You’re the one who recharacterized AI Proofreader’s factual statement about CHIP as “thinking of the children.”
IOW, you were provided with facts, you transmuted them into a statement of opinion, and now you have a problem with that.
You have a problem with yourself. I’ll stand off while you resolve it.
David Dayen, nicely parodying Ann Coulter:
That might be true if Al made a factual statement, but he did not.
Yeah, and it would be nice if you said what wasn’t factual, but you did not.
Post # 900. Opinion, not fact.
That seems to be a growing problem around here, posters not understanding the difference.
You’ve stated that the Government isn’t supposed to regulate ISPs. Do you consider that opinion or fact?
C’mon. It’s up to those arguing that the government should regulate to defend their argument.
“Provide for the Common Defense” is NOT a legitimate argument.
In other words, “Everyone else has to prove their case except me. And if they can’t, I’m right by default!”
I don’t think it works that way.
He does.
Everyone has to prove their case. Repeatedly shouting “General Welfare” is not proving anything.
BTW, are you buying the argument that regulating ISPs is found in the Preamble to the Constitution?
Your repeated “Nuh-uhs” aren’t doing much.
You should go re-read my post, since you only remember half of it.
Which post?
Winners:
Those with families and children, those who invest in 401k’s and stocks ( I predict a boom), people out of work via the trickle-down theory that when business profits are up, they tend to hire more of giving out raises. The Rich. Those who opt not to have health insurance.
Losers: Heavily taxed blue states lose the ability to write off federal taxes because of their state charges too much in taxes. If you think of this, why should anyone be able to reduce their federal tax amount because their state is charge too much? It’s not fair to the other states.
For reference, since you did, in fact, recharacterize my post as just “Won’t somebody think of the children!??!”
What about this is not a factual statement? CHIP was not reauthorized. It likely won’t be. 9 million kids will lose health insurance. Sure, the remainder of the post is snark and indignation, but hey, talking about the thousands of kids who are going to die isn’t exactly a lighthearted topic.
If “some of whom will die” is the non-factual thing you’re objecting to, I would direct your attention to the studies showing that 45,000 Americans currently die, each year, due to lack of basic health care.
That’s with 28 million Americans uninsured. Add another 9 million uninsured, and you’re talking about an additional 14,464 deaths per year based on the 45,000 who die.
But let’s be optimistic and assume 3/4 of those kids will be able to find alternate health insurance and care. We’re still talking about 3,616 dead kids.
Per year.
Hell, let’s assume they’ve overestimated the number of people who die due to basic care - let’s arbitrarily drop that again to 1,000.
How many dead kids is too many? Yeah, SOMEONE THINK OF THE FUCKING CHILDREN INSTEAD OF THEIR BILLIONAIRE DONORS.
ANYONE in Congress would be a start.
What, are you claiming that it’s just AI Proofreader’s opinion that CHIP has been covering 9 million children?
Well, hokay then. :rolleyes:
ETA: Never mind, I see AI Proofreader has already brought this up as part of a much more thorough rebuttal/dismantling. 
With the bill’s passage soon approaching, it’s worth repeating the polling on this:
These tax cuts are LESS POPULAR than past tax increases.
Paul Ryan must be wondering if the GOP can afford more victories like this.
Yeah, but that’s just polling *people. *
Has anyone polled the donors? Huh? Huh? 
What matters to the GOP Congresscritters is how it polls with people who vote in Republican primaries during midterm elections.
It did occur to me how the GOP just seems to be screwing up left and right on their bread-and-butter issues. At this point, Republicans could decide to start giving out candy to kids, and mess it up by thinking that kids love nasty black licorice.