PDA

View Full Version : 2010 and the dissolving USA


Qui-Gon Glenn
12-05-2009, 06:26 PM
My mother is quite heavy into new age mysticism and such, and has heard from several "ascended masters" as well as several seers and mediums, that in 2010 the US economy will disolve, that the country will become literally divided into 6 separate chunks, that.... cats and dogs will live together in harmony.... pandemonium essentially.

I take my mother's ideas with a grain of salt, as I take anyone's ideas. However, I stumbled upon this article today, taken from the WSJ, that is telling me the same things that my mother said, just from a completely different, and many would say more credible, perspective.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

Any thoughts?

jrrtoken
12-05-2009, 06:30 PM
It makes a great premise for some installment in the Battlefront series, but nothing more.

Qui-Gon Glenn
12-05-2009, 06:35 PM
I was thinking more CoD 3.... but really, the guy is no dummy, and economically I think he is dead on.

JediAthos
12-05-2009, 06:54 PM
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with his whole premise...I'll give that the U.S. economy is not in good shape...but the Great Depression didn't destroy the United States any more than the current economy will.

I would think that for the United States to dissolve would take some other major political or social issues such as those behind the American Civil War of the 1860s and I just don't see it happening...especially not into 6 sections. Mexico is in no position to take over anything, and I fail to see how Alaska would end up under Russian control or how any part of the country would end up under control over any other foreign power without acts of war.

To surmise..my opinion is that he's full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

ForeverNight
12-05-2009, 07:00 PM
Unless this guy's name is Hari Seldon I think he's just blowing air and making waves hoping for his 15 minutes of fame.

purifier
12-05-2009, 07:27 PM
Well now....that's a real possibilty. Not so sure that it will happen though, but come to think of it, we've had two civil wars in the past because of economic's and political rivalries. And regrettably, we could be in for another if at least half the nation doesn't get back on it's economic toes (so to speak) and our current government just keeps screwing around; pulling the same crap they've been doing lately with this economy.


But nothing is a sure bet, yet anything can happen. ;)

Hallucination
12-05-2009, 08:27 PM
California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence.
Ni hao, bra.

Web Rider
12-05-2009, 08:51 PM
Haha, no.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-05-2009, 09:06 PM
wall street journal article;didn't read

Q
12-05-2009, 09:08 PM
Unless this guy's name is Hari Seldon I think he's just blowing air and making waves hoping for his 15 minutes of fame.
Haha, love the reference. My turn:

Does this mean that Cthulhu has finally awakened?

Hallucination
12-05-2009, 09:20 PM
Does this mean that Cthulhu has finally awakened?
I think you may have misread it, he says the United States are going to dissolve, not the faces of the entire world's population.

Darth Avlectus
12-05-2009, 11:22 PM
This guy, Panarin, sounds like he is obsessed (possibly to the point orgasm) with USA's demise.

Pre-emptive notice to the mods: I am feeling a bit snarky and sarcastic. You may have to smack me around a little. :dev9:

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats.
:dozey:

Ah. A "Killer-Green-Bud" feller, eh? Cheech and Chong would have a blast.

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin,

WHAT?! Kremlin???!!! You mean this guy is working for King K.Rool--the jerk who tried to steal Donkey Kong's banana hoard? ZOMG!

which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.
Really now? You know what? It's also been speculated that China, India, and other affluent countries are about to take the helm of "first power nation" in the world. So, Russia has some serious competition if that is true. You can make many an outlandish speculation, not that it really means much until it materializes in some form.

[Meanwhile]: Zangief must be really happy as he yells "Mother Russia" after a match of pounding some poor Marvel rival or fellow Capcom icon into the ground. [/sarcasm]

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

Seriously now? I had no idea. :dev9:

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.
Hmm. Wreaks of ambivalence, but whatever.

Funny, all the economic sources I have come across (and some table scraps by the Trends Research Institute) say that while they see the economy's double dip coming up on us in our recession hard (estimate hitting Jan.-Feb. once the holiday 'boost' effect wears off) it doesn't seem to mean much. Even as bleak as it is right now, I do not see an utter collapse and downfall in the near term. I see a painful and slow year ahead of us thereafter its onset.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

Mmmmmmmmmmm, nope. Wishful thinking. I'll agree those factors are contributory to our recession, but each have a counteracting effect that nullifies them significantly.

Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.

Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."
This all speaks for itself. I'll let that marinate in here like a fart.

Skipping over some...


California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence.
:laughing::lol:
:rofl:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lolwut? I actually LIVE in CA. Granted it's so minced it might as well be a foreign country...where's all the heavy chinese influence, exactly? It actually looks more heavy Mexican influence in some areas. Others are just diced up, and you have rich people all over with their domiciles and little communities.

The north, is a bunch of redwood dwelling artists and such. Small economy, but very beautiful places to camp. South is cities and such except up in the hills. Lots of bums, loads of Mexicans, and a lot of blacks around Compton and Riverside.

The coast: meh, it's a mixture of retired folks and young people last I checked. Haven't been out there in few years. I suppose in 3-5 years time there could be a mass influx of Asians that I don't know about. :xp:

Central north to south...pretty spread out, unless he's talking about Sacramento (Hi everyone!--though I'm a ways off out in the 'booneys') and San Francisco. Even then...I don't see what he's talking about...

All in all, CA might be its own 'republic' but TBH unless certain industries pick up around here, we really aren't going to be much of anything. In fact Michigan has been playing commercials to corporations thinking about relocating somewhere else to get out of silicon valley.

Well professor, looks like you don't know as much as you think you do about CA.

(EDIT: Oh, and the sierra mountains bordering NV have their own little economy that seems quite recession resistant, BTW. So unless it's in the nearby valley areas from north to south which seem quite unpopulated and undeveloped at this time, I *still* don't see where there is a little china about to take California over...Maybe hiding out in southern Nevada's missile silos, and 100-200+yr old mines with all their unstable dynamite?)...:D

Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence.
Hmm. Comments anyone? mimartin? Sam D.? S.D. Nihil? Tobias Reiper?
Somehow this rings false to me. I last visited Texas in 2001, so it could have become heavily Mexican in that time period. I thought Mexico wasn't in much a position to take anything over?

Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

Mmmmm, bull****.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

More romancing the idea of Alaska being under Russian control again? Dude, hey, not that there's really anything wrong with whatever gets you off, but you seriously need to keep it behind closed doors, and I mean literally.

You know what, I'll read the rest of the article later. I'm late for karaoke right now!!! However I *will* say that was quite the lawlfest!

SW01
12-06-2009, 12:07 AM
He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."

Shocking.

Odd how all of the secessionist views that must be rife in America (considering it's going to fall in less than a year, apparently) have been so well concealed from the media. It reads more like some grasping hope for the return to prominence of Russia, or perhaps one might argue the Communist state, based on the ideas of Chinese eminence.

