post your psychic predictions for 2011

Post Reply New Topic

I am as sane as you are. I just start from a different premise than you do.

With the exception of my family, I do not live for the sake of others. I am rationally selfish.

ruveyn

Many insane people reason rather well. It's their premises that are the problem.

The market for 3D TVs will just collapse before 2012.

Seriously who's asking for these things?

lol I'm waiting for smell-o-vision to hit it big

Sorry but we already have problems with addiction to illegal drugs. People are all too able to get them anyway. Not unlike alcohol, making them illegal does not stop consumption, it only gives money to a bunch of criminals and causes violence.

There are pretty effing serious talks in Mexico about legalizing them. I hope that sudden outbreak of sanity has effect.



Part of the problem is the Mexican Government has been very corrupt for so long that the Drug Lords amassed enormous amounts of power and they aren't just in the drug business anymore, they're in smuggling illegals across the border, prostitution (including child prostitution), and everything else under the sun.[/quote]

It is not insane to be rationally selfish. It might be unpleasant to some folks, but it is not insane.

I am in touch with physical reality (aka the world) and I do not think I owe any duties to my fellow man other than not violating their persons or property. Exception: one is obliged for the care of dependent children that one brings into the world.

I do not owe strangers a god damned thing other than not robbing, hurting or defrauding them. I am not obliged to feed them even if they are starving. As long as I am not the cause of their starvation I am off the hook.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Humans live within and respond to social inter-relationships. Anyone living within and benefiting from society who denies all obligations to the general good is operating from mistaken premises.

There seems to be conflicts in your own views. Which of the two is it?

your opinion is duly noted. Legally we are bound by contracts, not moral obligations. That means if A claims that B has failed to fulfill a moral obligation A can take no legal action against B in the absence of a genuine contract (as opposed to a ka ka social contract). No contract, no legal obligation, no enforcible action. The law cannot compel us to be good. It can only punish us for doing illegal things or causing damages in torts.

I do not owe a damned thing to the "common good". I am not bound by any social contract. I am bound by law.

ruveyn

There are all sorts of interpretations of laws. That's why there are judges. But if a person's attitude is to try to get away with whatever is not specifically mentioned in law rather than attempt to make society as congenial and helpful to all members concerned he is very quickly moved to vicious criminality and that undermines the very basis for society. Law cannot cover all circumstances and basic human decency has to fill the gaps. Since you have repeatedly demonstrated an extraordinary lack of basic decency I find you a totally repulsive individual.

I predicted that earlier!

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt137364.html



I wasn't going to comment on this thread, as the OP wanted psychic predictions and I believe psychics are charlatan frauds, but let me give you some of my inductively based PREDICTIONS for 2011.

World (United States, Mideast, etc)

- Tea Partisans in the House Launch investigations into Obama, blow a lot of their political capital.
- Significant neoconservative voices rally for a war with Iran
- Troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan
- Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved
- Obama compromises with the Tea Partisans in the House and introduces Austerity measures
- Bush tax cuts for the top 2% remain
- One major act of rightwing domestic terrorism will result in more than six deaths
- Tea Partisans and DLC Democrats in the Senate will introduce a budgetary "stimulus" bill composed primarily of tax cuts
- There will be no cuts to military spending

Canada

- Manitoba Provincial Election results in a Progressive Conservative majority, the NDP is reduced to around 19 seats
- 41st Canadian federal election is held, probably by Spring.
Harper wins another minority government, the NDP eats away at some Conservative seats in BC and one or two in Saskatchewan. The Liberals regain the riding of Saint Boniface, but the Tories make inroads in Ontario as voters get tired of the provincial Liberals.
- In the 41st Canadian federal election, Nettie Wiebe wins the riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
- Bloc vote collapses in Quebec. Socially conservative rural Quebecois vote Conservative, the most of Quebec gravitates back towards the Liberals.

No way troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011. I heard something today about how the administration is trying to distance itself from the 2011 deadline and move it back to 2014. Maybe there will be a draw down between now and then but they'll be replaced with "non-combat troops" and private contractors. It's all lies.

I agree about the Iran tho. The rhetoric is really starting to heat up with Iran. The usual suspects Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain are crying for it. I believe Graham said he wanted to "castrate" Iran this past weekend. Who is threatening who now? Lucky for us, there actually some dissenting voices in the GOP now against it.

As for cuts to military spending, I'm actually hopeful. I don't know about the house but in the senate Rand Paul, Tom Coburn, and Mike Lee have already came out and called for them. It's not taboo anymore so I'm hopeful more in the GOP come out for cuts to defense spending. I think this is a chance for some real bipartisanship. This HAS to be done, you can't balance the budget by just banning earmarks and getting rid of supposed wasteful spending. Those are minuscule compared to the sacred cow that is the welfare/warfare state.

Last edited by Jacoby on 11 Nov 2010, 9:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

Blasphemy!! !! !

Thirty five cents of every dollar spent by the U.S. Government is for military purpose or things attendant to or related to the military. And we are definitely not getting our money's worth. We are being licked in Afghanistan because our military is NOT fighting for victory. Any money spent in military endeavors which does not produce victory or intended to produce victory is money wasted. For a fraction of what we are currently spending we could produce enough nukes and poison gas to kill all our enemies and finally have some peace. But we are not doing that. We are wasting money and more sadly, wasting the lives or our troops.

The last war that the U.S. won was fought between Dec 8, 1941 and Sept 15, 1945. We have lost every war we have been in subsequent to those dates. We are clearly not getting what we pay for.

ruveyn

Wow, Ive somewhat frightened myself whilst looking up a reply to this thread!
Its not my own phsycic predictions, but a slideshow of a "fictitious" series of events that have been left for a couple of years now, on the Daily Telegraphs arts and culture section.
You have to click next to go through the story line.
Notice all the numerical sybolism involving 21 as a trinity of the number 7 and the time of the bomb going of and the sun symbolism etc.
The slideshow goes into a further series where the year is given as 2011
The end of the slideshow a coded number reads that this slideshow is not for entertainment.

Now I hadnt viewed this for a couple of years, though I still have it in mind to make sure I dont go to work in central London on those days, so I was rather alarmed to see that this old article isnt left languishing in cyberland storage, but is being maintain ed and adjusted, for when it was originally published, the Prime Minister was shown as Gordon Brown, it has now been adjusted to show the Prime Minister as David Cameron!
Click on the following Blackjack link and follow the slideshow and ask if this looks like just entertainment!

Blackjack

What a foolish and cruel idea. Even from a genocidally self-interested point of view it only works if you can secure a monopoly (or at least a very, very high advantage) on the production and ownership of nuclear weapons. If anything, it'd encourage nuclear proliferation and result in an lose-lose endgame.