Jump to content

Experiment with Time, your assistance is requested


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sol, it's March. Looks like your experiment failed.

That depends upon what the intent of the experiment was. I asked him to share the proper experimental design, and he balked. However, for all we know the objective of his experiment could have just been to tweak your gourd some more. If that was his objective, I'd say he succeeded.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sol, it's March. Looks like your experiment failed.

 

That depends upon what the intent of the experiment was

True. The terms of the experiment were not clearly defined to us. However, Sol did declare "During the course of this experiment, we will be taking questions from the general public and selectively answering those questions within the confines of this experiment ... the experiment will be completed before March 2009.... " According to my reading, that means that the "taking questions" and "answering questions" were both to be completed before March 2009.

 

It could be that the questions Sol answered were the only ones that "fell within the guidelines", which would leave me disappointed.

 

I am holding out a smidgen of hope that we will still see some more responses from Sol, but that hope is fading. And with Zeshua scheduled to begone no later than next week as well, I doubt I will be bothering you folks here much anymore after that, as these were the only subjects of lasting interest to me at this site.

 

You all know my opinions on things well enough, and I yours, and there's no sense butting heads over it any more. I trust that my posts will remain archived here, in case future events convince others to take a second look at the Zeshua material. And if not, we'll all be better off.

 

So, to all y'all who've argued against me over these things, I thank you, for you kept a spark of hope alive in me that I might be wrong after all. I couldn't have born it if you'd all been convinced by my arguments. Even now, though I'm sure you are wrong, I still pray you are right.

 

- Peter

 

 

_______________

 

Got salt?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The United States of America, in 2009, was teetering at the very heights of its greatest triumphs

If for the sake of argument we were to agree that the above statement was correct, what do you suppose those "greatest triumphs" were that America was supposed to be teetering on in 2009?

 

It wasn't winning the Cold War against Russia and becoming the World's Sole Superpower. Russia has been newly aggressive against us.

 

It surely wasn't winning the fight in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Israel. Those have all gone badly for us lately.

 

Any ideas?

 

 

_______________

 

Got salt?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If for the sake of argument we were to agree that the above statement was correct, what do you suppose those "greatest triumphs" were that America was supposed to be teetering on in 2009?

If the author feels that American capitalism was its greatest achievement, then the Dow industrial average saw an all time high of around 14000 a little over a year ago. It has seen an almost non-stop plummet from that level since then due to the credit problems. Does anyone think we will ever see that level again? Probably not in real dollars anyway.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, timeloop! That answer does seem to fit. That shouldn't surprise me, because you always seem to have useful insights.

 

Given that, I have to ask -- regarding the following :

 

Most likely the same way as everyone else of your time. During the Great Reclamation, either towards the beginning when the bottom drops out of the dollar and most cities and counties go bust, along with several of the larger states. Or immediately afterwards when your city is invaded and you were unable to flee. Several billion die worldwide.

 

Or

 

You may die in 2012 when a series of events between Russia and Iran cause an exchange of nuclear ordinance. Israel is forced into a response and the result is that several billion die worldwide as a result of radiation.

 

Or

 

You may die in 2015 when the Destroyer of Worlds returns to wipe the face of the planet clean. A great plague is unleashed and although millions have died before due to other tragedies, this particular plague is responsible for billions of deaths worldwide.

Which of these three do you think most likely, and why?

 

I'm still inclined to favor the first, due to the earlier comments about (1) economic collapse and (2) American citizens fleeing to Canada and Mexico.

 

I'm now wondering if the OP never intended to post anything more than what is contained in those 3 posts.

 

 

_______________

 

Got salt?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which of these three do you think most likely, and why?

The first part of option 1 seems inevitable. The invasion seems unlikely, unless they see a chance to capture or neutralize our nukes. I'd lean towards option 1.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. I'm making assumptions and not sharing them.

 

I figured the only way an invasion could occur would be if it was an invasion of American forces into the big cities : FEMA, the Guard, groups like that.

 

If TSHTF, that seems a reasonable consequence to me.

