Preppers/Survivalists

Off Topic
141

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
For those wondering what the “event” will be, I think the “event” will not be “an event,” but a rather a series of events.

Rome was not built in a day; neither did it fall in a day. Nor the USA.

You’ve got several things going on:

  1. Very high historical taxation and economic dis-incentives to produce. The layers of government are slowly rotting upon themslves. Blame conservatives; blame liberals, whatever. It’s unsustainable economic stupidity.
  2. There will be unexpected natural events. Boston and San Fransico will, indeed, get hit with the “big one” Earth quake wise. Boston is in a very bad fault line with old buildings on fill dirt (Back Bay). It will be devastated.
  3. There will be hurricanes and whatever
  4. There will be a nuclear attack on USA soil, probably eastern seaboard. New York, whatever. Just a couple of cities from a crappy pseudo-state like Iran.
  5. Bird flu or some crap like that will just happen to come during one of those disasters.

Any one or more of these is not a big deal, country wise. Yes, terrible tradgedies, each one. But when you have a slowly rotting empire that gets a couple of hits like this, the empire collapses or breaks up, racial unrest becomes ethnic cleansing, etc.

Timing? Sometime in the next 100 years, the country won’t exist as you recogonize it today.

Your great-grandchildren will be citizens of some other country.[/quote]

And there you have “The Crazy.”
[/quote]
Explain how the thought process is crazy.[/quote]

There is no reason to believe that America will dissolve as it is in the next hundred years. This is not Rome, there are no barbarian hordes or other empires knocking on our door.

Our influence may decline, sure, but if anything we will be more like Britain or France after their empires declined than Rome. To think otherwise at this time is absurd[/quote]

Rome did not fall from barbarian hordes. Rome fell because it rotted internally due to mismanagmeent and corruption, then was picked off by muslim invaders after a near stalemated war with Persia.

The barbarian horders (while they certainly didn’t help) were more like an afterthought.[/quote]

I more than understand that. But we live in a much different time, and a much more interwoven world, than the Romans and their foes.

142

[quote]JLone wrote:
On the other hand, countries no longer need to take over other countries and throw out there government. It just doesn’t make economical sense to go in and kill potential consumers. Who would benefit if New York was hit with a Nuke? Nobody would.

There is no money in war unless resources are present. In the case of a large heavily populated seaboard the people are the resource. It makes no sense to start a war by blowing up the only thing you can hope to gain from fighting. [/quote]

You assume logic in attackers. The 12ers in Iran (for one of many examples) just hate you and would be happy to die if that meant you die.

It doesn’t even have to be a country that attacks, just nuts who want to watch things burn, of which there are plenty.

I doubt any war on the USA will be one of conquest, more like revenge or just hatred, nor will there be troops on the ground in the USA for a long time.

More like a shipping container in New York harbor with a 100 megaton warhead.

143

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]JLone wrote:
On the other hand, countries no longer need to take over other countries and throw out there government. It just doesn’t make economical sense to go in and kill potential consumers. Who would benefit if New York was hit with a Nuke? Nobody would.

There is no money in war unless resources are present. In the case of a large heavily populated seaboard the people are the resource. It makes no sense to start a war by blowing up the only thing you can hope to gain from fighting. [/quote]

You assume logic in attackers. The 12ers in Iran (for one of many examples) just hate you and would be happy to die if that meant you die.

It doesn’t even have to be a country that attacks, just nuts who want to watch things burn, of which there are plenty.

I doubt any war on the USA will be one of conquest, more like revenge or just hatred, nor will there be troops on the ground in the USA for a long time.

More like a shipping container in New York harbor with a 100 megaton warhead.[/quote]

This is absolutely true. But again, your initial statement indicated you believe the nation will be “very different” than it is now. That’s quite a leap.

144

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]JLone wrote:
On the other hand, countries no longer need to take over other countries and throw out there government. It just doesn’t make economical sense to go in and kill potential consumers. Who would benefit if New York was hit with a Nuke? Nobody would.

There is no money in war unless resources are present. In the case of a large heavily populated seaboard the people are the resource. It makes no sense to start a war by blowing up the only thing you can hope to gain from fighting. [/quote]

You assume logic in attackers. The 12ers in Iran (for one of many examples) just hate you and would be happy to die if that meant you die.

It doesn’t even have to be a country that attacks, just nuts who want to watch things burn, of which there are plenty.

I doubt any war on the USA will be one of conquest, more like revenge or just hatred, nor will there be troops on the ground in the USA for a long time.

More like a shipping container in New York harbor with a 100 megaton warhead.[/quote]

This is absolutely true. But again, your initial statement indicated you believe the nation will be “very different” than it is now. That’s quite a leap.[/quote]

I do. The way these things work is 2 or 3 will happen at the same time. You’ll have a stock market in the shitter, tax revolt going on. Then some natural disaster. Then some terrorist dumb fuck. Then martial law dividing the country in two. And, because we spent all our money on ObamaPhones, we won’t be able to fix the infrastructure.

Or whatever. It’s just tettering. You can tell if you really look at it.

Not going to be today or tomorrow, but the slide downward has started.

145

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
And, because we spent all our money on ObamaPhones, we won’t be able to fix the infrastructure.
[/quote]

Yea… and BushWars. Those might have been a bit more expensive but hey, who’s counting.

146

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
if the world collapses in the survivalists’ wet dream scenario, no amount of “prepping” is going to help you.[/quote]

I don’t know. I’ve got plans in place to live in about 3 different countries and the paperwork (and funding) in place to do so.

