Teh Ricer Civic!

Gasp!? Really? And who contributes to cheap, not very healthy food?

40 lbs of pretty much pure fat. Anyone who blames fast food for making them fat lacks self control. And any parent that allows their kid to get as fat as in that poster is a pretty poor parent.

I beg to differ, i lost 40 pounds once and i had McDonalds at least 2x a week. Of course i put that back on later, but the point of the matter is its not a place that makes you fat, its YOU that makes you fat (or skinny) by your eating preferences. Blaming McDonalds for making people fat is like blaming your pencil for spelling words wrong.

How about taking a pos FWD car and building a MR car out of it?

nice pokemon avatar there buddy

Hope that the midwest secedes from the union and move there. Otherwise... i dunno... go to the beach? Maybe get drunk... maybe get drunk and THEN go to the beach! YEAH!!!

Well Camino if you feel so strongly there are always organizations working to actually change stuff. You could join one of those.

An armed society is a polite society.

get a trailer then, or get roommates. Besides Fresno isn't the cheapest place to live in the valley. The point is, it is a lot easier to subsist on a minimum wage job in the valley than it is in the bay area, or LA.

Hmm that is an interesting study. heres the link for those who want to look http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LeavingCAJTF.pdf It appears as though California's population is actually still growing due to in-state births and international immigration. Which means that the tax base will continue to suffer (California does not tax the lowest brackets very much, and offers them, comparatively, a lot of services). Most international immigrants are not terribly well off and poor people tend to have more kids than rich people, which means that there is certainly a net loss of rich and middle class households in California. The aforementioned study only looks at population movements between states, not countries. California's budget will remain unsustainable until such time that it is seriously reformed. The aforementioned report is thus useless in this argument as it only looks at state migration patterns rather than overall migration patterns. Regardless, what Purdue guy probably means is that it is not cheap in any way to live in California, unless you live in the Central Valley of course, its dirt cheap there (you can support yourself on a full time minimum wage job), but everywhere else it is very expensive to live and so you have less money to get a nice big car.

Yep, Bakersfield controls the vote in all practical matters for Kern and Bakersfield hates taxes. I remember they voted NO on a measure to add a tax to hotel rooms. A tax that doesn't even affect the typical person. Then again, i suppose there is something to be said for sticking to principles...

No, Z-06 is suggesting that we slowly crush said kitty killer under a glacier.

So long as airlines and highways exist, there will never be a point where rail will be profitable... unless highway systems are not updated.

The Hong Kong subway & related lines are profitable. Additionally i believe there is one (1) other country in the world who has a city with a profitable subway & related rail line. Hong Kong has 2 subway companies, 1 is private, the other is a publicly traded public enterprise (for profit). Then again, Hong Kong has amongst the highest population density of any city on this planet so its really no surprise. Fuel savings only works to the extent that fuel prices do not drop off accordingly. If more people used public transit then fuel would be cheaper as there would be less demand for it. Eventually it reaches the point where its cheaper just to drive... which would, in effect, be a government subsidized fuel cost.

The one thing i never understood, are they stealing the rail that goes through Techachapi through the grapevine for this or no? And if so, that's a huge disservice to the far larger Bakersfield that would see more benefits from the rail system. IMO it would make more sense to extend the San Joaquin line down to LA and make that the high speed rail... although that would mean that Kern would have to build overpasses which... well lets face it, Kern only spends the bare minimum on infrastructure, since your from fresno im sure you understand that feeling when you see the KERN sign and the immediately worse quality roads on the 99 or the 5.

I am not arguing the convenience of the train system, i am merely saying that now is not a time to embark upon a venture that has a negative ROI. Especially not in California, which, lets see, has no cash and no means of financing such a venture. From what i can see, AMTRAK has never once turned a profit, and has only one profitable route back east. Even though the San Joaquin rail has very high load ratings, they still make a loss per passenger. Now, a high speed rail MAY be able to be profitable since it can make more trips on a given day. However i must wonder how a high speed rail works, is it a dedicated rail or must it be shared with commercial traffic? I cannot imagine that it would be shared since commercial rails tend to go much slower. I would not be supportive of a measure to make existing rail into dedicated high speed rails since that would be an adverse hit to commerce, which is actually profitable. Then again, the real question is why did the passenger trains fail in the first place, the most obvious answer would be, of course, the government who built up a massive network of interstate highways... slowly leading to the demise of the passenger rail systems.

Ah don't worry, the ensuing inflation will bring manufacturing back to the US.

Lets also not forget that none of California's passenger rail lines are actually profitable. In fact its generally more expensive to take the train than to drive. Plus its slower than driving. The only upshot is you don't have to drive.

Neat, now how much money is this going to lose? I'm all in favor of laying more rail down though.

Whatever is at Costco. I don't give a rats ass about the latest fashion trends. You would be surprised how durable those kirkland jeans are, not terribly stylish though.

So ya'll oppose euthanization too right? And i am not trying to defend this lady at all, she has all the makings of a serial killer, im just saying that PETA has gotten their way on a lot of things and people have grown to accept it.

An animal is an animal. I don't understand why there are criminal charges attached to a non-human entity. Well actually i do, its because people have personified their pets; projecting human quality traits onto a non-human entity. And i must admit i do the same to my own pets and i would probably want whoever killed my own pet killed. But from a logical standpoint, its illogical. Still, from an emotional perspective, i do not wish her well and i don't understand why you would want to do such a horrible thing. But she is definitely not a productive member of society. Maybe we can ship her off to some deserted island...

Well if they get enough support then a president veto is what would be a waste of time. Besides, i don't expect Obama to veto this, these are also votes for him at stake.

If your employee owned then you don't need a union because the company is a de facto union.

Yeah, you oughta go by the old 70s CAFE highway numbers then. The new one assumes your driving like an idiot.