Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Odd, I don't think i have commented much about "collusion" here.  My general position has been lets wait and see what the Mueller probe reports.  Also, if you can find posts of mine praising Saudi Arabia or Israel, I'll be quite surprised.  I would probably be pretty amused if the Trumpster aimed his insults at either of them, I think they have far too much influence on US policy.  If you want to talk about influencing US elections, AIPAC make the Russians look like total amateurs.  While I would like the US and Russia to have decent relations, I think the goals and long term ambitions of the two countries are fundamentally at odds, meaning relations are never going to be fantastic.  Overcoming decades of mistrust is not easy.   

 

 

 

I took the liberty...

 

On 7/20/2018 at 10:18 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I'll be honest, I don't think they are literally controlling Trump via some sort of black mail.  I think it's a more a case that Trump has some sort of admiration of Putin (and other autocrats) and wants to be in their club, so to speak.  I also think he is financially tied to Russian financiers and oligarchs.  And yes, I think he is shallow enough to tailor foreign policy decisions around what is best for his own personal finances.  If he had released his tax returns like most normal candidates, this would be less of a concern.  The same goes for if he had actually separated himself from his businesses while in office.  Ethics rules exist for a reason, but unfortunately there is little political will to enforce them concerning this President.  As to your comments regarding the Mueller investigation, let's wait and see what all they come up with. 

 

As to Russia, I like many individual Russians quite a bit.  They are some of my favorite contributors to Sturgeon's House.  I have a good deal of sympathy for the many great tragedies that have befallen the Russian people over the past 100 years.  That said, I do not like Putin at all, nor do I trust him.  I respect him as a very intelligent and capable adversary, but that's about as far as it goes.  

 

Right now I see the USA and Russia as having some fundamentally different interests on the world stage that place limits on the extent to which the two nations can cooperate.  Trump's attempt to win Putin over by establishing some sort of personal friendship does not seem to be a particularly wise approach to me.  As to some of the points you make, I think you are missing the big picture.  It doesn't really matter to Putin how much NATO spends on defense.  Even right now, NATO spending is magnitudes higher than what Russia can afford.  What I am sure delights Putin is when Trump sends signals that the USA might start to consider its collective defense responsibilities as stipulated by the NATO treaty to be optional, or contingent on some arbitrary set of factors.  If the international security apparatus established after WWII starts to fray, it opens up a lot more possibilities for a second rate power such as Russia to start flexing it's muscles regionally.  

 

The weirdest result of the Trump presidency has been that I find myself in agreement with.....George Will.  I never thought I would be saying that about the old insufferable baseball loving champion of Reagan era conservatism.  He pretty much summed up my feelings regarding Trump in his latest column.

 

 

If I had an ounce of sense, I would stop arguing politics here and focus on writing the next boring script for my next boring youtube video.  Yeesh.

 

On 7/17/2018 at 12:46 AM, Walter_Sobchak said:

The only thing I find weird about Trumps visit with Putin is how everyone is surprised that Trump threw his own country under the bus.  Trump said the same crap he has been spewing for months.   Trump loves dictators and he loves Russia.  He hates democracies.  He treats allies like enemies, and enemies like "competitors".   Trump has actually made me nostalgic for Ronald Reagan...

 

There are lots of less explicit posts on your part that would reasonably inform someone that you do believe Trump is in cahoots with the Russians, these are just the most explicit ones of the past month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am very suspicious of Trump and his relationships to various Russian oligarchs.  I have said so, as shown in previous posts.  However, I have not said that I am certain that his campaign colluded with Russian officials, I leave that up to the official release of Muellers report, assuming it ever comes out.   Please forgive me for being suspicious.  I mean, it't not like Trump's campaign manager is on trial for conspiracy against the United States.  Like, that's totally normal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manafort was on the Trump campaign for a total of five months and he was campaign manager for three. He was basically foisted on the Trump campaign by the GOP Establishment after he secured the nomination in a sort of Faustian bargain that no shenanigans would take place during the Convention in exchange for Trump allowing himself to be reined in. 

 

This is isn’t ancient history folks.

 

Suffice to say, no one puts Trump in the corner and he shit-canned Manafort because Manafort was only interested in running a conventional campaign against Hillary, one that would concede the White House in hopes of limiting damage to the GOP down the ticket.

 

History has since shown this to be the wrong strategy and campaign managers are dime-a-dozen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Yes, I am very suspicious of Trump and his relationships to various Russian oligarchs.  I have said so, as shown in previous posts.  However, I have not said that I am certain that his campaign colluded with Russian officials, I leave that up to the official release of Muellers report, assuming it ever comes out.   Please forgive me for being suspicious.  I mean, it't not like Trump's campaign manager is on trial for conspiracy against the United States.  Like, that's totally normal. 


Yeah but it kinda does put the lie to this post, donnit?

