My Doom-O-Meter is jittering towards max

Heineken · **Posted:** Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:30 pm

Keep your eye on this birdie, my second sig. It seems to be achieving the weight of a law of nature:

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."

rangerone314 · **Posted:** Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:21 pm

Heineken wrote:

Keep your eye on this birdie, my second sig. It seems to be achieving the weight of a law of nature:

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."

I'm not rooting it on. I'm hoping things hold together long enough for me to get it together, so I can ride out the storm.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is my doomstead.

patience · **Joined:** Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:00 am **Posts:** 2869

RE: Sovereignty post, above.

What the discussion in the link covered was the apparent fears of at least 8 States have of the Fed govt overstepping its' bounds in a dire economic emergency. Those states are considering virtually identical bills to declare their Constitutional rights under the 10th Amendment. (Powers NOT specifically given to the Federal govt are reserved to the States..)

This seems to be pursuant to various antics of the US Treasury, Federal Reserve, and Homeland Security that those states do not like. The problem being, if they PASS such legislation, what will the Federal govt do? Last time this was a problem (1860) 618,000 men died to settle it.

rangerone314 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:35 am

patience wrote:

RE: Sovereignty post, above.

What the discussion in the link covered was the apparent fears of at least 8 States have of the Fed govt overstepping its' bounds in a dire economic emergency. Those states are considering virtually identical bills to declare their Constitutional rights under the 10th Amendment. (Powers NOT specifically given to the Federal govt are reserved to the States..)

This seems to be pursuant to various antics of the US Treasury, Federal Reserve, and Homeland Security that those states do not like. The problem being, if they PASS such legislation, what will the Federal govt do? Last time this was a problem (1860) 618,000 men died to settle it.

Why does it always seem easier for people to kill thousands instead of finding a logical resolution to problems? I think it is arrogance thinking that YOUR side will win, and not suffer many losses.

I find it ironic the Feds waged a war because the South insisted on not being part of the country, but that it was ok to kill them for trying. I guess it is better for your own people to be DEAD than not under your control.

Not surprised about 8 states being paranoid. Since when has a little thing like the Constitution stopped the real patriots among us from acting? LOL!

vision-master · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:41 am

Quote:

RE: Sovereignty post, above.

What the discussion in the link covered was the apparent fears of at least 8 States have of the Fed govt overstepping its' bounds in a dire economic emergency. Those states are considering virtually identical bills to declare their Constitutional rights under the 10th Amendment. (Powers NOT specifically given to the Federal govt are reserved to the States..)

This seems to be pursuant to various antics of the US Treasury, Federal Reserve, and Homeland Security that those states do not like. The problem being, if they PASS such legislation, what will the Federal govt do? Last time this was a problem (1860) 618,000 men died to settle it.

FEMA Camps and Martial Law

Quote:

Thank you! I was in new orleans for katrina. I was perfectly fine staying in my apartment, had plenty of water and food and batteries for the radio and was very safe. The minute I was forcibly "evacuated" the experience became hell. Government "aid" in this instance was being held at gunpoint on the side of the highway with 6000 other people. No sanitation or facilities or any kind, within a few hours the place was a sty. I slept curled up on my duffel bag in a gutter filled with MRE wrappers and trash, and had to go to the bathroom in the middle of a field littered with other people's sh!t. Just out in the open with no privacy like an animal. The only security provided in this situation was keeping people from leaving the area. Within the encampment or whatever you want to call it, it was pretty lawless. Fights breaking out, people selling some clearly looted tems like cigarettes for 10 bucks a pack, and the guards didn't interfere at all. I wish I was joking or exaggerating, but this is the "aid" that awaits you in the camps. You are better off on your own. Even if you end up dying or starving, at least you can keep your dignity.

http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/ ... 43.30.html

rangerone314 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:51 am

vision-master wrote:

FEMA Camps and Martial Law

Quote:

Thank you! I was in new orleans for katrina. I was perfectly fine staying in my apartment, had plenty of water and food and batteries for the radio and was very safe. The minute I was forcibly "evacuated" the experience became hell. Government "aid" in this instance was being held at gunpoint on the side of the highway with 6000 other people. No sanitation or facilities or any kind, within a few hours the place was a sty. I slept curled up on my duffel bag in a gutter filled with MRE wrappers and trash, and had to go to the bathroom in the middle of a field littered with other people's sh!t. Just out in the open with no privacy like an animal. The only security provided in this situation was keeping people from leaving the area. Within the encampment or whatever you want to call it, it was pretty lawless. Fights breaking out, people selling some clearly looted tems like cigarettes for 10 bucks a pack, and the guards didn't interfere at all. I wish I was joking or exaggerating, but this is the "aid" that awaits you in the camps. You are better off on your own. Even if you end up dying or starving, at least you can keep your dignity.

http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/ ... 43.30.html

Where did that quote come from? It does sound accurate to the way officials handle things.

mos6507 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:51 pm

rangerone314 wrote:

I find it ironic the Feds waged a war because the South insisted on not being part of the country, but that it was ok to kill them for trying. I guess it is better for your own people to be DEAD than not under your control.