I'm sure there is sime immensely complex and altogether incomprehensible economic rationale behind all this, but I'd love to know why each 'Republic' would be likely to first fall under anyone's external control, second why those particular countries? As said by others, I can't see Mexico staging any kind of invasion sweeping through Texas and all of those other states, or persuading people to vote to join them...and the idea of a European America is pretty good too - Turkey is seen as a borderline European state: I wonder what that makes the Eastern US?

Though, if Russia gets Alaska back, can we have the Thirteen Colonies back? :xp:

Lord of Hunger
12-06-2009, 01:27 AM
While I don't agree with his theory, I do think that America is headed towards a civil war that will be far worse than our first one. Our country is actively consumed by two inconsistent ideologies constantly fed to us by our new media and our two political parties/collectives of parasites.

What is likely to happen is a civil war between the most rural states (dominated by "conservatives") and the most urban states (dominated by "liberals"). Who would win? That's up in the air. The Government and Military would be split in half so each side would get an equal portion of the troops, so it'd come down to whether or not the "left" would be hypocritical enough to take up firearms against the "right". Also, it depends on how unified each side is, and since the "left" generally professes itself to have more diversity than the "right" it would be more susceptible to internal division.

There is also the possibility of military intervention from other world powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union, all of which would likely assist the "left" as that faction would be more willing to accept foreign demands.

I do not agree with the time this guy has set up. While I do not believe in the 2012 Theories, that year would be the most likely for a civil war to begin as it would likely be a race between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Either individual achieving victory would be the catalyst for a complete split in this Republic.

Rake
12-06-2009, 01:54 AM
While I don't agree with his theory, I do think that America is headed towards a civil war that will be far worse than our first one. Our country is actively consumed by two inconsistent ideologies constantly fed to us by our new media and our two political parties/collectives of parasites.

America has always been dominated by two inconsistent ideologies, smear campaigns and mudslinging have existed since the Election of 1796' in the States; however, that didn't lead to civil wars every 10 years. The losers always screamed apocalypse while the winners slowly lost popularity.

What is likely to happen is a civil war between the most rural states (dominated by "conservatives") and the most urban states (dominated by "liberals"). Who would win? That's up in the air. The Government and Military would be split in half so each side would get an equal portion of the troops, so it'd come down to whether or not the "left" would be hypocritical enough to take up firearms against the "right". Also, it depends on how unified each side is, and since the "left" generally professes itself to have more diversity than the "right" it would be more susceptible to internal division.

Isn't America like 90% urban now? Your also over-generalizing.

There is also the possibility of military intervention from other world powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union, all of which would likely assist the "left" as that faction would be more willing to accept foreign demands.

Funny, usually it takes a dictator to maintain stability after revolution.

I do not agree with the time this guy has set up. While I do not believe in the 2012 Theories, that year would be the most likely for a civil war to begin as it would likely be a race between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Either individual achieving victory would be the catalyst for a complete split in this Republic.

I'm surprised, people would give up their homes, lives, stability, and their child's safety all because they lost an election? I don't think the cultural differences nor the motives are present for a civil war.

Darth Avlectus
12-06-2009, 03:55 AM
OK, Karaoke was dead, so I'm back.

Some of what I skipped over:
At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.
Oh man, this loon bag actually has a fan following. More propaganda.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

Reeeeeally? And, uh, I suppose the foreign powers will all be on the same side, riiiiiight? I think if they align with the infighting left before it turns on itself, the fracture will amplify and it will be a world war on our soil which would ruin the very thing they wish to take over. Or if the infighting already occurred, they would come in and fight/subjugate the inhabitants AFTER they got done fighting each other outside the U.S.A. Which assumes the Government inside U.S.A. isn't manipulatively still alive and functioning. Destroying that would be, as the article admitted, to nobody's economic advantage.

Interestingly enough, I don't see our friend has taken any of that into account or that more likely they all would just bide their time carefully and let a nation or two most friendly to U.S.A. go in and do the dirty work of helping piece the nation back together. Especially considering if economically it is in their best interests. I'm sure they'd all embolden and get a little more cocky.

Either that or the nation most pissed off enough at us comes to seize its assets, which is most likely be be China. It is my understanding that while their economy is a modern equiv of the industrial revolution (or so my penpal ladyfriend in Shenzen City says) it is still infatile, going slow and fragile like it has a bad stomach blockage--in an economic sense. Certainly correct me if I'm wrong on that and China is roaring and ready for world domination.

In the meantime I'll be shoveling snow and petting my wookiee.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

Why do we even have to wait that long? I think the most gullible of American people are already waking up to that reality and it isn't even Christmas yet.

the article, emphasis mine
The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.
Really now? You think that's nervous laughter? Why?

Oh yes your views are indeed being listened to very carefully, professor. Not in the way you think.

Put another way, I think this guy could be a real comedian. :lol:

the article, emphasis mine

The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.

Really? Well, let's see now... is America or has America ever been, the U.S.S.R.?

Butt-Head: Uhh, No.
Beavis: Thank you, Drive Thru. Meh-heheh-heh.

Besides, even if we are close to some kind of collapse, where is this tremendous imminent upheval going to start in America? This revolution? Seriously, I'm asking in real earnest. I look around me and I see upset people, but they aren't clawing at everything as though we're about to have a violent showdown. Too apathetic.

Odd how all of the secessionist views that must be rife in America (considering it's going to fall in less than a year, apparently) have been so well concealed from the media.

Yeah I'm still trying to figure that one out myself. Especially considering how nosy and biased to one polarity or the other that the media is in the U.S. Wish I could afford *THAT* kind of protective concealment of information.

It reads more like some grasping hope for the return to prominence of Russia, or perhaps one might argue the Communist state, based on the ideas of Chinese eminence. Which raises several questions alone on how China will pick it up--I wonder what they have to say about this. Besides, wouldn't that pose an obstacle to Russia "getting its piece of land back"?

While I don't agree with his theory, I do think that America is headed towards a civil war that will be far worse than our first one. Our country is actively consumed by two inconsistent ideologies constantly fed to us by our new media and our two political parties/collectives of parasites.

It would have to be a long time from now: people are rather docile, currently. In actuality I think the real division is between the people, the wildcards and the elite. If the elite on both 'sides' are working in tandem (think about it: same government, 2 sides of the same coin as it is now), then what it really boils down to is how those in charge will best liquidate their assets and leave the rest of us out in the cold to fend for ourselves.

It would make no sense to square off in an actual combatant war unless things got so horribly bad it was about to fall apart anyways.

What is likely to happen is a civil war between the most rural states (dominated by "conservatives") and the most urban states (dominated by "liberals"). Who would win? That's up in the air. The Government and Military would be split in half so each side would get an equal portion of the troops, so it'd come down to whether or not the "left" would be hypocritical enough to take up firearms against the "right". Also, it depends on how unified each side is, and since the "left" generally professes itself to have more diversity than the "right" it would be more susceptible to internal division.
Well, that is a setup for failure if a foreign entity were to try to even infiltrate it and ally itself, let alone 2 or 3. Seeing as how Mexicans and Natives want to reclaim land, they aren't likely to trust another overlord government to 'share' it with them. They'd dead-weight, or possibly even turn on the new entity. The rest, well, they'd just put along for the ride but similarly deadweight when it was their turn to help the foreign entity. Bleed them dry.

