2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

No Brother, I think you miss my point. The rich have their land and houses already. If they are smart they would have parlayed cash for useable items, gold/silver coins, gems, diamonds to ensure that if money goes by the wayside they will endure.

Not so for the poor. They have nothing to convert, nothing to fall back on. If they do not own land, there is no place to grow food. Also, if it gets bad enough, not even govt. soup lines will be in the offering. That is why I think it's the poor that will get the very short end of the stick this time. Care to guess the percentage of people today just 2 paychecks away from the street?
 
2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

Originally posted by StarLord@Oct 20 2004, 11:45 PM
No Brother, I think you miss my point. The rich have their land and houses already. If they are smart they would have parlayed cash for useable items, gold/silver coins, gems, diamonds to ensure that if money goes by the wayside they will endure.

Not so for the poor. They have nothing to convert, nothing to fall back on. If they do not own land, there is no place to grow food. Also, if it gets bad enough, not even govt. soup lines will be in the offering. That is why I think it's the poor that will get the very short end of the stick this time. Care to guess the percentage of people today just 2 paychecks away from the street?
​
Click to expand...


It occurs to me that this issue may be the key to the Titor puzzle. First of all, he tells us that those who remain in the cities will have had ample opportunity to vacate and join up with the virtuous agrarian rebels. That those who remain in the cities (apparently not including Omaha or Tampa) include but are not limited to the wealthy and powerful-- the "haves." The cities are bombed and the government loses the war.

However, if the good guys get to survive by this fortuitous turn of events, and the good guys include the poor, then the poor, who don't have the means to escape the cities, are sacrificed (once again, no surprise) for the sake of the middleclass and upperclass virtuous ones. This is why I can't quite credit the scenario, and one of the reasons I think that Titor is not to be trusted, and, if anything, works for the government.

The poor would be the first to incite violent uprising, and would remain in the cities. This means that the theater of a modern American civil war would have to be urban, and it would be nearly impossible to distinguish between the good and bad citizens from the viewpoint of those in power. This accidental circumstance would be the only protection for the rebellion, given that the cities could not be effectively invaded or bombed.

The government in such a terrible fix would have needed to convince the rebels ahead of time to abandon the cities.
 
2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

Does anybody remember the media comparing Kerry to Lincoln? Coincidence?

Also, does anybody really seriously believe Kerry will change any of Bush's foreign policies? He only wants to modify it slightly. The same with the Patriot act.

It's a two-headed coin. You get a fascist on both sides. No matter who wins, it'll still be civil war.

It's like an old sign I saw on the campus of UCSB right after Clinton was elected and fired a missile at Iraq: "Same ######. Different asshole."

Snortlechops
 
2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

snortlechops,

Thanks for telling me that civil war is on the way; oh, and welcome to this forum.

you said,

No matter who wins, it'll still be civil war.
Click to expand...

mmmmm. smells like good bait. I think I'll bite. wait just a second. how many posts have you made here, regarding Titor and the coming civil war? ONE? whoah you have got Federal Baiting Institute all over you man! yuck!

Eventhough you are probably a great fellow, snortlechops, why don't you introduce yourself to this time travel community before you start shooting off about civil war? It is a manners thing, no?

Carry on everyone,

August
 
2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

Thanks for making me feel welcome, August. :D

Titor was right in that we all have the ability to avoid things that have a great probability of occurring. We just have to want to do something about them. Whether he was a time traveller or not is irrelelvant. What is important is the wisdom he gave us.

Snortlechops


Originally posted by August@Oct 21 2004, 09:06 PM
snortlechops,

Thanks for telling me that civil war is on the way; oh, and welcome to this forum.

you said,

No matter who wins, it'll still be civil war.
Click to expand...

mmmmm. smells like good bait. I think I'll bite. wait just a second. how many posts have you made here, regarding Titor and the coming civil war? ONE? whoah you have got Federal Baiting Institute all over you man! yuck!

Eventhough you are probably a great fellow, snortlechops, why don't you introduce yourself to this time travel community before you start shooting off about civil war? It is a manners thing, no?

Carry on everyone,

August
​
Click to expand...
 
2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

I find it funny that the debunkers never think about how they would behave if they went back to the 1970s. They would look at the polyester pants with amusement. "Look at these goofs. Don't they know they look absolutely ridiculous? Gold chains. Open shirts." This was in Titor's posts. He just laughed at us. He did everything to make himself real. He dropped in hints about the probable future because he was tempted to make predictions.

