BAD Solar Storm knocks out a buncha crap. No Space Shuttles to repair/replace the crap, not enough alternative methods to get replacement crap into space. A few grids go down, a Nuke plant or two. dogs and cats start living together...what else?
Economic collapse? Political upheaval?

"We have to launch the nuke to see how it works..."

I suspect the Big One (earthquake) will totally disrupt the U.S., or maybe a combination of natural disasters happening at nearly the same time.
As for the rest of the world - nuclear war will break out. Maybe soon.

quote Originally posted by Cheever3000: I suspect the Big One (earthquake) will totally disrupt the U.S., or maybe a combination of natural disasters happening at nearly the same time. As for the rest of the world - nuclear war will break out. Maybe soon.

I see someone new on the nuke scene trying to hit one enemy, and the thing has a malfunction and it ends up takin' out someone else...


oops

Don't forget a possible geomagnetic (pole) shift. I read that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening, so I have to wonder what kind of an effect it would have on electronic devices here on the ground.

Hyperinflation and we all loose our savings and a good portion of our retirement. Unemployment will creep up a few notches. This will go on for about three years, then things will stabilize and we will enter a 10-year period of low average economic growth and unemployment around 8% for the rest of the time after the hyperinflation period. Technological and medical innovation will drastically decrease, and with hyperinflation behind us, we will experience a decrease in the standard of living as the prices of everything will be higher but the new norm, much like $3 a gallon gasoline has been for the last three-years, but gas will be in the $6 range and everything else will be double the price it is now.

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: I see someone new on the nuke scene trying to hit one enemy, and the thing has a malfunction and it ends up takin' out someone else... oops

Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis:

At my age, 85, I'm at age where I can look back and derive some conclusions about my actions. My rule has been try to learn, try to understand what happened. Develop the lessons and pass them on.
Kennedy was trying to keep us out of war. I was trying to help him keep us out of war. And General Curtis LeMay, whom I served under as a matter of fact in World War II, was saying "Let's go in, let's totally destroy Cuba."

In Thompsons (U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union who had also lived with Khrushchev and his wife for a time) mind was this thought:
Khrushchev's gotten himself in a hell of a fix.
Khrushchev would then think to himself, "My God, if I can get out of this with a deal that I can say to the Russian people: 'Kennedy was going to destroy Castro and I prevented it.'"
Thompson, knowing Khrushchev as he did, thought Khrushchev will accept that.
And Thompson was right. That's what I call empathy.
We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes, just to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions.

On the phone with Kemmedy, Khrushchev said this: "We and you ought not to pull on the ends of a rope which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull, the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom, they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence."

I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today. ~Robert S. McNamara, from the documentary The Fog of War.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-28-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis: At my age, 85, I'm at age where I can look back and derive some conclusions about my actions. My rule has been try to learn, try to understand what happened. Develop the lessons and pass them on. Kennedy was trying to keep us out of war. I was trying to help him keep us out of war. And General Curtis LeMay, whom I served under as a matter of fact in World War II, was saying "Let's go in, let's totally destroy Cuba." In Thompsons (U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union who had also lived with Khrushchev and his wife for a time) mind was this thought: Khrushchev's gotten himself in a hell of a fix. Khrushchev would then think to himself, "My God, if I can get out of this with a deal that I can say to the Russian people: 'Kennedy was going to destroy Castro and I prevented it.'" Thompson, knowing Khrushchev as he did, thought Khrushchev will accept that. And Thompson was right. That's what I call empathy. We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes, just to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions. On the phone with Kemmedy, Khrushchev said this: "We and you ought not to pull on the ends of a rope which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull, the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom, they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence." I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today.[color=beige] [color=lime]~Robert S. McNamara, from the documentary The Fog of War.

There were no missiles in Cuba.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: There were no missiles in Cuba.

Wikipedia sez there was.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Wikipedia sez there was.

JFK, a month before he was assassinated, didn't.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: JFK, a month before he was assassinated, didn't.

Never heard that.
And ooooooooooooff I go to study!