More likely, the elite would be working together hidden away behind the scenes and would just declare martial law like a dictatorship. Their elite squadron at their command.

There is also the possibility of military intervention from other world powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union, all of which would likely assist the "left" as that faction would be more willing to accept foreign demands.
Actually, no it would be a state of martial law with our supposedly "split" government all around, with interlopers, defectors, multiple state splits, and infighting within the parties and classes. The elite of the "sides" would come to a grudging agreement first on top of the heads of just others who don't fit one clique or another. Devil with silver tongue, offer the little people rewards and incentive to join them. Or more likely 'offers they can't refuse' if you catch my drift.

Foreign aid would then maybe occur as their means of settling the problem if.F* there was no other way to bring about order. The rest can hide out in the woods. Possibly to be hunted down later for their crimes against society of evasion of serfdom and daring try to live independent of the now dictatorship government. The Elite meanwhile resting atop the underclass like the despicable fat-cats they are and the veil fallen.

*:Geometry or Mathematical acronym for conditional staement beginning "If, and ONLY if."

I do not agree with the time this guy has set up. While I do not believe in the 2012 Theories, that year would be the most likely for a civil war to begin as it would likely be a race between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Either individual achieving victory would be the catalyst for a complete split in this Republic.

It would probably just be a civil split between East and West U.S.A.--which then I can see an N.A.U. forming much as I'd hate to admit it in those circumstances. Mexico and Canada being absorbed into it. Possibly more of Central America too.

Qui-Gon Glenn
12-06-2009, 05:03 AM
Yeah, I thought his style might not win too many points. He does come off a wee bit smug. Could also be the tool of a writer that the WSJ employed.

I think civil war is a remote, distant possibility at best. What I do fear is the wacky economy most Americans think is doing well when the stock market has a good day. Our dollar is nearing valuelessness.

urluckyday
12-06-2009, 05:33 AM
Oh wow, a Russian says that the US will come to an end...I've heard this bedtime story before...try the Cold War.

Seriously though, no way the US just falls apart like that....let's sell more newspapers by having those kinds of stories...just another story that appeals to the fears...best way to attract an audience...

Sabretooth
12-06-2009, 10:05 AM
While I don't agree with his theory, I do think that America is headed towards a civil war that will be far worse than our first one. Our country is actively consumed by two inconsistent ideologies constantly fed to us by our new media and our two political parties/collectives of parasites.

What is likely to happen is a civil war between the most rural states (dominated by "conservatives") and the most urban states (dominated by "liberals"). Who would win? That's up in the air. The Government and Military would be split in half so each side would get an equal portion of the troops, so it'd come down to whether or not the "left" would be hypocritical enough to take up firearms against the "right". Also, it depends on how unified each side is, and since the "left" generally professes itself to have more diversity than the "right" it would be more susceptible to internal division.

There is also the possibility of military intervention from other world powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union, all of which would likely assist the "left" as that faction would be more willing to accept foreign demands.

I do not agree with the time this guy has set up. While I do not believe in the 2012 Theories, that year would be the most likely for a civil war to begin as it would likely be a race between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Either individual achieving victory would be the catalyst for a complete split in this Republic.

Laughable. Pakistan has a much stronger chance of being split by a civil war than the United States has, and Pakistan is still very formidable in its own right.

With its many enemies, enormous nuclear arsenal, rampant nationalism and international reach, the United States cannot possibly afford a civil war in the near future. It's probably hard to see that in America, but it isn't so hard when you're living outside, and where the American Right and Left are only two sides of the same coin. Regardless of which side controls the government, America largely remains the same.

Also, any nations with two stones to rub together for a diplomatic thinktank will know better than to mess with an America in turmoil. It can backfire easily.

All in all, if a 2012 happens, it being caused by an American Civil War is very unlikely. Hell, the stories of both Modern Warfare games are much more credible than that.

Web Rider
12-06-2009, 11:10 AM
Our dollar is nearing valuelessness.

No it isn't. At it's worst, it's worth about half as much as it was. The value of money in Zimbabwe is nothing, with 14,000,000% inflation. Even at 10% inflation, the US dollar is still quite strong.

ForeverNight
12-06-2009, 12:59 PM
^^Thank you, I've always been annoyed by the nay-sayers around where I live whining about how 'weak' the Dollar has become.

Anyway, @LOH: Don't buy it. And, as a right-ist I shudder when I think of Sarah Palin in line for the presidency.. but that's for another thread.

Samuel Dravis
12-06-2009, 03:40 PM
One thing that has happened since the civil war is that, at least from where I live, people are much less likely to identify strongly with their state as opposed to the federal government. Don't get me wrong, I really like Texas and I love shoving how awesome it is into other state's faces, but I don't feel a political affiliation with it in the same way I do with the Fed.

Because of that, I'd say it would be extremely unlikely that the US should break up into minor states any time soon. People in America might have their (perhaps overblown) differences, but one thing is certain: virtually all of us like being American. It would take something truly shocking to break that.

Qui-Gon Glenn
12-06-2009, 04:37 PM
No it isn't. At it's worst, it's worth about half as much as it was. The value of money in Zimbabwe is nothing, with 14,000,000% inflation. Even at 10% inflation, the US dollar is still quite strong.
Facts are good. Nearing perhaps was not the correct word, but you may accept/prefer "approaching" "on the road" "plummeting". These are perhaps better descriptives, but not that different really. It is over-alarmist to say nearing at this time, so I concede that point.

As for naysaying, why not naysay? It is the American thing to do, the most American, to speak out when things are screwy. It is something the founders expected us to do, more often and much louder than we have. Complacency has been bred by too many years of easy success, success often garnered for contemporary gains at the cost of the "future" - our present.

If you think that the US is still the pre-eminent power, and that the position is unshakeable, you are a fanboy.

Bimmerman
12-06-2009, 05:23 PM
Um....no. Won't happen in 2010, 2012, or any other year anytime soon.

ForeverNight
12-06-2009, 05:50 PM
@Qui_Gon_Glenn: o (http://gross-national-product.suite101.com/article.cfm/richest_countries_by_gdp_and_the_poorest_country) rly? (http://www.globalfirepower.com/)

Arcesious
12-06-2009, 09:32 PM
Bad things happen every single day, and yet the world still keeps turning.

mimartin
12-06-2009, 10:32 PM
Hmm. Comments anyone? mimartin? Sam D.? S.D. Nihil? Tobias Reiper?
Somehow this rings false to me. I last visited Texas in 2001, so it could have become heavily Mexican in that time period. I thought Mexico wasn't in much a position to take anything over?The article writer obliviously never meet a Texan. It would take a lot of dead Texans for something like this to happen and heritage means nothing. I have a lot of friends that are of Hispanic decent and they are just as proud to be a Texan. More likely, it would be Mexico under Austin’s influence. :xp:

Web Rider
12-06-2009, 11:03 PM
Facts are good. Nearing perhaps was not the correct word, but you may accept/prefer "approaching" "on the road" "plummeting". These are perhaps better descriptives, but not that different really. It is over-alarmist to say nearing at this time, so I concede that point.
No, it really isn't. Listen to some non-marxist economists. The US dollar, while not as strong as it has been in the past, is still doing quite well. And it it not "plummeting", nor is it "on the road", and neither is it "approaching". Many countries still court both US favor and money, that along with US military, social, and economic power and dominance ensure that the US currency will not just "drop off".