 

6 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Odd, I don't think i have commented much about "collusion" here. 

 

Like you pretty much at least brush on collusion in every post you make in this thread, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:


Yeah but it kinda does put the lie to this post, donnit?

 

 

Like you pretty much at least brush on collusion in every post you make in this thread, man.

 

I have made no secret of my dislike of the man.  Examining his history as a business man and public figure leads me to the conclusion that he lacks the necessary skills and ethics to occupy the highest office of the land.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing.  Do I think Trump 'colluded' with the 'Russians'. Almost certainly. Once you hit a certain level of wealth you will run in to people of all sorts at buisness meetings, social mixers, society parties, showbiz parties.  Because only so many people have a certain level of wealth and it's a small enough circle, you are inadvertently close to a bunch of corrupt, sociopathic motherfuckers, because you don't generally hit the level of fuck the world wealth without being able to screw over your fellow man fairly easily. And it's a small small world.

 

Epstein is a good example of this. Disgusting corrupt motherfucker who partied with people on both sides regularly, deliberately and methodically.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I have made no secret of my dislike of the man.  Examining his history as a business man and public figure leads me to the conclusion that he lacks the necessary skills and ethics to occupy the highest office of the land.  

 

I don't like him, either. But you said you rarely if ever talked about collusion, which is, um, not reflective of your posting history.

And since when has any President had the "ethics" to occupy the office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

I don't like him, either. But you said you rarely if ever talked about collusion, which is, um, not reflective of your posting history.

And since when has any President had the "ethics" to occupy the office?


At least most of the former occupants could fake it.  I want someone who can at least pay lip service to the ideals that we all pretend make the USA a great nation.  Call me sentimental I guess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:


At least most of the former occupants could fake it.  I want someone who can at least pay lip service to the ideals that we all pretend make the USA a great nation.  Call me sentimental I guess.  

 

Trump does, just in a very blue collar way. I went to school with Vaisyas for 2 years, Trump speaks their language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ulric said:

 

We are certainly trying to go after the life blood of their economy. That's a bit too big of a difference to overlook. Personally, I think it would be hilarious if we teamed up with Russia to take a big bite out of Saudi Arabia's oil exports, but that will never happen.

I am 100% for any actions that will suck money from Wahabi fuckheads. But we are going to sell S-400 to them...

At least their money will be payed to Almaz Antey and finance AA systems development and Canada will have harder time in Saudi-Canadian war of 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

I am 100% for any actions that will suck money from Wahabi fuckheads. But we are going to sell S-400 to them...

At least their money will be payed to Almaz Antey and finance AA systems development and Canada will have harder time in Saudi-Canadian war of 2020.

We just have to cut off spare parts to the shit that we sold them.

Or jack the price up. :P

Saudis can't fight for shit. We'll send in reservists from the 48th and PPLCI and let them deal with the Saudis and their Sudanese mercs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:


At least most of the former occupants could fake it.  I want someone who can at least pay lip service to the ideals that we all pretend make the USA a great nation.  Call me sentimental I guess.  

 

I can't even begin to care about the "faking professionalism" that every one of them has done. The pedestal of any elected office is a sham, getting elected is not like being a doctor or scientist. They all deserve and should be mocked and brought low. Caring about it is a peak non-sequitur. The office of the presidency is not some royal court position, people need to stop raising the theater of the office over the function of it. Oh no the president did a faux pas! Good thing I'm not a bourgeoisie fart sniffer then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Trump reflects the true poise and grace of all his predecessors, like the one who gave the Queen a iPod, or the one that made up words, or the one that ejaculated on his secretary in the Oval Office.

Given that the world has now officially embraced female ejaculation, I foresee a future madam president returning to that latter theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Man she ain't the only one. I could probably kill someone with the stack of fliers and ads from this persons campaign. Like every goddamn day for 3 months and the area of San Antonio I'm in is like 90% democrat.

 

The DNC and related groups burn money like nobodies business. I should consider getting into the printing business, sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But muh Blue W... wha... whoa lady... put the gun DOWN!!! *rattle of gunfire*

 

Ex-Democratic Congressional Candidate accused of shooting, murdering former campaign manager in Georgia

 

http://www.augustachronicle.com/news/20180809/former-congressional-candidate-charged-with-murder-in-aiken

 

To be fair, in the interviews with her, she never explicitly came out in favor of gun control.

 

https://www.sparxtribune.org/collins-for-congress.html

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Donward said:

But muh Blue W... wha... whoa lady... put the gun DOWN!!! *rattle of gunfire*

 

Ex-Democratic Congressional Candidate accused of shooting, murdering former campaign manager in Georgia

 

http://www.augustachronicle.com/news/20180809/former-congressional-candidate-charged-with-murder-in-aiken

 

To be fair, in the interviews with her, she never explicitly came out in favor of gun control.