On October 16, 1962, President John Kennedy called a meeting at the White House because his intelligence sources were advising him that the Russian government was placing missiles and atomic weapons in Cuba. Present at that meeting were nineteen others, all key members of the Kennedy administration, including his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

The Central Intelligence Agency made a formal presentation to those in attendance by showing them photographs taken at various missile sites in Cuba. Robert Kennedy later wrote a book entitled Thirteen Days, in which he commented on those pictures. He wrote: "I, for one, had to take their word for it. I examined the pictures carefully, and what I saw appeared to be no more than the clearing of a field for a farm or the basement of a house. I was relieved to hear later that this was the same reaction of virtually everyone at the meeting including President Kennedy."25
Of the twenty people at the meeting, fifteen were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

President Kennedy, apparently after being convinced that he should see missiles in pictures where there were no missiles, decided to take stern measures against the Russian government. He went on television and told the American people that several of the Cuban bases included "ballistic missiles" capable of reaching a portion of the United States. He then called on Premier Khrushchev of Russia to withdraw the "missiles" from Cuba. When The New York Times carried the story of Kennedy's speech the next day, their article carried no pictures of either a missile or a missile base. However, the next day, October 24, 1962, they published a picture of a supposed "missile site" with what they identified as "missiles on launchers." The supposed "missiles" in the picture were no larger than an actual pencil dot, but the Times was certain that those dots were "missiles."

Whatever the objects were that the Russians had in Cuba, they agreed to remove them on October 28, subject to "United Nations verification."26 The American Navy was actually prepared to board the departing Russian ships to verify that actual missiles were being removed. But no one actually boarded any Russian ship supposedly carrying missiles. American photo- graphers took pictures of the Russian ships as they flew over them while the ships were in the ocean, but all these photos showed were tarpaulin covered objects of unknown contents. The media quickly labelled these objects as "Soviet missiles."27

The myth that Russia was actually removing missiles has been perpet- uated for many years. As recently as March 29, 1982, U.S. News and World Report carried a picture of the stern end of a ship moving through the water with a tarpaulin covered object on the deck. The caption under the picture read "Soviet ship removes nuclear missiles from Cuba in 1962 showdown."28

It is not known, because it has never been revealed, just how the American government or the American press knew that there were actual missiles under those tarpaulins, especially since the government had stated that one of the conditions of their removal was that someone other than the Cubans was to actually inspect the Russian ships for verification purposes.

So only the Russians and the Cubans know for certain. And they have made no known statement to the effect that the objects under the tarpaulins and the little dots on large photographs were actually missiles. What they were saying, in essence, was that if the American government wanted to believe that those objects were missiles, they had every right to do so. (It would certainly be foolish for the Cubans and the Russian to admit that they had actually lied to the people of the world and had shipped out wooden crates containing nothing but humid air.)

It was later revealed that President Kennedy, as part of the agreement for the Russians to remove the alleged missiles, agreed to remove actual missiles from American bases in Turkey and Italy.

In addition to the removal of American missiles, President Kennedy agreed to another condition. The American government would give assurances to the Russian and Cubans governments that they would intercede in any invasion of Cuba by anti-Castro forces.

Anti-Castro Cubans, unaware of this agreement between the Russians and the Americans, were purchasing weapons and ships in the United States at the time and were making preparations for a counter-revolution in Cuba. As they moved towards the Cuban shore, they were stopped by the U.S. Coast Guard and their ships and weapons were taken away. The Castro regime was now being protected from an anti-Castro invasion by the U.S. Coast Guard.

There are many who believe that this was indeed the purpose of the "Cuban missile crisis;" wooden crates were removed in exchange for an agreement on the part of the American government to do two things:
1. Remove actual strategic missiles from the borders of Russia, and
2. guarantee that Castro's government would not be subject to an
anti-Castro invasion.

One of the Americans who felt that the American government had actually created the Castro movement and later imposed the Castro government down on the Cuban people was President John Kennedy. According to the New York Times of December 11, 1963, President Kennedy gave an interview in which he was quoted as saying: "I think we have spawned, constructed, entirely fabricated without knowing it, the Castro movement."29

For his part in assisting Castro's rise to power, Herbert Matthews of the New York Times was elevated to the Editorial Board of that newspaper. And for his efforts, William Wieland was given the important post as Consul General for Australia.30

Castro was now guaranteed the opportunity to literally destroy the Cuban economy with his mistaken ideas of the efficiency of Cuban Communism, and to have the U.S. Coast Guard protect his government from off. shore invasion.
And President Kennedy, who apparently figured it all out, was dead
about three weeks before the Times carried the interview.