If you think that the US is still the pre-eminent power, and that the position is unshakeable, you are a fanboy.
I can readily think one, and not the other. The US is still a pre-eminent world power, one with which only a few others can hope or even attempt to compare with. Of course the position is shakeable, no position isn't. But just because it is, does not mean that those who are close have the desire to take it. And even if they wanted to, it is more probable that what would result is a multi-polar world, likely of China-US, then China-Russia-US, then China-India-Russia-US, and then China-EU-India-Russia-US.

Darth Avlectus
12-07-2009, 01:03 AM
Hey, whoa guys. Ehh, I think most forumites here are under no illusions about a position and its solidity.

So far as America not being #1 in the world anymore: everything hangs in the balance and nothing is for sure about that, *yet*. Moreover I don't quite see how U.S.A. somehow sliding down even to #5 in the world would necessarily mean we give up chunks of our land. Besides, if there is one thing I notice even about American underachievers, they may get shaken down but they aren't contentious for no reason and are persistent and tenacious enough to find a way back up. Sure, Americans are apathetic right now but it wouldn't take too much for too long before we started back on track and gained momentum behind it.

*Are* we on a decline? Sure. We're in trouble right now and only an idiot would deny that. In several years it'll pick back up again and the worst of the recession will be behind us. It may take 20 or 30 years for things to come back completely. By then we quite possibly may not be #1, but I seriously doubt USA will crash and burn because of it.

China IMO is biding their time and getting all it can to try to tip the world currency to theirs and away from the U.S.A. I find that as a challenge to be met, not a fate to be dreaded.

Isn't it rather amusing meanwhile that people like this professor have nothing to do but obsess all day about our demise?

Tommycat
12-10-2009, 12:08 AM
Hrmph. I grew up in Texas. The idea of Texas under Mexican rule is absolutely laughable. Three words come to mind. "Remember The Alamo!" I could see Texas as it's own nation. I can see Texas as part of the (remaining) US. But Texas as part of Mexico? FAT CHANCE! Too many Texans died to free themselves from Mexico. I mean really this guy must have never met a Texan in his life. They are more than proud of the state.

Totenkopf
12-11-2009, 01:24 AM
Funny thing about the idea of TX under Mexico's "wing" is that Mexico is so dysfuntional that perhaps it ought to be the other way around. I think the guy is right about America heading into a world of economic hurt, but the rest of it sounds a bit like a KGB man's wet dream. Of course, if Russia got AK, you can be pretty sure they'd have no problem drilling the oil. The rest of the world be damned.....

vanir
12-11-2009, 07:02 PM
The US is economically far stronger than the USSR was. What you are feeling now is the economic pinch of frivolous defence expenditure throughout the Cold War, which destroyed the Soviet Union as a political powerbase (it is still a major world power and a formiddable one under the umbrella of the CIS and Supreme Soviet controlled strategic capability).

Throughout the 90's US defence expenditure was still in the thousands of millions per individual project, aside unit cost and any hope of cost recovery. This is what funded your F-22 and F-35, in effect the SuperHornet is a mild attempt at cost recovery (strictly speaking it's overpriced but is a good enough product to justify the cost).

What has happened since then is cost recovery projects in Europe and the Asia-Pacific have completely fallen apart. At least 15,000-million US dollars were expected to be partially recovered with Block 50/60 F-16 and new F-35 sales which never materialised. The Europeans went and built something better themselves, and the Russians have been selling Flankers and Fulcrums and rock bottom prices...incredibly this is something which completely slipped the minds of US defence/economy analysts back in the 90's.

You see nobody really expected the USSR to collapse economically in 1991 except the KGB (whom were well aware of this course since 1980), so nobody figured into the equation that an economically smashed Soviet Union would be selling its latest military hardware at affordable prices, much cheaper than US material yet with comparable performance. And buying US isn't any guarantee of product support unless certain trade agreements are made (capitalists to the end). Updates are also ridiculously expensive, where Russian updates are cheap or free.

It is in fact this "economic altruism" of communist thought which forms a cultural base in the CIS and many Asiatic regions. Not entirely sound business wise, but given appropriate circumstances can be confounding.

The Euro has basically gotten stronger whilst the US dollar has degraded. The pound has remained fairly consistent, but the biggest impact has been the growth of the Euro, this is expected since the EU has been growing in member nations from the Atlantic seaboard to the Caspian Sea.
The role of the US as the primary defence contractor in Europe has disappeared completely, whilst as a primary industrial power has been degraded by development in Asia and throughout Europe.

I do not think the US will economically collapse immediately, but the cultural lifestyle and strict capitalist theme is based strongly in consumerism and this necessarily has to change or the place will end up looking like Russia does today, which trust me isn't too pretty.

You're way in the red, most of your defence expenditure through the 90's did as much damage to your economy as that of the USSR in the 80's, you're just a little more resilient to begin with so you're feeling it later and more gradually. It's going to get worse before it gets better though. Check out the costs and appropriations of just one of those defence projects like the Raptor, or having whole fleets of supercarriers in service, no less than five independent military organisations plus support and logistics, and domestic industrial empires built on defence contracting.

You've already shot yourselves in the foot just like the Russians did, now you're in an ambulance on the way to the hospital is all.

purifier
12-11-2009, 07:03 PM
Funny thing about the idea of TX under Mexico's "wing" is that Mexico is so dysfuntional that perhaps it ought to be the other way around. I think the guy is right about America heading into a world of economic hurt, but the rest of it sounds a bit like a KGB man's wet dream. Of course, if Russia got AK, you can be pretty sure they'd have no problem drilling the oil. The rest of the world be damned.....


I agree, especially the "economic hurt"...no doubt as far as that's concerned, only I think it could eventually lead to at least a insurrection if anything. But I really think the guy is just blowing smoke up our butt's or trying to start a lot of controversy amongst us here in the U.S.A. for the most part, or at least he thinks he is.

It's obvious that the rest of the info that he presents is bogus, take the map for instance: I think he's played the board game of RISK one friggin' too many times in his lifetime over there, I'd say his map looks like a mickey mouse version of the real board game.