 

https://www.sparxtribune.org/collins-for-congress.html

 

 

 

 

 

This story has nothing to do with anything.  She wasn't even on the ballot, let alone the Democratic candidate for her district.  Anyhow, if you want to start comparing which party has more nutcase candidates for US house races, I just want to point out that the Republicans can boast of a handful of candidates that are literal Nazis

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

 

This story has nothing to do with anything.  She wasn't even on the ballot, let alone the Democratic candidate for her district.  Anyhow, if you want to start comparing which party has more nutcase candidates for US house races, I just want to point out that the Republicans can boast of a handful of candidates that are literal Nazis

 

 

 

Betcha $10 the DNC runs more literal Communists than the RNC runs literal Nazis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

Betcha $10 the DNC runs more literal Communists than the RNC runs literal Nazis.

 

I'm sure they all have their platforms posted on campaign websites in case you want to prove your point.  Anyhow, while I am sure there are a number of democratic candidates who are socialists, I doubt there are any that resemble of the hardline communists of old, demanding the liquidation of the Kulaks and Stalinist re-education camps.  Most of the "democratic socialist" candidates seem to be espousing something more in line with the socialist policies of some of the Western European countries.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Betcha $10 the DNC runs more literal Communists than the RNC runs literal Nazis.

 

To be fair, the RNC is not running these candidates because they want to, in most cases they snuck onto the ballot in a district that was very noncompetitive, leading to a lack of respectable conservative candidates.  Still, the optics are pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
    • By Khand-e
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35333647
       
      Like I said a couple days ago actually, I said I thought it was very likely that Ma Ying-Jeou would lose the next election as he and his administration are very unpopular, and I guess it turned out to be true, also, aside from being the first female president, She's also the second candidate to win under the Democratic Progressive Party as opposed to the more traditonal Kuomintang which has held it for 5 (arguably 6) terms. and her party has also won a majority in the legislative Yuan, which is actually a pretty significant swing.
    • By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
      I thought it was disgraceful we had a thread on Russian race cars, and other cars, but not one on American muscle cars and race cars, IE the best cars. 
       
      Over the weekend I'll put a little write up on the GTO and why it kicked off the musclecar, and why the Mustang was an overrated econo box for girls until the 67 model, more akin to a nova then a truly great car like a Pontiac GTO. 
       
      UPDATE:
      My thoughts on why the muscle car era was teh awesome.
       
      The reason 64 to 73 was one of the most interesting era for American cars, is they went a little nuts on how much power they started putting into cars, and all the GM brands for the most part still had their own engine types.
       
      The birth of the muscle car era started in 1964 when John Delorean, Jim Wangers and Pete Estes snuck the GTO option on the 64 mid-size Pontiac Tempest/Lemans platform that was based on GM A-Body platform. There were a few reasons it had to be snuck in, all mainly the fault of GM head executives being stodge old fogies. They had come up with two policies that caused boring cars. The first was their decision to pull out of any GM sponsored racing and the ban on developing performance parts. They also had a ban on putting motors bigger than 330 cubic inches in mid-size cars.
      The sad thing is GM had a thriving race scene and a set of dealers and race teams using their products. Pontiac and Chevrolet in particular had really bumped up their market share through their winning race teams. They were doing crazy stuff like Swiss cheesing frames, producing aluminum front ends (hoods, fenders, bumpers), and producing multi carb manifolds and there’s more I’m sure I’m forgetting. Then BAM, in the span of weeks GM killed it all off in 63.
        
      The heart of GTO option on the Lemans was the 389 cubic inch V8 used in Pontiac full size cars. The V8 was rated a 325 horsepower. The biggest V8 the car came with normally was the 326. The GTO option also included the choice of a close ratio four speed Muncie transmission, and heavy duty suspension and brakes. It could also include Pontiacs Safe-T-track limited slip differential with gear ratio choices of 3.23, 3.55, 3.90, 4.10, and if I recall right, 4.56.  The name was strait up ripped off from Ferrari, by Delorean. You could also order the package with triple carburetors, also known as tri-power, and it upped the engines horsepower to 335.
       
       
      GM and Pontiac found out about it, but Wangers had gone out and showed the car to some big dealers in the Detroit area and they already had big orders so GM corporate, and Pontiac let it be produced, the general manager told Delorean he would have the last laugh because there was no way they could even sell the 5000 that had been authorized, and Pontiac would have to eat the loss on inventory they couldn't sell, and it would be his ass. It sold more than 32,000 units, as a really un advertised option, so Delorean and Estes won the day, and the ban on big engines in mid size cars was lifted, and the GTO became its own model, still based on the Lemans/tempest platform,  but with no small engine choices.
       
