Caecus

Members
  • Content count

    1115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

354 Excellent

4 Followers

About Caecus

  • Rank
    Exalted Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Alliance Pip
    Noir
  • Leader Name
    Caecus
  • Nation Name
    Rosecourt
  • Nation ID
    9270
  • Alliance Name
    Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

1623 profile views
  1. Really? Those people on the Mayflower called themselves pilgrims. The Visigoths settled the lands in France initially and were declared citizens of the empire before sacking Rome. The Manchus were once part of border and vassal states to the Han and were Chinese in all but name. As for the Mongols... Well... You got me on the Mongols... But that still doesn't account for the other examples I gave! I can only remember one instance of "immigration" that was beneficial to the nation state, and I seem to recall it was all from Africa. You know, the "immigrants" who arrived in the Americas who increased agricultural output in a labor-deficient demographic American South? I find it ironic that the immigrants we sought out so much (an understatement, to be sure) 300 years ago for their contributions and productivity are the same immigrants who you think less preferred than Norwegians. Remind me, what good has Norway brought to the New World besides all the genocidal pale-skinned quislings that are draining our economy with their socialist desires for universal healthcare and a guaranteed income?
  2. Bullshit. Immigration is a terrible thing. Give me one example where a nation profited from immigration. The Manchus and Mongols took over China. The Visigoths in Rome. White people in North America. Almost every instance of immigration resulted in the collapse of the nation state, or a mass genocide where a shit ton of the native people died.
  3. Guys, guys. You all have it wrong. Remember, Roz is from Britain. The answer to his loaded question is neither! Brexit was all about not letting those dirty criminal Norwegians into the country. If Roz can't stand the whitest of the white countries, assuming he's not a racist, we should conclude that the answer to Roz's question of where you would prefer immigrants to come from is nowhere. Immigration is - obviously - a globalist conspiracy designed to weaken the nation state and degrade its wealth.
  4. Yeah, and I'm asking you who is accusing Clinton? In the case of Moore, real people came out and said Moore tried to date them when they were in their teens. Obviously, someone who Clinton is accused of killing can't be the accuser. Who is the person(s) that accuse Clinton? The fact that you can't name X guy who was related to the victim, or Y lady who saw it happen, goes to show that your whole "Clinton was accused of killing someone and you supported them" ploy is bullshit. Do you see the !@#$ing difference? Soooooo....? You dislike Trump because he's a piece of shit that doesn't keep his promises? Aren't you still agreeing with me pretty much? Stop flip flopping. Do you like Trump because he's a piece of shit, or do you hate him because he's a piece of shit? It seems you have accepted the premise that Trump is a piece of shit, so which is it?
  5. Do tell. Who did the Clinton family kill? I'll pretend like what you are saying actually has merit behind it, and ask for some evidence. A video clip would be fine. You could at least tell me who you thought Clinton killed. Your entire sentence here is so vague, you don't mention anyone's name, except for Clinton. Are we still talking about that prostitution ring in the basement of the pizza place? You know, the one where a Trump supporter walked into and shot his AR-15? Wait, how is Trump not a standard politician? Trump's policies are straight out of the Republican cookbook. Just look at taxes, that's a conservative wet dream. The only way he's not a "standard politician" is when he tweets dumb shit and endorses pedophiles and says he grabs women by the !@#$. Which, as we already established, makes him a giant egotistical entitled piece of shit, and we don't like that? I don't understand, do you like Trump because he's a piece of shit, or do you dislike Trump because he's a piece of shit?
  6. Clinton is accused of killing people? Who did Clinton kill? Also, who accused Clinton of killing people? Was it someone who saw Clinton kill people? Or was it a bunch of dumb shits on Fox and Friends who don't know anything? You would imagine the Republican committee investigating Clinton would be a more reliable source of accusations than Fox and Friends. So Trump is a rich, entitled piece of shit who doesn't have any respect for women. Okay. We finally agree on something! I still don't understand how this justifies supporting Trump. What I'm asking is, are you actually disgusting with Trump but bear with him because of policy issues or are you faking it because there is overwhelming evidence that Trump is a piece of shit? If it's the former, that's more understandable. I wouldn't call you an amoral puritan, I would call you a coward. If it is the latter, what do you think that says about you?