Example:
http://www.lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=434&pictureid=5311
:lol: Look familar? (Btw, I call 1 and 4 *purifier shakes dice in hand* Muhahahhahahahaha! World Domination! Who dares to tread on me!) :eyeraise: :D



Seriously though, I don't think our economic situation is going to get any better as long as we are under the current elective (people) government.
Which could seriously piss some people off and cause an uprising or something, there has been talk of it in certain social circles and even on the internet at that; which is the most idiotic thing to do IMO, it's not like the government dosen't check for that sort of thing with their search database computers.

Anyway, that dosen't mean anything though, just people talking and complaining I guess. Better yet, like I said before:

But nothing is a sure bet, yet anything can happen. ;)

Jae Onasi
12-12-2009, 12:07 AM
:lol: Look familar? (Btw, I call 1 and 4 *purifier shakes dice in hand* Muhahahhahahahaha! World Domination! Who dares to tread on me!) :eyeraise: :D
You, sir, play a Risky Game.

purifier
12-12-2009, 04:09 AM
You, sir, play a Risky Game.


Lol...no ma'am, more like "Delusions of Grandeur." ;) Wouldn't you agree? :D

vanir
12-12-2009, 06:59 PM
The Russian economist in question is also quite a way off on his appraisal of the Russian economy, which mirrors its political instability.
The CIS is still definitely feeling the effects of Soviet collapse and none more acutely than Russia (and the Ukraine), what has been holding Russia together are twofold issues of organised criminal activity among leadership and independent command of the military districts, which remain firmly in the hands of the Supreme Soviet and act quite outside the control of the Russian Parliament. The wars in Georgia for example conflagurated directly against the instructions and assurances of the Parliament (who supported the unified Georgian state, whilst the Supreme Soviet had strategic interests in military bases there and thus funded the pro-Soviet Abkhasian bid for independence, a move unsupported by NATO or the UN).

Essentially this is what is going on in Russia, where instead of the two pronged powerbases in the peripherary CIS nations (the Supreme Soviet being based in Russia), they are instead divided by nationalist uprising and splintered political representation.
Thus the improved economic stability speculated of Russia in recent years is in fact an illusion fostered by increasing troubles at its borders, and the more institutionalised nature of Russian political woes than surrounding territories.

Make no mistake that in terms of average quality of life, Russia is impoverished, with shocking crime rates in particular of violent crime and organised crime, and a relatively low value for common human life. Their industry sells better quality equipment on the export market than it does locally, including defence industry. The politicians and corporate figures however, are the modern Czars for the most part and individual district commanders the aristocracy.
According to local journalists the Soviets are alive and well, and little has changed if not for the worst.

Darth Avlectus
12-13-2009, 05:40 AM
Bleh. So essentially we have Soviet Nationalists stirring it up over there that just so happen to sell good merchandise despite (or in spite of) its poor state of affairs that aren't quite dire yet. Are they on their way back?

If we're going to feel it smoother, slower, and more gradually then will it be anywhere as bad? I ask b/c I have little faith in things so far as politics and economic lifestyles go. I agree that we need to stop doing "stuff" for "stuff" sake. However, it's not *just* defense. It's lifestyle and all that. Fiscal and financial responsibility are often given lip service, but rarely seen acted upon by politicians or citizens in general. "Put this or that on credit and it'll all be fine" so says people. I've little hope, personally.

Sadly, I can see only a few solutions:
America lowers its standards for worker conditions; lowers its minimum wages; or the U.S. ends up absorbing other countries and playing around a lot with uneven playfields in a more real sense (as opposed to empty money) in order to restrengthen industries. Or all the above. Unless there is something I missed.

Fat chance people are going to change their habits unless we collectively got hit over the head with a cactus...which I sadly do not see happening in the near future by any sense of the concept. It takes a common disaster with a fast hard hit to unite people--that is fact. However, *that* would be the last thing we'd need, or so it would seem. Crap.

vanir
12-13-2009, 05:19 PM
Well the state of Russian industry is such that US multinationals like Elron speculate they could improve oil production from the CIS Caspian table by several hundred percent, that the Russians are essentially wasting up to 90% of possible oil/fuels production with administrative disarray and poor industry.

The fact Elron and other multinational oil companies are all over Afghanistan and central Asia along with the US military is of deep concern to the Russians, and it the real reason for anti-American sentiments there. And it's not just them, Turkey doesn't like you much either, or the Ukrainians.
You see they firmly believe you're moving chess pieces against Iran and around Afghanistan in order to do the same thing you did with the Persian Gulf. Take the Caspian oil table for yourselves under the cover up of "international policing."

Now the thing about this is they still have a massive Cold War surplus of strategic nuclear capability, the delapidation of their conventional forces has no bearing on this. Any individual district commander could at a whim lay waste to roughly half the planet, and they don't have the same Presidential/Congressional safeguards against subordinate commanders ordering nuclear release that the US does.

Make them paranoid enough and you've got WW3 on your hands. It will be the Clancy style "rogue General" who sends a hundred planet busting warheads into US airspace, probably the Transcaucasus district commander who started the Georgian war.

Meanwhile the US economic situation has forced national interests in central Asia...

European journalists claim the current east-west political climate is in fact more dangerously close to a large scale nuclear exchange today that at any time during the Cold War. This time it is the US whom would have to back down, and nobody in the world believes the Whitehouse or Pentagon are capable of that, particularly given recent international "anti-terrorism" policies which are a thin veil for flagrant human rights violation.

Did you know the United States government is charged by the International Court of human rights violation (specifically regarding "special rendition" policies and Gitmo). The Whitehouse refuses to answer the charges on the basis doing so would force the US to reveal classified material. It's the same thing as saying the rest of the world is subordinate to United States culture and government.

It is this attitude which is destroying your economy. Nobody who doesn't have to wants to import anything from you anymore, your markets are now third world nations and all you get in return is conflict diamonds, useless treaties and credit slips. Yet still you are the world's most eminent consumerists, any American will buy a Playstation well before he gives a loaf of bread to a vagrant. This is killing you.

Totenkopf
12-13-2009, 05:29 PM
The US is economically far stronger than the USSR was. What you are feeling now is the economic pinch of frivolous defence expenditure throughout the Cold War, which destroyed the Soviet Union as a political powerbase (it is still a major world power and a formiddable one under the umbrella of the CIS and Supreme Soviet controlled strategic capability).


Actually, what the US is feeling the pinch of is not "frivolous defense spending from the Cold War", but horrible mismanagement of entitlement programs and their expenses. Tearing down the "firewall" between SS and the general fund over 40 years ago has resulted in Congress going on a spending spree with no aim other than re-election. No attempt was made during that time to make sure there'd be money available when the baby boomers started dipping into SS. Defense spending in the US has typically been ~6 to 8% of GDP/GNP, while for the Russians it was 3-4 times higher. Had the US spent that kind of a % of its GDP on defense, the Cold War might have ended a lot sooner, assuming it didn't wreck American finances in that timeframe.

vanir
12-13-2009, 05:58 PM
Interesting and well calculated point Totenkopf, but the GDP defence spending is more reflective of national welfare policies than actual logistics. The Soviet and US defence procurement was roughly en par throughout the Cold War and where strategic and avionics development was concerned was higher in the US, backed by privatised contracting in an attempt to feed expenditure back into the economy.
Nevertheless US defence spending from the early 70's began relying heavily upon cost recovery programs. Every individual upgrade type was ridiculously expensive and ridiculously frequent.
The Soviets went the other road with downgraded exports instead of upgraded indigenous models. The total cost of the counter air defence and strategic air defence districts for example were still similar to the combined FX and LFX programs which produced the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters with a lower development cost, even though many more aircraft were procured by the Russians for the same cost. The problem was the Soviets didn't privatise and their economic system didn't allow for much in the way of cost recovery.

