Will DDO remain up during a Great Depression or Revolution?

[Kiranselie]

Check the State's Constitution, our Secession Right are in it as part of our agreement.

And don't use a Wikipedia as a source for nothing, because almost anyone can change it.

Good luck w/ that. If I remember correctly, secession didnt work out to well for you guys the last time, didnt work out too well for any of the states that seceeded. Just sayin. . . . .

[sacredtheory]

Here's what we CAN expect, from a macroeconomic sense, over the next few decades:

Wages will continue to fall and/or stay the same, especially in industries such as manufacturing. This is because wages were previously artificially inflated with workers earning more than their work was worth. We can blame unions for this one, well, unions and the companies that failed to stand up to them on their demands. Manufacturing jobs will continue to be shipped overseas to labor markets with lower wages. This will continue until markets like China, India, etc. reach an equilibrium with similar jobs in the United States.

Social Security will go bankrupt. There will be no Social Security for the young generation of workers.

The American economy will continue to become more service-based, rather than manufacturing based, until manufacturing in the United States becomes financially viable (when the above mentioned equilibrium is reached).

Revolution? Doubtful. Depression? Perhaps, but it can be argued that it's long overdue. Thanks to technology, we won't have the same problems seen in the Great Depression (food shortages, etc.). We may have different problems, instead, like energy shortages.

Essentially, the United States has sat on a perch of economic superiority for a long time. Now that globalization is the driving force behind economics, our economy will not ever attain its former glory until a large portion of the rest of the world is brought closer to our standards of living.

PS:

I'd like to see whoever disagrees with this assessment try to prove otherwise.

You're pretty much dead on. It's ironic too, as I'm just finishing up an economics college class, and we just finished reading "The New Economy", a report issued by the Federal Reserve in 1998 or 99, forget at the moment. Anyhoo, there are hints of these very issues in that report, although they weren't made to sound like issues. But with technological advances, manufacturing jobs will be going overseas while service jobs will rise. And at some point, there's going to be a breaking point.

Doesn't matter, we all know the world will end in 2012. But the question is, for which reason? The Mayan prophecies or Sarah Palin for president?

[Rubiconn]

I thought that is what the Mayan calander predicted was Sarah Palin would get elected and the world would end. !!!

And for you texas secessionists here is a faq to read:http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

[totmacher]

may you live in interesting times

[GreenGurgler]

Look at you scoffing... of course you're safe zombies can't swim to Hawaii.

They are Zombies, they don't need to swim. They can merely walk along the bottom:

"Zombies, too, may come in many forms. With the world completely infested, many will certainly find themselves roaming the floors of our oceans. There is the possibility, slight though it may be, of one lumbering up the underwater slope that leads to your little coastline. Others, still wearing life-jackets from mortal life may be carried to your island by the current. Then there is the chance of a zombie infested ship, and in a worst case scenario, there could be one wrecking on your shore and spilling its deadly cargo." -Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide, p175.

Also, what about all of the other potential zombies already on the island?

No no, he isnt safe.

There is no safe, only safer.

[Zippo]

Texas does NOT have any special right to secede from the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Annexation

It does, however, have the right to divide itself up into four (4) completely separate states at any time. Those states would be members of the Union automatically. No special votes needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Annexation

Texas does not have the right to secede, any more than any other state does. Which is not to say that Texas, or any other state, can't secede if it has a mind to; after all, 11 states did back in 1861. Many modern Texans have the vague idea - as did most secessionists - that because Texas entered as a former republic, it retained the right to leave the Union if it saw fit. However, no such clause appears in the congressional act authorizing Texas to join the Union. Because it was once independent, because it at one time did secede from the Union, and because its ideology is far different from that of the rest of the US, Texas has always clung to the idea of a guaranteed right of secession as a mark of its specialness and as a source of reassurance in case all else fails.

One privilege Texas does reserve, and a condition that appears in the resolution approving its statehood, is the option to subdivide itself into as many as four states (a total of five). But Texas is more likely to leave the Union again than to fragment its identity and its land.


Edit for spelling error

[Zippo]

I thought that is what the Mayan calander predicted was Sarah Palin would get elected and the world would end.