25. Robert F. Kennedy, Thirteen Days, A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis, (New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1969), p. 2
26. New York Times, (October 28, 1962).
27. Life, (November 23, 1962), pp. 38-39.
28. U.S. News & World Report, (March 25, 1982), p. 24.
29. Mario Lazo, Dagger in the Heart, American Policy Failures in Cuba, p. 94.
30. Mario Lazo, Dagger in the Heart, American Policy Failures in Cuba, p. 133 and p. 186.

Interesting:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Brenner is a professor of international relations at American University, the author of several books and articles on U.S.-Cuban relations and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and a member of the advisory board of the National Security Archive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turning History on Its Head
by Philip Brenner

For nearly forty years most American accounts of the Cuban Missile Crisis of have left Cuba out of the story. With the blockbuster film "Thirteen Days" the story now ignores the Soviet Union as well. The film turns history on its head and drums into our heads exactly the wrong lessons of the crisis.
"Why do you think the Soviets put the missiles in Cuba?" I asked my fourteen year-old daughter after she saw the film. "They were bad," she reasoned on the basis of what the film taught her. "They wanted to hurt the United States." Yes, the United States as victim, an old theme that justifies massive military build-ups.

She could not learn from "Thirteen Days" that in October 1962 the United States was waging a war against Cuba that involved several assassination attempts against the Cuban leader, terrorist acts against Cuban civilians, and sabotage of Cuban factories. The endgame of this low intensity conflict envisioned a U.S. invasion. Nor would she have know from the film that the Kennedy Administration had convinced the Soviet military that the United States was planning a first strike against its superpower adversary by rapidly building up U.S. strategic forces. In 1962, the Soviet had fewer than fifty bombers and missiles that could hit the United States. We had more than five hundred. The missile gap Kennedy exploited in his 1960 campaign was real, except that it was in the U.S. favor, not the Soviets. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev sought to placate his generals by placing intermediate range ballistic missiles in Cuba. It was a cheaper way to provide some deterrent against a feared U.S. attack than to build many new intercontinental ballistic missiles that could be launched from the Soviet Union.

Once a decision is made to confine the story to the fabled thirteen days in October 1962, the omission of Cuba and the Soviet Union from a film about the Cuban Missile Crisis is almost inevitable. (Director Roger Donaldson and screenwriter David Self took their cue from Robert Kennedy's memoir also titled Thirteen Days.) But we not only lose the broader context for the drama when the time frame is narrowed. We learn the wrong lessons from the history of this moment when the world came closer to nuclear destruction than at any other time.

The first lesson is about the causes of the crisis. On the basis of documents I obtained through the National Security Archive's Freedom of Information Act requests, it is clear why the Soviet and Cuban leaders were expecting a U.S. invasion of the island. Notably, former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara acknowledged at an historic 1989 meeting with former Soviet and Cuban officials that "if I had been a Cuban leader, I think I might have expected a U.S. invasion. Why? Because the U.S. had carried out what I have referred to publicly as a debacle--the Bay of Pigs invasion... Secondly, there were covert operations. The Cubans knew that. There were covert operations extending over a long period of time." At the same time, President Kennedy had ordered the largest expansion of peacetime U.S. military power despite the acknowledgment by Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric that U.S. strategic forces far surpassed Soviet capabilities. We now know that one of the five approved strategic plans at the time, which were based on the U.S.
build-up, called for a nuclear first-strike against the Soviet Union. Like our own military analysts, Soviet national security advisers tend to worry about worst-case scenarios, and U.S. actions made them very nervous. While the Soviet placement nuclear missiles ninety miles from the United States may have been an absurdly risky and dangerous way to discourage both U.S. aggression against Cuba and a U.S. first-strike against the Soviet Union, it is an understandable reaction to the circumstances. The lesson we should learn from the Cuban Missile Crisis is that foreign leaders will act in seemingly irrational ways when their national security is threatened. Therefore, the United States should be more prudent in trying to overthrow or threaten other governments. Instead the lesson we learn from the film, by taking the crisis out of its broader context, is that crazy foreigners will always threaten the United States and so we must always be vigilant.