Where this gets muted is by the 90's, when Europe stopped buying American and the rest of the world got better Russian models cheaper. You can get a MiG-29A for the cost of an F-16A and according to the Luftwaffe it's as good as an F-16C Block 50 on any day of the week. That model is actually more expensive and has still been superseded by the newer Block 55 (which finally has a helmet designator).

Had the US spent as much of its GDP as the Soviets on defence budget, it is because of the capitalist economic system that it would've disentegrated long before the Soviets did. Money you spend on contracting, privatisation and social welfare support the Russians never needed to, the benefits were granted outside the standing economy.

Where the Soviets fell down was in empire. The US makes a trade partner and it creates industrialist opportunities whilst gradually infusing itself into the local political culture.
When the Russians did this, they invaded full scale on day one with the military, then took the new Satellite's welfare and resource concerns upon their own shoulders. Each of the Satellite states thus sapped Russian economics and resources rather than promoted industrialism and profiteering.

This is what has been mostly changed since the Soviet breakup, all CIS leaders are now essentially big time capitalist industrialists to the extent of organised crime bosses, or are insane nationalists fully halfway on the road to Hitler.
It's like having Al Capone win the war against organised crime in the thirties.

That period roughly 1988-98 marked phenonemal defence expenditure in the US for a political climate which no longer exists, with no chance of cost recovery, and it was cost recovery projections which governed defence spending at that time.
It is highly likely this was the primary reasoning for the Gulf War.

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-06-2010, 01:56 AM
@Qui_Gon_Glenn: o (http://gross-national-product.suite101.com/article.cfm/richest_countries_by_gdp_and_the_poorest_country) rly? (http://www.globalfirepower.com/)Your post, and your link, provide nothing in the way of argument. Surely, you can do better. GDP is a nice economists measurement, but it is a macro measurement, and leaves out a lot of important details.

@Web Rider - thank you for understanding the logical operator AND in my sentence. I threw that in their to see who might bite, and either to my dismay or great joy, most everyone understood how that works.

Not much to add, I am quite gloomy these days, and I'd rather not share it too much.

For those that are interested, I can provide a link to the site my mother got her side of this story from. I will not put it in this post - it is a damned pay site, pay-per-divination! That deserves a thread all its own :facepalm:

urluckyday
01-07-2010, 02:43 AM
Just a question of context Qui_gon...

How long have these conversations between you and your mother been going on? And I'm being serious...so don't confuse this with sarcasm.

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-07-2010, 04:20 AM
My mother has been interested in the occult since, uh, forever I guess. We have been discussing Earth changes since probably the early nineties - we were ahead of the Y2K curve a fair amount :lol:

I have been in spiritual conflict with God and myself most of my life, and all of it that I can recollect fully. Life can do that to you sometimes, or maybe I was just born with a dim brain that is too deep. As a result, I am an agnostic leaning atheist, yet reserve some space for the possibility of a creator and an unknown. There is too much mystery for me, even in this age of science, to completely shut the door on the divine, albeit I have certainly shrugged off the major religion's conception of God as poorly thought out man-made mind-control. Well, I digress.

As for 2012 stuff, having known about the Mayans and their long count since the early 90s, I have looked at 2012 for quite some time, with great interest. Mostly because I hope to see something happen that is meaningful in my lifetime - I look at our modern society as pathetically shallow, full of sheep, with a few wicked shepherds, needing something major to either wake us up or deservingly wipe us out.

I look at the 2012 stuff from a purely scientific standpoint, which still leaves plenty of room for bad potentialities (of course, will the sun rise tomorrow?), but at least is grounded in things tangible to me, ie: the cosmic alignment. Being primarily atheistic in my views, my mother and I look at things from quite opposite perspectives, she being highly New Age sprititual, a believer in all sorts of outlandish things, from aliens to Indigo children to... the FORCE. (couldn't resist)

We make good counterparts - we look at the same problems, and see very different causes or justifications or elements. I think her POV provides me with good pause - some of the New Age stuff just sounds cool, and would be wonderful were it to be true. Also, a lot of it is written well, by intelligent people who can make strong arguments. Not perfect, but I don't see a lot of perfect arguments.

To answer your question, urluckyday, conversations of this sort have been happening since I first read the Lord of the Rings as a ten year old, way back in 82.

urluckyday
01-07-2010, 05:38 AM
^Well how long have you and your mother had discussions about the "dissolving of the US" because through the 90's the US was for the most part in the midst of a surplus? I'm just trying to understand when these thoughts and ideas originally occurred...

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-07-2010, 05:47 AM
Ok, sorry, misunderstood you. Specifically on this subject, we only spoke about it a day or two before the OP, then I found that goofy Russian's WSJ article. I guess we only spoke about it then, and only in that I found it highly interesting and unusual that a scientist, even if I am using that title broadly, came to nearly identical conclusions to the far-out crowd.

I have discussed Earth changes with mum for many years, and there are many maps to look at that show a dissolving US - google "Earth change map", there is abundance. Those maps were to be caused by natural phenomena alone, like quakes and volcanoes, yet are not wholly dissimilar to the maps that came out in the recent discussion.

urluckyday
01-07-2010, 06:00 AM
All I am saying is that is it possible that this paranoia that you seem to feel (if I'm wrong I'm not meaning to offend) is simply due to the news that we are exposed to everyday? War, Bad Economy, Corruption, etc.

Members of every generation since the beginning of time have thought they were the last to inhabit this Earth b/c the world would end before anyone else could. It's not uncommon to see people fearing the downfall of civilization when all they are fed throughout the day is bad news.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to have people predicting the dissolving of the US during the times of prosperity, but I do think it's much more likely that these conversations sprout due to the fact that people do not understand the changing world around them OR they are disillusioned by the news that they hear.

I'm not meaning to call anyone out or anything like that, but I am considering that people turn to what they know best in times of "chaos" and assume the worst and that is the US which has stood as a superpower and a global economic force to be reckoned with and assume that it will follow the same path that other nations had followed.

Throughout however many recessions we have had...people predict doom for this country. This is no different. Recession = stress = radical ideas and predictions.

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-07-2010, 06:15 AM
Not taking anything away from your post, and no offence taken either - you are quite civil.

Your points are fair, yet I would say at my age I am a little more immune to that kind of seeping paranoia - I have seen lots of ups and downs.