  7. Let me spell it out for you: When you reply to someone, you quote them, and then you write your response in the quote. Which means, I have to then copy and paste your dumbshit response if I want to quote you. You could multiquote, but you deliberately chose not to, because you are a lazy piece of shit who can't even press extra buttons to make your wall text argument bearable to read. So, when you ask "Do you have anything indicating I'm lazy or stupid?" in the lazy ass way you respond to people's posts, your way of responding to people indicates that you are lazy and you are too stupid to understand why I think you are so !@#$ing lazy. You only need to look yourself in the mirror to see the evidence of my claims. Again, how you walk around society without getting your dick caught in a doorway is beyond me. I love how you dodged my question. Let me ask you again: if a guy called Joe ran for office, but is accused of killing children, would you still expect the leader of the party to endorse the child-killing bastard? I don't understand the point you are making. Yes, I understand that you are trying to paint the Clinton's as hypocrites when you think they are trying to pull of being "saintly," but are you suggesting that Trump is the same as Clinton without trying to be a "saint?" In other words, if Clinton is a piece of shit, Trump is a piece of shit that admits he's a piece of shit? And you still support said piece of shit as the leader of the free world? I thought Trump wasn't a piece of shit. I thought that he was the one true savior that will make America great again. To answer "what else does he do all day," I would say... A lot of cable TV. Like, more cable TV than governing the country. Oh, and Twitter. As for the business logic, yes, to some extent, that is correct. But let me remind you the same way I reminded Milton: we have a shit ton of debt. Around 70% of that debt is held by the public, in the form of government bonds, securities, etc. The interest on the public debt is 6.5% of the budget, which isn't too much. Except for the fact that interest rates are expected to rise. The reason why interest rates rise is because of a good economy. When the economy is strong, nobody buys government bonds because of the low returns (despite being relatively safe) and instead spend all their money on a booming stock market or investing in a growing economy. When that happens, the Feds have to increase the interest rates in order to draw more people to buy public debt. Right now, the feds plan on raising interest rates to 3% this year. By 2020, that rate is expected to be 4%. A 1.2% increase in the interest rates would cause the interest payments on the debt to surpass DEFENSE SPENDING. This is entirely excluding the expected $1.5 T deficit the tax plan will cause within the next 6 years. Even if we are to assume the tax plan's end effect is "more business," a booming economy would only speed up the rising interest rates, making the national debt a full blown fiscal crisis. Which do you think rises faster? Tax revenues or the national debt? I'll give you a hint, it's not the former, and not by a long !@#$ing shot.
  8. How someone so damn lazy and stupid as you can run around society without getting your dick caught in a door is beyond me. Giving people aneurysms with your lazy way of responding doesn't make your argument valid. On the contrary, I'm thinking that you deliberately responded the way you did in order to avoid an actual debate with me, because you know I would kick your reality-denying blind-utopian-idealist lazy stupid ass to the curb. I expect the leader of a party to not support a pedophile. Let me ask you this: if a guy called Joe ran for office, but is accused of killing children, would you still expect the leader of the party to endorse the child-killing bastard? It's called basic human decency, and the fact that you don't see a problem with Trump supporting Moore goes to show that you have none. So let's stop talking about morality, seeing as how that concept confuses you. Yeah. "Puritan" is not the word I would use. Maybe blind fanatic. I'm saying that Trump could whip out his penis in front of the cameras, shout "Suck my dick America!" and you would show up here on the next day saying "well... he does have a pretty suckable dick." You condemn the Clintons for a lot of things, but forgive those same things in Trump. That's called having a double standard, and having a double standard is an indication that you are a blind fanatic.
  9. Yeah, but why? Reducing the corporation tax when the economy is booming is counterproductive. The idea behind reducing taxes for large corporations is the supply-side economics version of a stimulus package. Why would the US economy, which is sitting at 3.2% GDP growth and 4.1% unemployment, need a stimulus package now? Sure, you could potentially grow the economy even more, and that is sound reasoning there, except for the fact that AMERICA IS 20 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT AND THE NEW DUMBASS TAX PLAN IS GOING TO ADD 1.5 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS
  10. You said Trump backed Strange every single time I confronted you about Trump supporting Moore. You are implying that Trump didn't back Moore and are trying to diminish the fact that Trump openly supported an accused pedophile for senate. The next thing you are going to say is "don't assume anything," and it was so obvious too, setting up for this line. I love how you try so hard not to sound like an amoral sociopath who supports pedophiles and molesters because said pedophiles and molesters like wrestling. It's so disgusting how simple-minded your morals are. You are the one being hypocritical. For someone who hates the Clinton dynasty for all the vile things Bill Clinton allegedly done, you seem to accept it so long as they are "anti-globalist." Sad!