The second traditional lesson that the film reinforces is that the crisis was resolved because the United States forced the Soviet Union to back down. We came "eyeball to eyeball" with the Soviets, Dean Rusk said, and they blinked. Yet we have learned from several meetings of former U.S., Soviet and Cuban officials, organized by Brown University's James Blight, that it was not a game of chicken which convinced the Soviets to seek a peaceful resolution to the showdown. Khrushchev, like Kennedy, perceived the crisis was spiraling out of control. You would not know from "Thirteen Days" that the Soviet leader had given orders not to shoot down any U-2 surveillance planes. A local Soviet commander violated those orders on October 27 when he downed Major Rudolph's Anderson's U-2 with a surface-to-air missile. Soviet officials seem to have understood this could have brought retaliatory strikes and perhaps even a U.S. invasion.

Khrushchev knew, and contrary to the film's depiction, Kennedy did not know that the Soviets had deployed tactical nuclear missiles to Cuba. These battlefield weapons, intended for use against an invading army, had warheads nearly size the size of the Hiroshima bomb. Had a local Soviet commander fired one of these, it would have been the start of a general nuclear war. This was Khrushchev's fear. It is not the kind of fear one experiences in a game of chicken, where the fear is for your own personal safety. It was the fear of destroying all humankind, all life. Toughness and rigidity in such a situation makes it more likely that the other side will feel compelled to act equally macho. It was Kennedy's flexibility--finding a way to trade the missiles in Turkey for the missiles in Cuba--and Khrushchev's willingness to risk humiliation (he was deposed as General Secretary in 1964 in part because of the missile crisis) that brought the confrontation to a peaceful conclusion. The filmmakers do achieve a laudable sense of the tension some of the key U.S. players felt at the time. Most important, they depict the lack of precision with which President Kennedy reached a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Hopefully, the scenes depicting human frailty will destroy one of the oft-invoked lessons of the confrontation, that crises can be managed if the Kennedy technique of assembling the best and brightest is repeated. In fact, we were lucky to have survived, because such situations cannot be micro-managed with precision.

Donaldson and Self also get it right in understanding that the Kennedy brothers manipulated the consensus of the ExComm toward a decision they wanted (blockade) rather than waiting passively for agreement to emerge from a group that tended to favor an aggressive act. President George Bush should learn from this what Governor Bush did not understand, that a leader cannot simply turn to advisers for solutions. He must have a grounded sense of what he wants to achieve first.

Still, there are numerous inaccuracies in "Thirteen Days." The big one most reviewers have noted is the role of political aide Kenny O'Donnell, who did not have a serious role during the crisis. O'Donnell's character provides a useful dramatic vantage point from which to watch the crisis. But the film goes overboard in giving the character important tasks O'Donnell never had: conspiring with Navy pilots to hide from admirals the results of reconnaissance missions; checking CIA files on the background of the KGB's Washington station chief. The filmmakers also make a big error in portraying U.S. officials as having knowledge that there were armed tactical nuclear missiles on the island. In fact they did not know, and their ignorance is what almost brought us to the brink.

Smaller errors also creep in. Cuban anti-aircraft gunners did not fire on low-level U.S. reconnaissance planes until October 27, when they almost brought one down. Only two or three people--not the bulk of the ExComm--knew about Robert Kennedy's secret October 27 meeting with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and his offer to remove the Turkish missiles. But these artistic discretions do not depart substantially enough from what really happened to discredit the film. Far more significant is the film's one-sided presentation of the events in 1962.

Most of the film's reviewers also are to blame in not alerting us to the serious distortion. Elvis Mitchell in The New York Times blandly comments that the film is "a competent, by-the-numbers recreation of the events surrounding the Cuban missile crisis of 1962." Sure, except it missed inconvenient facts about U.S. attacks on Cuba and the U.S. missile build-up. The Washington Post's Stephen Hunter asserted baldly that "'Thirteen Days' does a pretty good job of explaining why [the world didn't end in 1962]." No it doesn't. Without Soviet restraint during the crisis it could have been far different. Variety's anonymous reviewer tried to offer readers some of the relevant background, but unfortunately repeated myths about Khrushchev's low regard for Kennedy that were debunked more than a decade ago.