The topic was brought up due to the odd confluence of the discussion followed by the reading, which is an odd coincidence, even in this age of noids.

However, there are factors economically and socially that make 2010 interesting whether we blow up or not. And, I must share this, although you may know it, as I have posted it here several times...

The average life of a State is 300 years, State meaning single-form government. Corruption is insidious, and people can only take so much. Are US citizens ready for massive revolt? Uh, er, not anytime soon, too many mamzy pamzys. Yet, look what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. 9 days = civilization shredded.

Jedi_Man
01-07-2010, 07:35 AM
I have a high doubt this will happen. Look, just because i predict that The middle East with all throw aside their differences ( already an impossibility) and that they'll all join to destroy israel (no ones that good, not anymore), does not mean that will happen. If, the united states were to seperate, some outer country would have to have been involved. And what the russian guy said, I have a good feeling which one. Alaska would not go to russia. If any russian force even stepped on that land, we'd more than likely to one last join together to make sure russia goes back to the dark ages and doesn't even think about attacking america, mainland or not. And if i'm wrong, The alaskans are BA enough to hold their own land. Hawaii would more than likely got to japan though. Regrettably, they have to small a population to hold a big enough military force to take on japan. Besides, where'd they get their spam from if they're their own country. But, hey, if this happens (which it won't) you can come over and watch me eat my shoe. No lie, i'll post my address and when ya'll get here, I'll eat my shoe.

ForeverNight
01-08-2010, 08:18 AM
Alright, I'll throw this out there, q_g_g: the Mayan calender only goes into a new cycle, it doesn't end in 2012 like many, many, many people have claimed. Also, this Russian guy seems like a crackpot if you want my honest opinion.

I'll just quote what I said earlier:

Unless this guy's name is Hari Seldon I think he's just blowing air and making waves hoping for his 15 minutes of fame.

Edit: Figured I should respond to glenn's points:

GDP, while not the end-all, be-all measurement, is a good benchmark to compare the general wealth and economic force of a country. If you look at the chart, the US has the highest GDP by far compared to the rest of the world.

Did you even read the second link?

urluckyday
01-09-2010, 02:49 AM
Not taking anything away from your post, and no offence taken either - you are quite civil.

Your points are fair, yet I would say at my age I am a little more immune to that kind of seeping paranoia - I have seen lots of ups and downs.

The topic was brought up due to the odd confluence of the discussion followed by the reading, which is an odd coincidence, even in this age of noids.

However, there are factors economically and socially that make 2010 interesting whether we blow up or not. And, I must share this, although you may know it, as I have posted it here several times...

The average life of a State is 300 years, State meaning single-form government. Corruption is insidious, and people can only take so much. Are US citizens ready for massive revolt? Uh, er, not anytime soon, too many mamzy pamzys. Yet, look what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. 9 days = civilization shredded.

Well it's easy to see any kind of chaos when all forms of police units and law enforcement not to mention politics are washed away. Without water, electricity, or shelter there are obviously going to be problems. However, a country filled with corruption doesn't collapse to the point where people automatically go crazy and loot left and right.

Tommycat
01-09-2010, 07:42 AM
Well it's easy to see any kind of chaos when all forms of police units and law enforcement not to mention politics are washed away. Without water, electricity, or shelter there are obviously going to be problems. However, a country filled with corruption doesn't collapse to the point where people automatically go crazy and loot left and right.

Interesting thought... Lots of municipalities are un(der)funded to the point where some of the more basic needs are in danger. It is not impossible to believe that some areas may go without police service in the near future.

Course my mother has a feeling that this year is going to be very rough. Actually according to her, people are gonna be robbing people on the streets a lot more. She tends to be right in her predictions. Better than 80% accuracy. She believes that God is talking through her. When her predictions are wrong, though there's usually something very close about them.

Example of when she was "wrong":
She gave me some blue towels. She told me that God told her that I needed blue in my life. Well at the time I just said... "um... okay" well shortly after that an old friend of mine and my former guitarrist called me up and we started hangin out again. His nick name is Blue. When my father died, he and I started playin music again, and honestly that has been what kept me going for the past year. Sooo while the whole blue towels thing was technically wrong, the "Blue" thing was right.

So when she adamantly says that I need to get a handgun, I tend to think it might be a good idea.

Totenkopf
01-09-2010, 10:10 AM
Well, maybe she's confused a handgun with a gun in hand (a larger semi-auto or somesuch). :p Kind of funny how things play out, though (Blue vs blue).

thegame197676
01-11-2010, 05:23 PM
Fact is that this guy is making a prediction on a event that is bound to occur one day at the rate our country is going, and just making a bold prediction for the year. While it is unlikely that anything close to that will happen in the coming year, I am a firm believer that unless our country takes a little more accountability for ourselves before we worry about fixing the rest of the world, that 10 to 20 years in the future our country will reach a point simular to that of the Roman Empire's end.

Only problem is that the Roman Empire lasted thousands of years, and the United States Empire will have made it a pathetic few centuries.

But this is just my thoughts...

urluckyday
01-11-2010, 10:28 PM
^Sorry. I can't support the isolationist view as a solution to our problems. As the world's only true superpower, it's our responsibility to be involved in the global community for better or for worse. No country can survive without being involved with the rest of society. This was proved after WWI.

I don't know what you mean by "accountability for ourselves," however.

purifier
01-12-2010, 12:39 AM
Kind of funny how things play out, though (Blue vs blue).

Hell yeah, It would have blue me away if I had encountered such an coincidental thing.

Originally Posted by thegame197676
Only problem is that the Roman Empire lasted thousands of years, and the United States Empire will have made it a pathetic few centuries.

Hi there,

This > ("United States Empire") This is not correct sir, we are not really an empire. Becuase we do not have and emporer that we serve, although we might have an emporer wanna-be right now for president (god forbid), we just have a president who we elect as a leader. And all the states that are in this country are "United", hence "The United States".

Anyway, I just wanted to point that out to you, thank you - carry on. ;)

Oh! And btw, welcome to the LF thegame197676 :)

mur'phon
01-12-2010, 07:50 AM
Someone mind telling me why the US is destined to go to hell?
Preferably without references to religious apocalypses.

jonathan7
01-12-2010, 07:58 AM
Someone mind telling me why the US is destined to go to hell?
Preferably without references to religious apocalypses.

But, but, but, Murph, in the Bible it specifically states "And in the year 2010, the Great Nation of America, blessed by God, will be led to it's utter destruction by the Anti-Christ... Barack Obama". Have you not read that part of the Bible?

thegame197676
01-12-2010, 12:06 PM
.
Hi there,

This > ("United States Empire") This is not correct sir, we are not really an empire. Becuase we do not have and emporer that we serve, although we might have an emporer wanna-be right now for president (god forbid), we just have a president who we elect as a leader. And all the states that are in this country are "United", hence "The United States".