What is with this fascination of bashing her and her family to a slight lesser degree? She's up front, bold, and holds to a morale standard that anyone should find respectable. What's so bad about that?




Ya know I'll probably take a beating on here for this viewpoint but ya know what I'm ok with that. I'll stand by my convictions on this one, hated or not.

[Arkat]

Check the State's Constitution, our Secession Right are in it as part of our agreement.

Not explicitly. There are just a lot of inferences, suppositions, and wishful thinking by secessionists.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

(Thanks Rubiconn foir finding this. I'm glad I didn't have to dredge it up. )

...because almost anyone can change it.

So? There people who actually know what they're talking about (unlike SOME people) like the one or ones who wrote that wikipedia article.

[Eladiun]

They are Zombies, they don't need to swim. They can merely walk along the bottom:



Also, what about all of the other potential zombies already on the island?

No no, he isnt safe.

There is no safe, only safer.

Sharks eat zombies . But true, they may get there before it can be quarantined.

[Arkat]

Texas does not have the right to secede, any more than any other state does.

That was my point. TiranBlade was under the false impression Texas has a right to succeed because of some, as it turns out, some non-existant provision in either their State Constitution or the agreement between it and the United States which admitted it into the Union.

(a total of five).

Thanks for the correction. I knew that (my mom is from Dallas and she told me that long ago) but unfortunately my post wasn't clear enough. I should have said, "It does, however, have the right to divide itself up into four (4) completely separate additional states at any time."

My bad.

[Zippo]

That was my point. TiranBlade was under the false impression Texas has a right to succeed because of some, as it turns out, some non-existant provision in either their State Constitution or the agreement between it and the United States which admitted it into the Union.



Thanks for the correction. I knew that (my mom is from Dallas and she told me that long ago) but unfortunately my post wasn't clear enough. I should have said, "It does, however, have the right to divide itself up into four (4) completely separate additional states at any time."

My bad.

No worries! This was actually an end of the day discussion at work a few weeks ago between two guys in my shop that I clarified. One being from Texas himself.

Although in Trians defense as I pointed out before, 11 states did it once before in 1861 so it doesn't mean 1 or more couldn't do it again.

[Mockduck]

Sharks eat zombies . But true, they may get there before it can be quarantined.

Great, now I have to worry about zombie sharks...

[GreenGurgler]

What is with this fascination of bashing her and her family to a slight lesser degree? She's up front, bold, and holds to a morale standard that anyone should find respectable. What's so bad about that?

Ya know I'll probably take a beating on here for this viewpoint but ya know what I'm ok with that. I'll stand by my convictions on this one, hated or not.

Some fear an attractive hetero successful women and think only ugly lesbians should gain power when they have been fortunate enough to be granted it by men. Also, she doesn't subscribe to the dogma of N.O.W. so they bash/fear her.

She has more executive experience than our current dear leader did before he took office.

That being said, I don't want her to run. She is too divisive (for no apparent reason) and was spoke volumes about her character when she stepped down as governor before her term was up. When the going gets tough, a good leader sticks with it.

My useless 2 cp.

[Trillea]

Great, now I have to worry about zombie sharks...

Sounds like something out of a bad Scooby Doo episode... Zoinks!

[Guildmaster_Kadish]

What is with this fascination of bashing her and her family to a slight lesser degree? She's up front, bold, and holds to a morale standard that anyone should find respectable. What's so bad about that?




Ya know I'll probably take a beating on here for this viewpoint but ya know what I'm ok with that. I'll stand by my convictions on this one, hated or not.

Nothing is bad about that, if you ignore the rest of her. There's nothing wrong with her at all, if you prefer high morals over high intelligence. The reason many people dislike her is that they perceive her as being to far to the extreme--all morals and very little intelligence. Two important notes about this: First, it is abundantly clear that people can hate the opposite just as much--see the case of Richard Nixon. From an objective standpoint, he was a pretty sharp guy, but he had no morals to speak of, and he paid the price. The second important point is that the two attributes aren't related; we can just as well have a candidate who is both very intelligent and very moral--George Washington or maybe Abraham Lincoln would be the classic examples. That's the real reason I think so many people so dislike Palin even within her own party--her strong moral beliefs simply don't make up for her brilliant displays of ignorance.

