You're absolutely wrong. The Times did know they were printing lies about the Russian famine.

You're wrong. They did know. Their Moscow reporter was even dismissive about the famine deaths, and purposely wrote propaganda articles to support the Soviets. Yeah, the Times didn't directly kill anybody, but they actively hid facts about the Soviet regime in order to manipulate US policy, giving legitimacy to Stalin…

Ha, you're a delight! I don't agree with you so I'm a troll! Ah, discourse! :)

A liar who simply points out that someone else is a liar, is still a liar.

Facilitating the creation of a false narrative to justify the US invasion of Iraq isn't what I would call just an occasional oopsie.

Well, not really. The things the Times has lied about resulted in thousands, if not millions of deaths. The stuff with the Soviet propaganda and propping up Stalin was more or less holocaust denial, tens of thousands of Russians were dying of famine a day, and the Times knowingly kept this out of the public knowledge…

If pointing out the absolute fact the New York times has at times had a casual relationship with the truth is offensive to you, then please by all means, block me.

Eh, I know this is going to get shit on, but NYT does't really have the best reputation to be calling somebody out for lying. They won a Pulitzer in the 30's for reporting that was completely fabricating stories to cover up Stalin's atrocities, there's Jayson Blair, and of course the whole pre-Iraq war thing. There's…

Being threatened with face punching and told to shut the fuck up by a person who pretends to be a Sesame Street character on the internet isn't something I expected to result from expressing my anti-four-year-old-death views. What a truly interesting world this is. :)

You're way overthinking this. I don't believe I've suggested at any point nobody should have healthcare, just that with healthcare or not, you're going to die, everybody is going to die, legislation can't prevent that. That's it.

You seemed to be suggesting I was in favor of, or at least indifferent to, 4-year-olds dying. I want you to know, that in fact I wish 4-year-olds would never die, and if that can be accomplished through the legislative process, I would definitely support it.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm just trying to point out the absolute truth that everyone dies, no matter what healthcare legislation you have, and for some reason that's making people very mad.

Again, I would think you would have to show that the bill had free-will, and had clear intent to commit murder, otherwise it's just a tool or object being manipulated by outside forces.

But is that really the bill killing someone, or you using the bill to kill someone? I would say the bill would have to be able to autonomously murder somebody for that to be true.

Put up the referendum that promises 4-year-olds will never die, and I'll vote for it.

I'm sorry Cookie_Monster, I didn't realize who I was talking to, you're obviously going to live forever.

Having insurance doesn't make you immortal. Those people you know, they're going to die, ACA or no ACA.

Legislation isn't capable of preventing any death. It's aspects may possibly help delay death, but you're going to die, there's no bill that can stop that.

Insurance companies are making their profits by not participating in things everybody is saying is so great about the ACA, they're dropping out of the subsidized exchanges (which is where you'll likely find the pre-existing condition users), because that's where they lose money. They're making money off of the…

It wasn't designed to work, and it's opponents weren't willing to help make it work in order to deny a "win" for the other side. It can be two things.