Snortlechops
 
2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

The poor would be the first to incite violent uprising, and would remain in the cities. This means that the theater of a modern American civil war would have to be urban, and it would be nearly impossible to distinguish between the good and bad citizens from the viewpoint of those in power. This accidental circumstance would be the only protection for the rebellion, given that the cities could not be effectively invaded or bombed.
Click to expand...


This is not nessisarially true Paul. Poverty is not confined to the cities.
Also any military operation needs a way to resupply itself with food, ammunition and other nesessities. Food at least is easier to get in rural areas, especially if the farmers are on your side. Urban areas are easier to control in that they do not offer as much of an oppurtunity for the rebels to spread out and hide. It would be easier for instance to line every city street with cameras, making movement of large numbers of troops with weapons impossible to hide.
I think that any uprising among the urban poor would be easially crushed by containment and deprivation of essential food, water, and power. The welfare class is getting handouts from the government, and I should think that not many of them want to rock that boat. It is true that the street gangs are well armed, but I also think that if this were to play out, they would more likely be government shock troops than rebels.
Phil
 
2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

I'm pretty much in agreement with Darkwolf. The urban poor who are on the govt. tab wouldn't revolt unless their entitlement programs were taken away. As long as some subsistence is meted out, what's there to revolt about. Nothing lost, still getting your check, why you want to go out and "fight da man." As Darkwolf said, they're easily contained and/or destroyed if that's the govt.'s intention. You could seal up their part of town, bring in the gun ships, air strikes, artillery fire whatever and obliterate that part of a city. Just look at how this is done in parts of Iraq (US military) and Gaza (Israeli Defense Force). Blow everything to hell, until there's nothing left.

The middle class who actually have something to lose would be the most likely to revolt. If the "game" come apart from the financial implosion that seems to be upon us in the next year or so, the middle class will be the hardest hit. Imagine all the soccer moms who have to pack up and move out of the overly mortgaged house and sell the SUV she loved so much. Imagine the NASCAR dads who have to sell the boat and can't watch cable TV (much less digital) on their 5 ft. plasma flat screens. People not used to suffering and doing without on a major scale would be more likely to revolt. Americans aren't used to suffering and have an obsession with "the good life" as though it were an entitlement. When "the good life" is snatched away, the crowds of the newly poor will go looking for someone to blame in the worst sort of way. Greenspan should have quit while he had the chance to go out with everybody thinking he was the "Maestro". Now he'll be lucky not to wind up swinging from the nearest lamp post (that's in a figurative way for any "spooks" looking in). Just my thoughts.

Cary
 
2015 in Retrospect: Where Will You Be Politically?

Cary you said,

Imagine all the soccer moms who have to pack up and move out of the overly mortgaged house and sell the SUV she loved so much. Imagine the NASCAR dads who have to sell the boat and can't watch cable TV (much less digital) on their 5 ft. plasma flat screens. People not used to suffering and doing without on a major scale would be more likely to revolt.
Click to expand...

And I think imagining these scenarios is really a difficult task. When I first read the Titor posts I immediately sided with his way of thinking. But I am more a big fan of mid-19th century America than I am a revolutionary. This is probably the reason his posts appealed to me. And when I actually think about possible scenarios in my own life, my decisions are made sometimes by reason and sometimes by emotion. Multiply this by the 30,000 families in my little suburb. And all sorts of things can happen.

And my experience of the soccer moms and others like them is this: they will cut you off at the knees before parting with their material status in the community. I don't think they are the revolutionary type. I think the fictional Titor war is a fascinating study precisely because of these different motivations.

There are possibly four groups to consider in three zones:

1. Inner city people who must stay
2. Suburb people who choose to stay and protect their two car garage, giving up the constitution.
3. Suburb people who choose to flee to rural areas and live free.
4. Rural people who necessarily stay where they are.

Zone A: Cities
Zone B: Suburbs
Zone C: Rural Areas

Now of course this is a simplification. Someone on Manhattan's upper west side can do whatever they please war or no war. So the model has exceptions.

And with this model you can see where the real ugliness will be. The cities will be locked down prisons. The rural areas will be the land of the hear and there skirmish. But the suburbs will be true hell when those two groups decide who they are.

Snortlechops,

Glad you stayed to post. I suspect you know the validity of my response to your first post in this forum. The internet desperately tries to establish ettiquet whenever it can. Here we need other rules of engagement methinks.

Showing up here and immediately telling us that our country is heading to civil war is like playing bridge for the first time with a set of elderly women and the first thing you say is, "boy this is a great game to play when you are weak boned, old, and don't get out much."

Take some time to read all our other threads. We have been playing bridge for a while.
 

Top