  11. God damn it Milton. It's really not particularly difficult. Nationalize the private insurers into Social Security, remove the restrictions that prevent Social Security from negotiating the rates they are willing to pay for various services rather than just going with whatever the biller says because there's no way to challenge it. So, everyone already now has insurance coverage since we all have Social Security cards and numbers, so we don't really have to even reprint things. A single-payer system funded by reduced taxation, avoidance of emergency treatment as much as possible and putting more of an emphasis on preventative care, which is far cheaper. No changes are necessary for the medical industry and there's no reason the transition would be terribly difficult in anyway. The infrastructure is basically already there and just requires a little nationalization and we're up and running. Besides the fact that there is no legal basis for nationalizing an entire private sector without declaring war or a national emergency (and we haven't done so since fighting the Nazis in the 1940's), such a move would cause chaos, and ironically more people would be without affordable healthcare than to begin with. You make restructuring a fifth of our entire economy sound so easy. Also, your claim for the "infrastructure already being there" is false. I'm not sure if you know, but for people to get Social Security benefits, they have to apply directly through the SSA. Besides the fact that the SSA is ridiculously understaffed and that taking on the rest of the 270 million people in the US would be an impossible task for that size of an administration, you're also missing out on the fact that there is no mechanism for enforcement to have people sign up. People would be confused at the onset, suddenly uninsured because now the government wants you to jump through bureaucratic hoops for health insurance. Obamacare is basically irrelevant since it's not single-payer and was sabotaged as it started by the GOP shortly after they'd been "working together" with Obama. The private insurance companies filled their risk pools to numbers they hadn't even imagined and then had the fun of increasing pricing while their risk level was decreased to convince the public that single-payer is terrible and look at all of the damage it's doing. I think none is the answer you're searching for. In fact, the limited socialism experienced during Obama's work to staunch the damage to the economy via government investment in endangered industries not only helped to keep several industries in business, but when it was over netted the United States a pretty nice profit, too. Then when that stopped they have yet to reduce their increased costs. But it is relevant. Obamacare is the closest thing we have to any healthcare reform since the 1960s. Obamacare came at a time when the Republicans were thoroughly hated by the public and the democrats controlled Congress. And yes, Obamacare is not a single-payer, but that's the point. There is so much political opposition to single-payer and "sabotage" that you should take it as a lesson from history. You should expect that implementing a single-payer now would have the same (if not more) political opposition and sabotage. Besides, I was talking about how complicated it was to get a website going, not the actual system. We don't have the infrastructure. We don't have the experience. I am. The answer is essentially none. If we fold it into Social Security we copy and paste the risk pool of the private insurers into the risk pool of the entire US population, Social Security would require a bit more management size, but that's hardly difficult since they already outperform the private sector there. With the ability to negotiate with medical providers regarding cost, a massive risk pool and basically no significant effort needed on our part it's actually a lot easier than other places have had it when they changed over. Where in god's name has the SSA outperformed the private sector? You can't just "fold" shit into another agency and expect things to basically happen. Let me give you an example: The VA had a crisis back in 2010 where vets couldn't get the healthcare they needed within 6 weeks. Like, people who needed liver transplants were on wait lists. It's obvious that the VA needs more funding to expand their facilities and staff to accommodate a larger flow of individuals. Since 2010, we've dumped almost $1 Trillion (with an annual increase of about $20 Billion each year) into improving the VA. That's excluding the money dropped on the bandaid "Veteran's Choice Program," which still struggles to deal with the crisis. How many years do you plan on implementing single-payer, even if it was politically feasible? Overnight? No, it's not. We have two versions of health socialism going for decades too. We just don't let them compete with the gougers in the private sector. The area they are allowed to alter reduces administrative costs by 50% of the private sector. Social Security is a conceivably already created either a prelude to socialism, or socialism that's just being prevented from adaptation into single-payer due to people waving their hands in a panic over a term. France had to change at some point to do what they're doing. Everyone has a time when thy don't have something that works as well as it should and find a need to change it. France's single-payer is excellent care and far cheaper than that of the United States. We also pay for the most expensive possible medical care in most cases by having to cover the full cost, without negotiation, from emergency room visits where preventative treatment could reduce ER visits just as much as negotiation of acceptable pricing can be. Yeah, and I'm telling you that France had decades to do it. It wasn't easy for them either, they spent a lot of time and money in a political environment that was conducive for it to happen. Even then, they still !