Do reviewers have an obligation to know the most accurate history of real events that the films they review purport to portray? In a case like this one, yes. "Thirteen Days" is likely to be the one film about the missile crisis from which at least a generation of students will learn the crisis's lessons. And teachers will use it unless warned, because the missile crisis did bring us closer to nuclear holocaust than any other confrontation. Other producers will shy away from the subject for a while now that it has been done to such acclaim. In contrast to USA Today, which advised parents and teachers that "younger audiences ought to see this movie," reviewers should have raised a ruckus. This movie feeds the worst American jingoism, they should have warned us. Its lessons are dangerous to your health.

In Russian history texts, the Cuban Missile Crisis is called the Caribbean crisis. The confrontation between the superpowers took place on the high seas and for the Soviets that is where the crisis occurred. In Cuba, it is called the Crisis of October, to distinguish it from the many other confrontations Cuba has experienced with the United States. From the Cuban perspective, the crisis has never been resolved: war was avoided but the root cause of the dispute continues in the U.S. desire to overthrow the Cuban government. The relevance of the Cuban Missile Crisis for U.S. policy-making today is absent from "Thirteen Days," which seems to be about a past long gone. In fact, we have much to learn still from the Cuban Missile Crisis. To do that we need to see it from the viewpoint of all the countries involved.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchi..._mis_cri/brenner.htm

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-28-2010).]

This is the most interesting thread I think I've ever seen the site.

How do I think it'll end? Read Revelations.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today.[/COLOR] ~Robert S. McNamara, from the documentary The Fog of War.

Except now, we have irrational individuals - Obama, Pelosi, Reid...they're nuts if they think what they're doing will work.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Wait...so, people believe Kennedy when he said there were, but don't believe Bush when he said there were (WMDs)? Interesting.

Well, when I was growing up all you heard was the Russians were going to bomb us any day. We had drills in school.
I don't know what Cuba had, but every piece of information told to me by every adult said Russia was going to destroy America any day.

For the record, I actually never doubted WMD's exsisted.
It sounded EXACTLY like something a world leader would have.
It seemed strange to me that people would not think that EVERY countries military would have them.
I mean, how many countries at that time had nuclear weapons?

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-28-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: For the record, I actually never doubted WMD's exsisted. It sounded EXACTLY like something a world leader would have. It seemed strange to me that people would not think that EVERY countries military would have them. I mean, how many countries at that time had nuclear weapons?

The truth is, Saddam lied to his own people, including his higher-ups, about the WMDs.

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: BAD Solar Storm knocks out a buncha crap. No Space Shuttles to repair/replace the crap, not enough alternative methods to get replacement crap into space. A few grids go down, a Nuke plant or two. dogs and cats start living together...what else? Economic collapse? Political upheaval? "We have to launch the nuke to see how it works..."

the way the wold will end,
the middle east will attack the USA with missiles{ maybe a Nuke}. The USA fights back and for some unknown reason hits Norway or Sweden.. Russia wants to get in on the act and gets involved. I don't know why. So at this time the USA and allies. Russia and its alliens that include the Middle east.
This is WW3, this started in mild way 35 years ago and will continue for 37 Years.In the mean time, Nibiru passes between the earth and the moon{ or some where near that}, the magnetic field is disrupted and the earth is turned up side down. the sudden change causes the pacific tectonic plate to crack creating a massive earth quake and this causes a Tidal wave 900 ft /300 metres headed for the east coast of Australia and the west coast of the USA.
After this takes place there will be aliens {Anukai}that will come here and meet up with who is left, saying that they have been watching the human race make a serious mess of this world, and direct the remaining Human population in the right direction to get the world started again in the right way. Then for a thousand years there is total piece and not an ounce of conflict.

the Anukai where here before
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEAuxuVQrH0
And are coming again
http://www.youtube.com/watc...6VO8&feature=related
the Anunnaki who inhabit Nibiru directed the evolutionary change from Apes to Human like Neanderthal humans. The remains of the Anunnaki are the giant skeletal remains uncovered all over the world
http://www.google.com.au/se...ls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&channel=s&prmd=iv&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=2fl4TNGnKoqlcbTwlN8F&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=12&ved=0CEgQqwQwCw

[This message has been edited by proff (edited 08-28-2010).]

How will it end?

Wrapped in BACON of course!

The Earth will meet its end when the Sun uses up its hydrogen fuel, and transforms into a Red Giant. As the Sun inflates, it will swallow up the innermost planets, including the Earth.