The whole my-grandpa-being-stuffed-into-railcar thing has me deeply sceptical about the safety and sanity of any country.

147

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
And, because we spent all our money on ObamaPhones, we won’t be able to fix the infrastructure.
[/quote]

Yea… and BushWars. Those might have been a bit more expensive but hey, who’s counting.
[/quote]

Sadly, a pittance. Obama spent more money than both wars in the first two hours of the first “stimulous” package.

148

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
And, because we spent all our money on ObamaPhones, we won’t be able to fix the infrastructure.
[/quote]

Yea… and BushWars. Those might have been a bit more expensive but hey, who’s counting.
[/quote]

Sadly, a pittance. Obama spent more money than both wars in the first two hours of the first “stimulous” package.[/quote]

Oh, you mean that stimulus package that began repairing the infrastructure you’re whining about?

149

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
And, because we spent all our money on ObamaPhones, we won’t be able to fix the infrastructure.
[/quote]

Yea… and BushWars. Those might have been a bit more expensive but hey, who’s counting.
[/quote]

Sadly, a pittance. Obama spent more money than both wars in the first two hours of the first “stimulous” package.[/quote]

Oh, you mean that stimulus package that began repairing the infrastructure you’re whining about?[/quote]

No, the bush stimulus. Not the piddly trillion dollar war.

150

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
And, because we spent all our money on ObamaPhones, we won’t be able to fix the infrastructure.
[/quote]

Yea… and BushWars. Those might have been a bit more expensive but hey, who’s counting.
[/quote]

Sadly, a pittance. Obama spent more money than both wars in the first two hours of the first “stimulous” package.[/quote]

Oh, you mean that stimulus package that began repairing the infrastructure you’re whining about?[/quote]
LOOOOOOL

Are you trying to argue that Obama hasn’t spent money like a fucking jonesing dopefiend? He’s blown more dough than any other president even thought about spending.

151

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
And, because we spent all our money on ObamaPhones, we won’t be able to fix the infrastructure.
[/quote]

Yea… and BushWars. Those might have been a bit more expensive but hey, who’s counting.
[/quote]

Sadly, a pittance. Obama spent more money than both wars in the first two hours of the first “stimulous” package.[/quote]

Oh, you mean that stimulus package that began repairing the infrastructure you’re whining about?[/quote]
LOOOOOOL

Are you trying to argue that Obama hasn’t spent money like a fucking jonesing dopefiend? He’s blown more dough than any other president even thought about spending.[/quote]

His stimulus package paved roads in my town that were falling apart. Bush policies did nothing for my town. Simple as that.

At least he has been spending that money on rebuilding AMERICA instead of some third-world hellhole our bombs destroyed.

152

If Jewbacca puts the bait out on here, I’m not ignoring it, but this is not the place to talk about this. All I am saying is that it doesn’t make sense to prepare for the end of the fucking world. A blizzard is slightly more reasonable.

153

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
His stimulus package paved roads in my town that were falling apart. Bush policies did nothing for my town. Simple as that.

At least he has been spending that money on rebuilding AMERICA instead of some third-world hellhole our bombs destroyed.[/quote]
Well fuck me, thanks a lot Obama. Now when our economy crashes I’ll have a nicely paved road to take my post apocalyptic Mad Max biker gang right through FightinIrish’s town.

154

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
His stimulus package paved roads in my town that were falling apart. Bush policies did nothing for my town. Simple as that.

At least he has been spending that money on rebuilding AMERICA instead of some third-world hellhole our bombs destroyed.[/quote]
Well fuck me, thanks a lot Obama. Now when our economy crashes I’ll have a nicely paved road to take my post apocalyptic Mad Max biker gang right through FightinIrish’s town.[/quote]
LOL

156

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
His stimulus package paved roads in my town that were falling apart. Bush policies did nothing for my town. Simple as that.

At least he has been spending that money on rebuilding AMERICA instead of some third-world hellhole our bombs destroyed.[/quote]
Well fuck me, thanks a lot Obama. Now when our economy crashes I’ll have a nicely paved road to take my post apocalyptic Mad Max biker gang right through FightinIrish’s town.[/quote]

hahaha. Fair enough. [/quote]
Just between us I think we’ll steer clear of you though. There’s easier targets to loot than some guy who spends all his time practicing busting people right in the chops.

157

You know, being an optimist is no fun, I wish I could go down the post apocalyptic road with you guys.

158

[quote]Stoney56 wrote:
You know, being an optimist is no fun, I wish I could go down the post apocalyptic road with you guys.[/quote]
The two aren’t diametrically opposed.

159

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Stoney56 wrote:
You know, being an optimist is no fun, I wish I could go down the post apocalyptic road with you guys.[/quote]
The two aren’t diametrically opposed.[/quote]
Yeah just picture the world as a wonderful place once the nuclear winter in over…

160

[quote]JLone wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Stoney56 wrote:
You know, being an optimist is no fun, I wish I could go down the post apocalyptic road with you guys.[/quote]
The two aren’t diametrically opposed.[/quote]
Yeah just picture the world as a wonderful place once the nuclear winter in over…[/quote]
Optimism is completely separate from happy and pleasant circumstance. It’s not a environmentally dependent principle.

161

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Rome did not fall from barbarian hordes. Rome fell because it rotted internally due to mismanagmeent and corruption, then was picked off by muslim invaders after a near stalemated war with Persia.[/quote]

Rome fell in 476. Islam was created in the 7th century.

Please check your facts.