@#$ed up time to time. For example, they still have to deal with supplementary health insurance similar to medicare. France had to slowly add people into the system over 3 decades, each time accumulating more debt between 1945 and 1973. In the late 1970s, France had to scale back its universal coverages because it was running up the deficit. All the while increasing taxes and reducing coverages. Right now, it's a decent system, but France had to play with it (and have the political motivation to do so) for decades during a time when the population demographic hadn't skewed towards a growing elderly population and France wasn't $20 Trillion in debt. Important Question: are the incoming elderly going to cost money somewhere to pay for medical care? If we avoid single-payer does that make that incoming cost less likely to happen or need to be addressed? Since the answer is no, we should probably be adjusting now to compensate for it since it's inevitable and we can begin earlier to ensure it's ready to begin absorbing the elderly and poor, especially, into a single-payer system. Or we can do Social Security (with its benefits like being unable to pay a fair, negotiated rate for medical treatment that prevents them from looking like a good way to go) OR go worse by using the emergency room treatments the US government gets to pay for on behalf of those who are unable to do so. Two socialist, or limited socialist, things we are currently doing. Perhaps we should adjust to make it less costly in advance of the inevitable influx of a larger number of elderly people requiring medical treatment in a way that makes it cost less to us before we just have it happen and have done nothing to prepare. That's the !@#$ing point about all this! Almost two decades of war, gross mismanagement of the government budget, and a massive economic crisis has put America on a rocky fiscal foundation. You do realize that the pool of money in Medicare is borrowed money from China, right? You do realize that as we pay into the entitlements via deductions from our income, it's going into a pool that is being drained faster than it fills, right? It's a giant !@#$ing ponzi scheme, where Chinese money is now paying for 65-year-olds going to the doctor. We shouldn't be giving tax breaks to the corporate wealthy. We shouldn't be trying to implement a system that we don't know works, and would take decades and a shit ton of money to invest in. We should be raising taxes, reducing coverages on medicare, relook at entitlements, and come up with a sound fiscal policy that will get us out of this deficit death spiral within the next 30 years. Anything other than that is going to bankrupt our country within the next half-century. Actually the debt really isn't as bad as you're suggesting. It picks up a little bit of profit while it's here. Many countries have had large debts and have paid them off over a period of 175 years or more. Our debt isn't a danger because if the major holders decided to try to cash it in and failed all of their assets of American debt would be rendered neutral and collapse the world economy. So people aren't going to do that. We're going to end up paying for stuff over a long period of time (shorter if we could do increased taxation and reduced government spending by pulling virtually everyone extra remaining in our two vanity wars Bush ran and knocking the bloat off of the DoD budget allocations.) Actually, yeah it is. The debt is currently 106% of our gross national GDP for 2016. That's not particularly interesting, but this is: the interest payments on the debt is 6.5% of the budget in 2016. It is the fourth largest budget item, barely under Medicaid spending. That doesn't sound high, but that's because interests rates are incredibly low right now. The thing is, interest rates are expected to rise because of the booming economy. Right now, they sit at a nice and easy 2.8%. They are expected to hit 3% this year. By 2020, that figure will rise to 4%. An incremental 1.2% increase in the interest rates would cause interest payments on the debt to surpass national defense spending. By 2021, interest payments will surpass all other discretionary spending combined. Anyone who tells you our debt isn't going to be a problem is a short-sighted dumb !@#$ who can't even see 4 years into the future. Contrary to popular belief, right now, entitlement spending costs almost twice the military spending we have now. DoD budget allocations are pathetic in comparison to what the debt rate will be when Trump leaves office. Also, I swear to god, Milton, if you pull this colored shit again, I'm going to kill someone.