Anyway, I just wanted to point that out to you, thank you - carry on. ;)

Oh! And btw, welcome to the LF thegame197676 :)

Thank you for welcoming me :)

To reply the united states empire was more a turn of phrase then actualy calling us a literal Empire. The turn of phrase being as you said... Wanna be emporer for a president.

Totenkopf
01-12-2010, 04:38 PM
But, but, but, Murph, in the Bible it specifically states "And in the year 2010, the Great Nation of America, blessed by God, will be led to it's utter destruction by the Anti-Christ... Barack Obama". Have you not read that part of the Bible?

Hey, hey, hey.....! I think that must have been in one of those banned book versions (like Lilith or the Gnostic Gospels, etc....). ;)


@Murph......well, given that hell is a religious reference of sorts......you ask the impossible. :xp: Serioiusly, though, depends on what one means by hell. If it's just a metaphor for falling fast and hard from a postion of prominence, then it's not inevitable. Perhaps just a slow but certain decline before diappearing into obscurity (often the fate of many an "empire") or the mists of time (or whatever metaphor you'd like).

thegame197676
01-12-2010, 05:30 PM
^Sorry. I can't support the isolationist view as a solution to our problems. As the world's only true superpower, it's our responsibility to be involved in the global community for better or for worse. No country can survive without being involved with the rest of society. This was proved after WWI.

I don't know what you mean by "accountability for ourselves," however.

Definatly not an isolationist view I am making, I am big on our government keeping strong good relations with the rest of the world. I am however not big on our government shelling out a trillion dollars for Iraq (which I served a year at in the military) for a conflict that our government had to lie about to get into, when our country is in massive debt as it is.

It is this kind of mismanagement and waste of finiances and other resources that I base my opinion on.

Darth Avlectus
01-12-2010, 06:15 PM
^^^So then what are you saying specifically about self accountability? You still didn't answer his question, which I now echo.

^Sorry. I can't support the isolationist view as a solution to our problems.

Well, fine, but how much more can we afford to ship overseas in terms of jobs? We've already given up technical and manufacturing, and service category is well on the way--if it won't be given to machines first. The uneven economic playfield allows corporations (regardless of public or private) to foothold their positions over smaller businesses and effectively lock them out of competition. Rather than people who are self reliant, independent, and sustaining, we may soon have public corporations to which we are all dependent upon.

As the world's only true superpower, it's our responsibility to be involved in the global community for better or for worse. No country can survive without being involved with the rest of society. This was proved after WWI. OK I do agree there about the involvement aspect, but I would cut this off when outsourcing begins to wreak havoc, but of course nobody cared about consequences of that for the past 16 years.

Someone mind telling me why the US is destined to go to hell?
Preferably without references to religious apocalypses.

The writer of the article is having a fit that Alaska is still a part of America in 2009 going into 2010--so he set up projections on his computerized simulations to "prove" this will happen. Personally I think his obsession with USA falling is masking his fit he's having over Alaska not yet being part of Russia once again.

But, but, but, Murph, in the Bible it specifically states "And in the year 2010, the Great Nation of America, blessed by God, will be led to it's utter destruction by the Anti-Christ... Barack Obama". Have you not read that part of the Bible?

Pictures of the text or it never happened. :carms: :devsmoke:

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-14-2010, 02:38 AM
@forum in general - Many here are assuming that I believe that "anything" is going to happen in the future. I have no crystal ball, and as Starkiller says, "never been a Jedi before." Do not confuse the topic with the poster.

@thegame - The roman "empire" was not one long single form government. Review history and respond if you wish.

@ForeverNight: I am not proposing that the US will dissolve, or the world will crack in two, in 2012 or necessarily anytime. Again, this is a discussion of a coincidence, and the facts are simply that some people think certain things, and some people discuss such-and-such. I did follow the first link, and no, I did not follow the second - I was underwhelmed by the argument presented by GDP statistics. That 1% has a lot of cash.

@murph - I know nothing about destiny, and I don't believe in hell. I simply live now and remember when, and as I old as I feel saying it (and dotardly) - it is all going to hell :lol:

Sabretooth
01-08-2011, 05:00 AM
My mother is quite heavy into new age mysticism and such, and has heard from several "ascended masters" as well as several seers and mediums, that in 2010 the US economy will disolve

So Glenn, you talk to your mom lately?

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-08-2011, 05:25 AM
Why yes... I talked to mum yesterday, trying to Nuke her PC (she has installed maybe 5 anti-virus softwares, simultaneously, and wonders why her pc is slow :giveup:).

She is well, for a woman who has worked her entire life, served her Government, and is at retirement age - yet will never be able to retire, as she netted $7500 from the $22000 gross that she earned in 2010. Tough time to move your service (CMT) business and start over... she is perservering.

As to her opinions about the USA not dissolving in 2010 - the same as the opinion she holds about the ET contact we were "prophesied" to receive several different times over the last 15 years, or the same opinions she holds about God, archangels, Divine Consciousness etc... all things that to me are creative writing projects, she holds them as truth "unfolding".

Her feeling is that things are happening... I think her crystal ball sucks.

Nevertheless, the conversation was lively, maybe the only topic I have made that actually went somewhere, even if it was mostly at the expense of Mommaroo.

I will ask her about it though.... honestly sabretooth, I had forgotten this topic! :D

urluckyday
01-08-2011, 09:55 PM
So Glenn, you talk to your mom lately?

lol did you set a reminder on your phone to come back to this thread after 2010 was over?

Sabretooth
01-08-2011, 10:07 PM
Haha no, I was looking about Kavar's, read through this thread and thought I'd ping it back again to show everyone the world didn't end in 2010!

or did it?

urluckyday
01-08-2011, 11:36 PM
Haha no, I was looking about Kavar's, read through this thread and thought I'd ping it back again to show everyone the world didn't end in 2010!

or did it?

Are we all just talking to each other on LF in heaven right now?

Sabretooth
01-08-2011, 11:53 PM
We could be splinters of our own collective imaginations interacting in that one split second during the destruction of the world, or my solipsist musings may have turned out to be true and the life-after-death is in fact, a seamless continuation of life-before-death.

BRB, overdosing on DMT

Darth Avlectus
01-09-2011, 01:01 AM
So Glenn, you talk to your mom lately?

Wotsdis about mothers now?

Jae Onasi
01-09-2011, 01:54 AM
Wotsdis about mothers now?You rang?

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-09-2011, 04:47 PM
We could be splinters of our own collective imaginations interacting in that one split second during the destruction of the world, or my solipsist musings may have turned out to be true and the life-after-death is in fact, a seamless continuation of life-before-death.Yes, time is abstract, a construct, and therefore not real. Yet I still want a danish.BRB, overdosing on DMTWe all live in a yel..... I have a friend who is training with a Peruvian shaman, if you need guidance :p

Darth Avlectus
01-10-2011, 04:49 PM
You rang?

I'm not Dath Maximus, but talk of mothers gets me very interested all the same. :dev8:

urluckyday
01-11-2011, 10:40 PM
You rang?

C'mon there aren't any girls on the internet, we all know that by now!o_Q