If every group of more than one person felt no compulsion to participate in a larger entity, and kept dropping out and subdividing, we'd probably have perpetual anarchy. At some point you have to draw a circle and say "this is a country" and try to hold it together otherwise countries have no meaning. That's how you wind up with the balkans, whatever-the-f*ck-istans, and Los Angeles County

Freedom is fine, but compromise and tolerance are better virtues.

davep · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:56 pm

mos6507 wrote:

rangerone314 wrote:

I find it ironic the Feds waged a war because the South insisted on not being part of the country, but that it was ok to kill them for trying. I guess it is better for your own people to be DEAD than not under your control.

If every group of more than one person felt no compulsion to participate in a larger entity, and kept dropping out and subdividing, we'd probably have perpetual anarchy. At some point you have to draw a circle and say "this is a country" and try to hold it together otherwise countries have no meaning. That's how you wind up with the balkans, whatever-the-f*ck-istans, and Los Angeles County

Freedom is fine, but compromise and tolerance are better virtues.

Anarchism is local and totally inclusive. I'm not sure why we have to delineate national borders.

Newfie · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:10 pm

The "states rights" issue is likely to be a red herring and has no bearing on the Civil War. While I am no great student of history the roots of the Civil War went back to the founding of the Nation. It was a perpetual thorn in the side of Federal Government. Also there was this whole issue of slavery.

In any case the battle was fought, the North won. There is nothing like that kind of aggravation today.

There is still plenty to be very nervous about without trying to justify a new civil war over states rights issues.

I'm far more worried about "civil unrest" with inner-city gangs creating alternative local governments.

Serial_Worrier · **Joined:** Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 583

My personal Doom-O-Meter has been pegging MAX for a while now. It's all going down!

mgibbons19 · **Joined:** Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 1149

rangerone314 wrote:

I find it ironic the Feds waged a war because the South insisted on not being part of the country, but that it was ok to kill them for trying. I guess it is better for your own people to be DEAD than not under your control.

That's funny, in a real twisted way.

mos6507 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:45 am

Newfie wrote:

There is nothing like that kind of aggravation today.

The south has since gotten their revenge anyway by becoming the decisive force in modern presidential elections.

rangerone314 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:57 pm

Newfie wrote:

The "states rights" issue is likely to be a red herring and has no bearing on the Civil War. While I am no great student of history the roots of the Civil War went back to the founding of the Nation. It was a perpetual thorn in the side of Federal Government. Also there was this whole issue of slavery.

In any case the battle was fought, the North won. There is nothing like that kind of aggravation today.

There is still plenty to be very nervous about without trying to justify a new civil war over states rights issues.

I'm far more worried about "civil unrest" with inner-city gangs creating alternative local governments.

There may be nothing like that kind of aggravation today, but that is just today. I'm laying good odds that situation changes when TSHTF. People are capable of a lot of things, when things go down hill. Witness Siege of Stalingrad (cannibalism), Bosnia (rape/forced-impregnation camps), Rwanda (killing a spouse who is of another tribe), Congo (mutilations).

Unless Americans are not Homo sapiens, I hold little hope for better behavior when things go down hill. What happens when the Feds want to become dictatorship and some states don't like it? Or set up work camps? Or some states are better off economically than others (moreso than today) after a collapse?

patience · **Joined:** Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:00 am **Posts:** 2869

A friend told me that now 12 states have passed Resolutions affirming their States Rights under the 10th Amendment. I read several places that sales of guns and ammunition are higher than ever. Car sales are in the sewer--Toyota losing money for the first time in over 50 years. The UK is printing more money to prop failing banks. The DOW is 56% down from the peak. I see anecdotal reports of store shelves being empty, and see it myself. U6 unemployment in the US is close to 15%. Tickerforum's "Ticker" essay yesterday warned that imminent stock market collapse is likely, followed by collapse of pensions, and US Treasury bond prices. My daughter's expensive bird got sick and had a $500 vet bill, my wife's bird got sick and died, both from contaminated birdseed. And my business is very slow.

Other than that, everything is just peachy.

Revi · **Posted:** Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:23 pm

I am starting to hear lots of sad stories. 2 guys I know just lost their jobs, 70 layoffs at the local paper mill. 300 jobs lost, probably forever at a paper mill down east. We're on the brink of collapse around here. People are edgy. I think we're in real trouble.

They are talking about furlough days at work. Unpaid vacation days.

My doom - o - meter has never read this high.

My Doom-O-Meter is jittering towards max

Who is online