But you seem to be overlooking the key point here, which is that the joke isn’t relevant to the context of the article.

So... they aren’t good enough to be showcased, therefore they’re banned from the audience?

Can you explain it to me? Because I honestly don’t get it.

You are clearly just a person who generally doesn’t care about the NBA

Please keep this updated every 3-6 months!

Chris Paul is great, but Harden is the better point guard

On the other hand, KD uses burner accounts to directly respond to those angry commenters

I lived in Philly 5 years, I loved the food scene there, and the cheesesteaks are gross.

It’s acceptable for you to not be attracted to certain types of people, but saying “I wouldn’t touch a fat girl” is what makes you such a despicable person. If you don’t understand that, then you are both a horrible scumbag, and a genuinely stupid person.

You are truly a disgusting scumbag. My day is a little bit worse knowing that you exist.

Right. And if it is just a misogynistic fantasy, then it means they are a bunch of frauds that were benefitting from passing fantasy off as non-fiction.

They really aren’t appropriate comparisons because Durant can shoot and Simmons can’t. Giannis makes more sense to me.

Well, you brought this up in the comments section of a Car-T approval, so I’m assuming this scenario would be applied to a CarT-like market. In a Car-T market, such as adolescents with b-cel ALL and inadequate response to 2-3 prior lines of chemo, it absolutely is fair to assume that every eligible patient will try to…

“even if the same amount of money is spent over all, the benefit to a public subsidy is that the government would have greater control over pricing.”

This is just a weird strategy for reducing the cost of drugs. Your solution is essentially for the government to approach pharma and say: “instead of charging $1 million per drug to treat 100 patients in the market, how about we just hand you $100 million and you treat patients for free?”

Are you saying that the government would have greater control over drug pricing if they had the power to award a $100 million subsidy to pharmaceutical manufacturers achieving clinical breakthroughs?

But where does the $100 million prize money come from? If it’s coming directly from taxpayers, then it isn’t much better than the current system where the cost of the drug is covered via insurance premiums.

I think this is overly dramatic. Meaningful wealth distribution can also occur in the form strengthened social welfare programs, without directly focusing on the transfer of wealth from rich to poor.

I really don’t think it’s possible to understand their perspective until you commit to watching Fox News 6 hours a day for a month.

Your comment seems measured and reasonable, but honestly it still offends me to highlight cops’ fear and poor training. The cops’ actions are a result of institutionalized racism, not inadequate training.