  12. Pedophilia is "Just stupid stuff," huh? For someone who thought Clinton's sexual harassment was so morally disgusting, you really lose all morality when your beloved pro-wrestling demi-god wants people to vote for Moore. Oh, and yes. Trump endorsed Strange in the beginning. But unlike every republican on the hill, he decided to throw his weight behind Moore despite having the option to say "just let Alabama decide." I'll give him credit though, McConnel and Ryan didn't have any !@#$ing backbone to jump on either side, but Trump did the brave thing by admitting he was a giant piece of shit who sees pedophiles as good senators. Trump told people to vote for Moore. In fact, here it is: Your lies are so easily proven, it's sad. When you have to blatantly lie in order to try and prove that your man isn't a loser, you've lost. This may come as a shock to you, but... Have you ever considered that Trump is just a !@#$ing moron? I know this is hard to believe, considering that everyone in the world has said that he's a !@#$ing idiot, but maybe Trump isn't the genius you think he is. Maybe he is dumb as shit and doesn't think that far ahead. Otherwise, he wouldn't be losing all the time. Even when he wins, it's when he doesn't want to win, so he loses. Trump is just a loser. And stupid as shit. Again, I'm not sure what that says about you if you think he's a winning genius.
  13. Man, you are right. It must be soooooo easy for such a brilliant and powerful man to convince millions of his own supporters in the reddest state of the !@#$ing Union to elect a pedophile. Oh wait. No he didn't. He's a loser. Every single candidate he endorsed and campaigned for lost. He got lucky one time because Russians helped him out, and now you think he's some sort of demi-god.
  14. To be entirely fair, it's not the boomer's fault. The last 70 years saw huge medical advancements. Things like vaccines, dialysis, heart surgery, radiology, and pharmaceuticals have radically transformed life expectancy unlike any period in human history. The last 70 years is the medical equivalent of discovering fire. Instead of people dying at 50 because of some organ failure, we have people living well into the 70s and 80s. In order to keep people alive that long, it requires a shit ton of money to be spent on relatively new technologies and procedures that are invasive and costly to begin with. All developed countries have this problem, where an aging population is now skewing the age distribution curve. China in particular (due to the one child policy) has this issue, where a younger generation must essentially make up for the older generation in sectors of the economy that support the previous generation. That being said, unlike France, the US doesn't have a strong social state infrastructure. Let me remind you that the Obamacare website - a prime example of the US attempting to fill in infrastructure for a social state - cost $2.1 Billion. And that was just a !@#$ing WEBSITE. Imagine the amount of money necessary to invest into creating a single-payer system run by the government, and then having subsidies ready for the high costs of healthcare for the elderly. Top that off with the fact that we have practically no price gouging regulations over big pharma, and you have a 40 year nightmare of shitty healthcare and a bankrupt economy. France and the other European countries have had DECADES (and the subsequent billions of dollars associated with the passage of such a long !@#$ing time) to create, fine-tune, and perfect their healthcare social state. A US single-payer system at this point in time is as unrealistic as a McDonald's worker wanting to purchase a rocket to the moon with their next paycheck. Debt stifles the economy. Anyone who says "oh, we have $20T in debt now, what does another couple of Ts mean anyway?" doesn't understand how having more and more of your nation's GDP devoted to paying off debt slows economic growth and production. Just look at Greece. The only reason why the US is staying afloat now despite having more debt than the next three major countries combined is because we are !@#$ing geniuses and everyone has confidence in American production and consumerism. Contrary to what Fox and Friends says, the American economy is doing well DESPITE Trump, not because of him, and its because everyone still has massive confidence in the American economy. We should be using this period of time to pay back the debt, not accumulate more.
  15. See? An ethereal and complicated concept that you can't wrap your head around. Trump got lucky one time. Well, if you consider Russian help to be luck. Before Virginia and Alabama, you could claim Trump was a genius and there would be no evidence to refute such a blatantly stupid claim. Now, after Trump has told people in the REDDEST STATE IN THE !@#$ing UNION to vote for his man, he lost ALABAMA, THE REDDEST STATE IN THE !@#$ing UNION to a democrat. When Trump tells people to vote for someone, and everyone votes the other guy into office, that's everyone collectively giving the middle finger to Trump. And if Trump managed to lose THE REDDEST !@#$ing STATE IN THE MOTHER !@#$ing UNION, he's a loser. The American people gave him a chance, and now everyone (including everyone who works for him, who meets with him, who has to listen to him talk every day) except you think he's a !@#$ing idiot.