      The other GM brands caught up with their own special models in 1965, Chevrolet with the SS 396 Chevelle, Oldsmobile with the 442, and Buick with the GS. GM still put a size restriction on motors and their A-Body mid-size models, but it was now 400 cubic inches, and all the brands had motors that could be grown well past this and already had been and were used in the full-size car lines.  Even this restriction would be pulled in 1970 because other major brands were stuffing huge motors in mid and even the newer smaller cars and GM was losing out.
       
      Ford and Chrysler and even AMC didn't just sit back and watch GM reap the reward, Ford had come out with their ‘Pony’ car the Mustang, in 1964, and it was also a huge success, but it was no performance car, even with the top of the line V8 option, a GTO would eat it alive, handing and acceleration wise.  Ford also had mid-size cars with large V8 options, but none that had been packaged like the GTO and they were light on good large V8s in the early 60s, plus their mid-size cars were ugly as hell.  The Mustang would grow into its own later in the 60s, in particular, when Carol Shelby started playing with them. They never had a great mid-size muscle car that wasn't ugly though.
       
      Chrysler had cars that could be considered muscle cars, but before 68 they were all so ugly, no one but weirdos drove them. They did have some very powerful engine combos, and they really hit the scene hard with the introduction of the cheap as hell but big engine powered Plymouth Road-Runner in 1968, you could buy a very fast Road-Runner for a lot less than you could even a base model GTO.  For a classier Chrysler they had their Plymouth GTX line, and Dodge had their beautiful Charger. The Cuda got an update in 1970, so it wasn’t really really ugly anymore, and the same platform was used to give Dodge the Challenger.  These cars fit more into the pony car scheme though. The main point is Chrysler produced ugly cars until 1968.
       
      GM would jump into the pony car scene in 1967 with the introduction of the first gen F-body. Chevrolet got the Camaro, and Pontiac got the Firebird. These cars were introduced with engine options up to 400 cubic inches, though, when they got a 396, or 400, they were slightly detuned so the mid-size cars still had an ‘advantage’, there was just a little tab that restricted the secondaries on the quadrajet carb.
       
      The whole thing came crashing down and by 1973, the muscle car was all but dead, and the US car industry was in a slump it would not recover from until the late 80s, also when the muscle car returned in a weird way with the Buick Gran National. While it lasted the muscle-car era produced some iconic cars, and some very rare but interesting ones. Most of them looked pretty damn cool though, and by now, they are very rare to see as daily driven cars. They exist; I pass a 68 SS Camaro all the time. Now even a base model muscle car or pony car that's rusted all to hell can be more then 8 to 10 grand, and you will spend triple that making it into a nice car.
       
      1970 was probably the peak year, and some very powerful cars came out that year and that year only. Chevrolet offered the SS Chevelle with the LS6 454, pumping out 450 HP. Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac all had very high horsepower 455 cubic inch V8s in the GSX, 442, and GTO models. Government safety restrictions, smog restrictions that required a lot of crap to be added to the engines, and high insurance prices all worked to kill these cars, and the final straw was the gas crisis.  The US Auto industry was a barren waste land unless you liked trucks, until about 1986.
       
      The cars never lost popularity though, but their worth has fluctuated a lot. You could buy just about anything in the late 70s and early 80s, and you could gate rare stuff a low prices, but by the late 80s the collectors had started getting into muscle cars and the prices went crazy. No, unless you want to spend a lot of money, you’re not going to be driving around a classic car from that era. On the upside, the aftermarket parts scene has gotten so extensive, you can build a 1968 Camaro, or 1970 Chevelle almost from scratch, since the body shell and just about all the body panels are being produced. You’re looking at about 14 grand just for the body shell of a 1970 Chevelle, from there you looking at a huge chunk of change to build it all the way, but it could be done. I suspect they are used to put a very rare, but totaled cars back into shape.
       
      It’s nice to be helping with the restoration of one of these cars, without being tied to the cost. I can have fun taking it apart, and putting it back together without worrying about how I was going to fund it. I also have more tools for working on cars than my father in law, and know more about GM cars, so I’m appreciated, and that’s nice. I just with the owner was willing to upgrade the thing a little, you can really go a long way to making an old muscle car handle and stop well, and be more reliable and safe with upgrades not much more than rebuilding everything dead stock, and putting upgraded suspension on a otherwise numbers matching car really doesn't hurt the value, especially if you put all the stock shit in boxes and save it. I’m not paying for it though so it is of course his call, and putting it back together stock is easier in most cases. I really wish it was a 68 GTO because, man I still know those cars, and every time we run into some stupid Chevy thing, I’m like, man, Pontiacs are so  much better, and I get dirty looks.  BUT THEY ARE!!!
       
      Anyway, I said I would write something up, and there it is. 
       
       
       
      Hopefully we have a few guys in here who dig on American Iron and will post about the cars they loved, and yes, I mean in that way,

×