Either that, or a GRB (gamma ray burst) from a nearby supernova will fry the planet like an Easy-Bake oven.

There's also the possibility of another large asteroid strike, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. While that won't necessarily destroy the Earth, it can destroy civilization as we know it, or even drive humanity to extinction.

Pick your poison.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 08-28-2010).]

Read all about it here:

------------------
Read my Earthship thread in Totally O/T
si vis pacem, para bellum

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so hard to understand?!

Warning, NSFW for some language, but pretty funny.

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: BAD Solar Storm knocks out a buncha crap. No Space Shuttles to repair/replace the crap, not enough alternative methods to get replacement crap into space. A few grids go down, a Nuke plant or two. dogs and cats start living together...what else? Economic collapse? Political upheaval? "We have to launch the nuke to see how it works..."

I guess i get a extended vacation, since i work with digital stuff that relies on the networks. And will have to watch DVD's instead of cable. Might get some work done around the house tho, while fighting off hungry looters.

Topic: How it will end?


Badly




Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

Oh just stop it--all of ya--you're getting me all excited.

I really hope that we don't nuke the piss out of eachother.

My theory............

Mother Earth will be like all, eff this shat! Time to pop the top off of Yosemite. She will then send a few billion cubic meters of granite, blocking out the sun. Our time frame here is just a blip on her screen.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Oh just stop it--all of ya--you're getting me all excited.

I've told everyone that the day my Fiero finally runs again, it will be the end of the world.

Either that, or the world ends because I finally find a car to put my 69 Olds 455 big block into. Soo much torque, it will disrupt the rotation of the Earth when I floor it.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Mother Earth will be like all, eff this shat! Time to pop the top off of Yosemite. She will then send a few billion cubic meters of granite, blocking out the sun. Our time frame here is just a blip on her screen.

I'm sure you meant Yellowstone, not Yosemite.

How will it end ???

One of these days somebody will REALLY pizz me off, and I will divide by zero !!!!

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Read all about it here:

Yeah , read this book if you want a 3 page description of a car rolling out of control toward a a gas station. Could not finish it, not interested in the least.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Yeah , read this book if you want a 3 page description of a car rolling out of control toward a a gas station. Could not finish it, not interested in the least.

That's too bad, becouse it is a very good story, despite King's long-windedness.
I would advise you to struggle through the first half.
The second half is worth the trouble.

Or just buy the movie, which is not too horrable..

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: That's too bad, becouse it is a very good story, despite King's long-windedness. I would advise you to struggle through the first half. The second half is worth the trouble. Or just buy the movie, which is not too horrable..

Audio book and just let it play while your working. I don't really have much time to sit and read a book so that's how I do it.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 08-28-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: That's too bad, becouse it is a very good story, despite King's long-windedness. I would advise you to struggle through the first half. The second half is worth the trouble. Or just buy the movie, which is not too horrable..

The movie isnt even a QUARTER of what the book is.......the movie is entertainment, the book can make you BELIEVE..........I 1st read it when I was about 12-13, and re-read it every year or 2 just because I enjoy it to the point I can get imersed in it.....that and Atlas Shrugged...(another "what will happen")...2 greates novels of all time IMHO

Screw shakespere ...Rand and King

When I stop waking up every day and dreaming you all it will end.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: I 1st read it when I was about 12-13, and re-read it every year or 2 just because I enjoy it to the point I can get imersed in it.....

Someone here told me if I liked "The Stand" I would like "Swan Song" by Robert R. McCammon.
They were right.
Alot like the stand, but completely different.

I recommend it.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I've told everyone that the day my Fiero finally runs again, it will be the end of the world. Either that, or the world ends because I finally find a car to put my 69 Olds 455 big block into. Soo much torque, it will disrupt the rotation of the Earth when I floor it.

Melanie’s friend is an ex UMF professor and her husband is having a 68 Hurst Olds restored. Now that would be the perfect thing to drop that in.

He has like 80K in it so far. I think they were made for each other. More money than brains the both of them.

But if he ever gives up on it, or dies someone is going to get one hell of a deal on it. May as well be you.

What better vehicle to drive into the oblivion for that engine.

I am Also hoping we don’t blow ourselves to shreds.
But if it makes Don happy how could it be so wrong.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.