 

BTW, see the latest on the collapse in today's news, at

 

http://market-ticker.org/archives/852-Whats-Dead-Short-Answer-All-Of-It.html

 

Even so, though, that scenario would not in and of itself account for billions dying.

 

Would it?

 

How much is America propping up? What happens if we stop propping it up? If America falls, does the whole world follow?

 

 

_______________

 

Got salt?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The first part of option 1 seems inevitable. The invasion seems unlikely, unless they see a chance to capture or neutralize our nukes. I'd lean towards option 1.

Well not true. Would a country use nukes on its own soil against it own population? Would a country use nukes knowing that the invading country has them too? Did the light bulb come on yet?

 

And, if your talking about Iran or North Korea they would just go to their bomb shelters and resume business as usual after it was all over. It would take a while for their country to recover but it would be worth it to them to take out one American city. No decision another country makes is always sane. They have logic to their decisions no matter how twisted it is.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well not true. Would a country use nukes on its own soil against it own population? Would a country use nukes knowing that the invading country has them too? Did the light bulb come on yet?

 

And, if your talking about Iran or North Korea they would just go to their bomb shelters and resume business as usual after it was all over. It would take a while for their country to recover but it would be worth it to them to take out one American city. No decision another country makes is always sane. They have logic to their decisions no matter how twisted it is.

Yeah, but we're not talking about "taking out" one or more American cities. We are talking about a massive invasion and occupation of American cities. I can't think of any foreign power that has the strength to accomplish that. I mean, we may be in a new Great Depression, but we still possess the same military strength. No group or nation can go head-to-head against America, and I can't see that any Depression is going to change that fact much.

 

Neither Iran nor NKorea have the resources to invade the US. No one does, except FEMA, the National Guard, and the US Military.

 

There is already public unrest in Algeria, Armenia, Ireland, Media, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Kenya and other places because of this economic collapse. The question is, arte they the canaries in the coal mine, or just meaningless noise? You can bet that the US Government is trying to figure that out. Either way, they're going to want to be ready with plans in case it happens here.

 

Hell, Obama is pretty pro-active, so he might even send in the troops before any unrest got very bad here, in a "for your own good" attempt to keep things from getting out of control.

 

I don't like the bit about citizens not being able to leave the cities after the invasion. But that would explain the other bit about massive exoduses of American citizens to Mexico and Canada.

 

 

_______________

 

Got salt?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
We are talking about a massive invasion and occupation of American cities. I can't think of any foreign power that has the strength to accomplish that. I mean, we may be in a new Great Depression, but we still possess the same military strength. No group or nation can go head-to-head against America, and I can't see that any Depression is going to change that fact much.

Not only that, but those of us who are armed and adamant supporters of the 2nd Amendment, are also very aware of the various reasons our founding fathers wanted to protect our right to bear arms. Beyond our military strength, any foreign government would be nuts to attempt an invasion of a country where there is a great potential that over 50% of the population is armed. We responsible gun owners know that this is one reason America will always be safe, and why if any government ever does try to take our firearms away, is the day when we are weakened as a country and more susceptible to a foreign invasion. Any foreign power invading Southern California is going to lose quite a few soliders just trying to take my home! ;)

 

Hell, Obama is pretty pro-active, so he might even send in the troops before any unrest got very bad here, in a "for your own good" attempt to keep things from getting out of control.

It is not as easy as you make it sound. Obama would first have to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents US military forces from being used as police forces on US soil unless and until he receives a request from a state's governor. After that, he would then have to enact martial law. It would be quite ironic for a socialist-leaning (but denying) Democratic president like Obama to suspend Posse Comitatus and then enact martial law. If he ever did, and it was not a dire emergency, then there would be no better time for unarmed people to arm themselves....if that option had not already been taken away!

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama would first have to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act

Maybe not.

 

Posse Comitatus from wikipedia:

 

This Act was almost thouroughly repealed by Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by President George W. Bush on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony. This act allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

 

Posse Comitatus wikipedia entry

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

timeloop:

 

Maybe not.

You did not read far enough, nor did you bother to look at the details of later legislation:

 

1) From the wiki you cited about 2006 changes to Posse Comitatus:

 

"This was repealed in 2008 by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (full text). See Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act."

