It's a question of whether you understand what an experiment is. We are currently engaged in an experiment where we add CO2 to the atmosphere. The same experiment has been run in the past, with no affect on temperature. Since CO2 has been exogenously added to, or removed from, the atmosphere many times in the past without any temperature change, there will not be any temperature change now.
However, when you add fear to a failing social system, the output is money, prestige, and power. That experiment is also well understood.
A more persuasive argument is that we are at the end of the holocene. Cold is way more scary than warmth, which so far has been completely good for the climate. CO2 is plant food, the earth is 17% greener as a result of more CO2.
I'll be looking for the chart that shows CO2 has ever driven temperature in the past.
Why is physics in quotes? Does physics not explain how CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and causes temperatures to rise? Or is that fake physics? Is your assertion that this energy absorbed into your super fancy "complex system" somehow avoids following the rules of physics and *doesn't* cause temperatures to rise? How can it take you 5 minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes?
So lets say the CO2 never *initiates* global temperature rise. We'll agree that those rises in temp are caused by orbital forcing (I don't know if that's completely true). The fact remains that warmer oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere (there's that pesky physics again). And that causes further warming. Who gives a shit what started it? If us humans are pumping in greenhouse gases that are amplifying the warming that was initiated by something other than CO2, maybe we should figure out how to stop pumping so much shit into the atmosphere. Why does it matter that lighter fluid doesn't actually strike the match and produce the flame? If the forest floor has lit matches scattered around, it's always a bad idea to go around throwing half-empty bottles of lighter fluid into said forest.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:
PBS cut to a closer shot so she's out of the frame. Probably so she wouldn't cause a distraction. Which she did.
He's distracting too. Looks like a fat Peter Griffin.
Donald Trump 2020
in Cloak Room
Posted
yep. This is one of those articles where if even half of it is true, it's still terrifying.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis