Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Woobie]

Yeah, I'm familiar with Malthus. I also recognize that we may be approaching a technological singularity. And that the slope of the population curve is going logarithmic.

That's the problem when attempting to interpolate the future based on the past. I've also seen the "cone of humanity" foto where all the people in the world don't make a very big dent in the Grand Canyon when stacked on top of each other. Unfortunately, the infrastructural imperative doesn't have quite the same effect.

And every time someone says "it'll be different this time. I promise." It will fail this time too. Probably somewhere around the Tricentennial.

 

[actaeon277]

Come on guys. Look at all the good at it's done in Venezuela.

 

[Alpo]

Reading your posts, you could have fooled me

There was your first unforced error. Stick with ATM. You'll go far.

 

[Alpo]

And every time someone says "it'll be different this time. I promise." It will fail this time too. Probably somewhere around the Tricentennial.

Population 1900: 1,700,000,000
Population 2000: 6,100,000,000
Population 2100: 11,200,000,000

Population 1000 BC: 50,000,000
Population 1 AD: 170,000,000

 

[Woobie]

Come on guys. Look at all the good at it's done in Venezuela.

And if they had enacted legislation that was almost as bad, they wouldn't be any better off now. Maybe the number of dead politicians would be higher or lower by 2 or 3.

 

[Woobie]

Population 1900: 1,700,000,000
Population 2000: 6,100,000,000
Population 2100: 11,200,000,000

Population 1000 BC: 50,000,000
Population 1 AD: 170,000,000

You're not going to reach a critical mass of people where socialism starts working.

 

[Alpo]

You err in your assumption that socialism: 1) will be elective and 2) needs to work.

 

[Woobie]

You err in your assumption that socialism: 1) will be elective and 2) needs to work.

Socialism always winds up being non-elective.

So don't make any assumptions about what I assume.


Beyond that, there is too much history on the few results to the collapse of economic systems. But the short story is that it's usually worse than a collapse of government.

 

[BugI02]

Population 1900: 1,700,000,000
Population 2000: 6,100,000,000
Population 2100: 11,200,000,000

Population 1000 BC: 50,000,000
Population 1 AD: 170,000,000

Population estimate prior to Black Death 450,000,000

Population estimate after Black Death 350 - 375,000,000, central europe's population estimated to be reduced 30 - 60%

Nature has a way of taking care of this if we don't

Behold a pale horse

 

[Alpo]

Socialism always winds up being non-elective.

So don't make any assumptions about what I assume.

Touchy. You assumed that was my point. It isn't.

 

[Woobie]

Touchy. You assumed that was my point. It isn't.

You're the only one who ever accuses me of being touchy.

 

[Alpo]

Perhaps you need a wider circle?

 

[jamil]

I do believe that a single person or small group of rugged individualists who understand that society is about more than individual desires of crabby despots can lead humanity in a better direction. St. Paul, Ghandi, Chuchill and a host of American leaders fit that archetype. Certainly there have been many that I left out for the sake of brevity. It is unfortunate for us that we haven't had a great American president since WWII.

There's no such thing as a society. There are individuals and there are families.

oh. And wwii? Truman? Seriously? Pffft.

Surely you're not talking about that crippled socialist **********.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump now leaning to the Left instead of the Right... abandoning constitutionalists and reaching out to the Democrats.

White House Opens Door to Democrats in Wake of Health-Bill Failure

(Archive WSJ link because **** the WSJ)

 

[jamil]

Trump now leaning to the Left instead of the Right... abandoning constitutionalists and reaching out to the Democrats.

White House Opens Door to Democrats in Wake of Health-Bill Failure

(Archive WSJ link because **** the WSJ)

Dammmit I hate when Ben Shapiro predicts the future.

 

[Alpo]

There's no such thing as a society. There are individuals and there are families.

oh. And wwii? Truman? Seriously? Pffft.

Surely you're not talking about that crippled socialist **********.

I suppose you have your right to your own reality. You do not have a right to determine that societies do not exist for anyone else.

Truman? Try harder.

 

[Woobie]

Perhaps you need a wider circle?

Probably. I don't spend much time around overly-sensitive old liberals.

 

[Alpo]

Ahhh...you mean the majority of this country?

Their loss, I'm sure.

 

[jamil]

I suppose you have your right to your own reality. You do not have a right to determine that societies do not exist for anyone else.

Truman? Try harder.

Here's reality. "Society" is just an aggregation of individuals. Society doesn't have a mind. It can't think. It can't act. It can't desire. Only the individuals which comprise it can do those things. Society did not elect Obama. Only about 20% of the 325,000,000 individuals living in the US society made that choice. A slightly lower percentage of individuals voted for Trump. THAT is reality. People who go around thinking societies are cognizant entities are fools.

There is no such thing as a society. There are individuals and there are families that make up what we call our society. A society has no real voice. A society only has the voices of individual members, some of which have more influence than others. Whoever made you think society thinks or acts as one has duped you with pies in the sky bull****.

And. Truman? I don't think highly of him anyway, but even being in the bottom quartile of presidents, Truman still ranks higher than the cripled socialist ********** you're apparently thinking of.

 

[T.Lex]

How could I regurgitate Trump if I don't listen to him speak?

Ditto for me on Paul Ryan or any of them. That's why you should be more careful in your speculation.

And if you hadn't been keeping score, he at least publicly supported this, which I did not.

I was not limiting that to this issue.

I'm not supporting any caucus, I am opposing this bill. It was feckless, and it was impotent in reversing the harms of the ACA.

So, what do you think the harms of the ACA are?

Will you not admit at least that the proposed bill was an increment towards reversing parts of the ACA?

I guess that's what I'm missing. No one has actually articulated how the proposed bill would be MORE damaging than the ACA. It appears those on INGO are simply against it because it isn't a total repeal.

Can you elaborate on how the proposal would be worse than current state?

It was an opportunity for the GOP to effect meaningless change while saying they had fulfilled the obligation the people gave them at the voting booth last fall. It was all about the optics, and even that didn't work for them. I do not support bad policy, even when Ryan says it is good. Thinking outside the party line. It's refreshing, and you might try it.

... and the horse you rode in on.

Wait. That's not fair. I have nothing against the horse you rode in on.

The "party line" was trying to undo Obamacare.

Maybe you should stop towing the Democrat party line.

You're the only one who ever accuses me of being touchy.

I think "*****y" is more accurate, if that helps.