 

2) From the referenced law made effective in 2008:

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4986&tab=summary

 

"Section 1068 -

 

Revises federal provisions concerning the use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies to discontinue the executive authority to deploy active and reserve personnel during domestic response incidents. Repeals the authority of the President to direct the Secretary to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by major public emergencies. "

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Experiment with Time, your assistance is reque

 

Does the "Great ReCLAMation" have anything to do with Clamorian returning?

I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope.

 

I loved that clam! ;)

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not as easy as you make it sound. Obama would first have to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents US military forces from being used as police forces on US soil unless and until he receives a request from a state's governor. After that, he would then have to enact martial law. It would be quite ironic for a socialist-leaning (but denying) Democratic president like Obama to suspend Posse Comitatus and then enact martial law. If he ever did, and it was not a dire emergency, then there would be no better time for unarmed people to arm themselves....if that option had not already been taken away!

Well, we know that FEMA is empowered to enter a region and forceably take away the citizen's firearms; we saw that happen in Katrina. And in the event of real unrest, the armed populace will probably actually hasten Governors' pleas to the Feds to use National Guard troops in their states. The European think tank LEAP/Europe 2020 recently concluded that many in America would be so disturbed by the unrest that they would leave their homes and cities to escape the rioting and crime, becoming dislocated people. See http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-3479-0-13-13--.html

 

And in the event of a national emergency, such as a declaration of Force Majeure on debt for example, with massive and widespread unrest in numerous cities, I'm just not all that sure that the government would need to use a legally valid reason to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act. All they would need to have is a stated reason, any stated reason at all, then declare the Act suspended, and then declare that if their stated reason for suspending it isn't legally sound, that is something for the Courts to decide at a later point in time, and in the meantime, the nation needs to fall in line.

 

In times of crisis, alot of the people wouldn't care much about legal technicalities anyway, and would just want their law and order back, at any price.

 

In any event, this may all be a moot point, as FEMA seems to already have all the power and authority needed to occupy US cities whenever the President asks them to. In a real pinch, I suppose the President could even reassign troops out of the military and into FEMA as he wished, to get around any legalities about not using US troops.

 

But just because there's a law on the books doesn't mean that the government is gonna follow it in a time of crisis. Remember all the Japanese-American citizens in US prison camps during WWII? That wasn't legal, but it happened just the same.

 

I don't think a President has to officially declare Martial Law anymore. I think using FEMA allows him to get around that and still achieve the same end. Sorta the same way that the President is now able to wage wars without actually needing congress to "Declare War" anymore.

 

And since Congress has both suspended and then reinstated the Posse Comitatus Act in the last few years, it could certainly flip-flop it off again at a moment's notice if necessary.

 

 

_______________

 

Got salt?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think a President has to officially declare Martial Law anymore. I think using FEMA allows him to get around that and still achieve the same end. Sorta the same way that the President is now able to wage wars without actually needing congress to "Declare War" anymore.

The difference, Peter, is that, as always, you engage in speculation for what you think will happen. I have merely pointed to the laws, as they exist, and how things would have to happen per those existing laws. Not to mention that your speculation about FEMA is way, way off.

 

Same type of speculation you do with the now dead Zeshua story. Your life is quite dark, it seems. That's too bad.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your life is quite dark, it seems. That's too bad.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined

 

The recession is in its 15th month, making it longer than all but two downturns since World War II. Everything seems to be getting worse: the DJIA is in free fall, tens of thousands of jobs are vanishing every day, and 1 in 8 American homeowners is in foreclosure or behind on payments. Unemployment hit 8.1 percent, a 25-year peak, and the nation has lost 4.4 million jobs. Experts think the economy will probably shed 2.4 million additional jobs this year. The median price of a US home fell 26 percent from a year and a half earlier. During the Great Depression, home prices only fell 30%, but the Fed thinks that home prices could fall another 18 to 29 percent more by the end of 2010. The Dow has lost more than half their value since the stock market peaked in October 2007.

 

Thank goodness Ray thinks that it's just Pete's life that is dark, and not the world.

 

 

_______________

 

Got salt?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...