For a candidate to really be successful, they have to appear either morally or cognitively superior, and appear adequate in the other realm (assuming he/she isn't superior to the opposition in both). Regardless of how moral or not she really is, and regardless of how intelligent or not she really is, her public image has been established pretty strongly, and it's become her Achilles' heel, so to speak. Without getting into my personal views on her, well, I'll put it this way... I don't think the Mayan doomsayers were accurate:

I thought that is what the Mayan calander predicted was Sarah Palin would get elected and the world would end.

GK
P.S. Also note that those aren't the only important characteristics for politicians, just some of the most important--experience and "grit" and other things come into play as well, most definitely.

[Eladiun]

Great, now I have to worry about zombie sharks...

I smell a new SyFy channel original movie...

[Arkat]

That being said, I don't want her to run. She is too divisive (for no apparent reason) and was spoke volumes about her character when she stepped down as governor before her term was up. When the going gets tough, a good leader sticks with it.

QFT!

Not only all of that but, quite frankly, she's not smart enough to be our leader.

[Delacroix21]

Let's get real for a minute...

Foreclosures are up so high because so many idiots bought housing they couldn't afford. That's called a correction.

The EU's failure is also a correction, a correction of the stupid decisions made to let countries in that had no business there in the first place. It's also a reflection of the failed socialism so prevalent in Europe.

The growing gap between the rich and poor is also a correction. It reflects the correction of grossly overpaid workers making amounts of money that they had no business making.

California's budget cuts are also a correction, a correction of the failed socialism prevalent in past budgets.

Economists are actually more worried about deflation than inflation. Oops.

I could go on for days. You get poor information when you use poor sources that don't actually know about what they are talking. FWIW, I don't use network news as sources, either.

Quoted for truth!


Being a California resident, I see first hand how overpayed Unions are killing the State. Too many politicians are in the Union's pockets due to "legal bribes" also known as campaign contributions.


P.S. I would SERIOUSLY check my priorities if you really think the world will fall apart and your main concern is whether or not a VIDEO GAME will still be playable, LOL!

[Zippo]

Nothing is bad about that, if you ignore the rest of her. There's nothing wrong with her at all, if you prefer high morals over high intelligence. The reason many people dislike her is that they perceive her as being to far to the extreme--all morals and very little intelligence. Two important notes about this: First, it is abundantly clear that people can hate the opposite just as much--see the case of Richard Nixon. From an objective standpoint, he was a pretty sharp guy, but he had no morals to speak of, and he paid the price. The second important point is that the two attributes aren't related; we can just as well have a candidate who is both very intelligent and very moral--George Washington or maybe Abraham Lincoln would be the classic examples. That's the real reason I think so many people so dislike Palin even within her own party--her strong moral beliefs simply don't make up for her brilliant displays of ignorance.

For a candidate to really be successful, they have to appear either morally or cognitively superior, and appear adequate in the other realm (assuming he/she isn't superior to the opposition in both). Regardless of how moral or not she really is, and regardless of how intelligent or not she really is, her public image has been established pretty strongly, and it's become her Achilles' heel, so to speak. Without getting into my personal views on her, well, I'll put it this way... I don't think the Mayan doomsayers were accurate:



GK
P.S. Also note that those aren't the only important characteristics for politicians, just some of the most important--experience and "grit" and other things come into play as well, most definitely.

It isn't so much about intelligence as it is common sense. My personal feeling about the current sitting leader is that he IS an intelligent man however he has no common sense or at least chooses to ignore it more often then not. You see someone with little to no intelligence while I see someone that is more of the, well to quote Jon Voight from Pearl Harbor "I like submariners, they don't have time for bull****!", more of the down home no nonsense kind of person. The statements in that light, that are issued towards her strike me similar to the "all the people from the south are just stupid rednecks" type arguments.

With that being said I am noticing a funny parallel of arguments being used against Sarah Palin as was used against Regan, and he had proven to be one of the most successful of modern presidents during his tenure in office.

[Zippo]

P.S. I would SERIOUSLY check my priorities if you really think the world will fall apart and your main concern is whether or not a VIDEO GAME will still be playable, LOL!

Ahhh cmon, I gave up smoking and practically gave up drinking, let me have at least one thing to ward off stress if the world decides to go nuclear.