|
Pellisworth posted:The problem is that it doesn't actually go anywhere and specifically doesn't serve the western half of Los Angeles at all. quote:There was a ballot initiative last fall for a half-cent sales tax increase to accelerate the planned extensions to the LA Metro, but it failed 66.11% to 33.89%. Yes, failed. Because in CA it takes a 2/3 majority to raise taxes for anything ever
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Los Angeles is absolutely spending money to expand public transit faster than any other city in the county. The city is just huge and started way behind. Thats the thing, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the money they need spending. LA has a nice tidy system that only serves a fraction of the population. LA isn't going to be able to get much from freeway improvements (cost rise too much to add lanes to already built out freeways), they need more than light rail. The city is broke so it probably won't happen but it is already suffocating from its traffic and it will only get worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
redscare posted:They got underfunded because the employees were only asked to contribute a token sum and the demographics stopped being favorable because pension plans, like most social welfare programs, are demographic-based ponzi schemes that are only sustainable if there's a ton of employees with a small pool of retirees. This obviously isn't the case and full benefit pensions after 20 years with no minimum age are insane. A cop or firefighter can retire in their 50s and still collect their pensions while going back to work. Then there's all the other various BS calculations in other places like the DWP that only look at the last few years of employment for calculating pension size. Pretty much. The late 90's really screwed the whole system up. Taxes haven't ever gone down but the pension/employment portion of spending has grown vastly faster than revenue. You can read up on Stockton and Contra Costa county if you want, but basically they had no hope in hell of ever fulfilling those obligations, unless you believe that the tech bubble would never implode. Part of this is due to the never-ending healthcare cost issues, but it's not like you couldn't see this coming at the end of 2000 once the bubble started the pop. This has all been a long time coming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
redscare posted:They got underfunded because the employees were only asked to contribute a token sum and the demographics stopped being favorable because pension plans, like most social welfare programs, are demographic-based ponzi schemes that are only sustainable if there's a ton of employees with a small pool of retirees. Between this and "Democrats spending like drunken sailors" it's pretty clear you either don't know what you're talking about, or are being dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:LA has a nice tidy system that only serves a fraction of the population. But the parts that it does serve are served pretty well, better than many American cities in fact. The bus system is large and widely used in the areas that it does serve well (over 1 million riders every weekday), and LA has been expanding it's metro and light rail lines, and has more expansions planned, so things have been steadily getting better over the past couple decades. It's not quite as lovely as it was in the 1950s-1980s, which is when LA really got famous for having bad public transit. The LA metro rail system has an average of 360,000+ riders every weekday, which is actually almost as many daily riders as BART, though neither systems have the best coverage...which is amplified for LA seeing as it has over twice the population of the Bay Area (plus the Bay also has the MUNI metro and VTA light rail in addition to BART). So it's a mix of pretty good and completely lovely in LA, depending on where you are. That's just LA county though, the rest of the LA area is even more hosed, but then so are the suburban regions of most US cities. Wax Dynasty posted:
All Of The Dicks posted:edit: agreed. Tex-Mex supremacy. Cal-Mex can take its beans and its dry-rear end tiny little tortillas and its no cheese and no steak and gently caress off back to Chihuahua or wherever it came from. The most wrong opinions. "Cal-mex" uses plenty of cheese and steak, and has tortillas of many shapes and sizes and moisture levels, what are you talking about? And tex-mex uses beans too. As for where most Mexican food in CA is from or based on, look at the Northern Mexico and Western Mexico sections of this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_food#Regional_cuisines You can find stuff from anywhere in Mexico though, this is a big state with a lot of Mexicans. I've seen some Yucatan-style Mexican restaurants, for example. gently caress the ROW posted:#1 income inequality in the nation means if you're rich enough to afford to live in San Francisco you can literally swim in a sea of poors. Splish splash! Yes, San Francisco, where only the wealthy live. Us working and middle class San Franciscans who make up the majority of the city, and the 12% living in poverty, and the thousands of homeless people are actually rich people in disguise. And nowhere else in CA has rich people or working class people, or middle class people. Just poors. redscare posted:There's no good possible outcome if things get left as they are, and I'd rather not see LA turn into Detroit. That's never going to happen. Detroit is the way it is because half the population abandoned the city because of the american automotive industry getting poo poo on/lost jobs, and to escape the scary black people. And to escape the crime that arose because of all that abandonment and neglect and the lovely economy combined with the disproportionately large population of poor people that remained. LA is a completely different situation: it has a much larger and more diverse economy, the second largest GDP and population in the US, non-stop population growth, much lower crime rates, much more money, etc. poo poo would have to go epically and amazingly wrong for LA to turn into another Detroit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
I can't provide links, so this is hearsay. Historically, Central Valley irrigation practices have not been water-efficient: open ditch systems, leaky pipes, lots of water lost before use. It takes a major capital infusion to switch to a drip system, and the state isn't going to provide any help to farmers AFAIK. You could still have booming agriculture in the Central Valley if you fixed the pipes and got rid of the ditches.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
redscare posted:Yes, San Francisco, where only the wealthy live. Us working and middle class San Franciscans who make up the majority of the city, and the 12% living in poverty, and the thousands of homeless people are actually rich people in disguise. This, but unironically. The median household income in San Francisco is seventy three thousand dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
LA's transit system: A brief summary LA is a huge sprawling collection of smaller cities and suburbs, with massively overcrowded roads. This despite the fact that it probably has 3x the amount of freeways as any other city in the country. There is simply too many people and not enough road, though not for lack of trying on the roads part. You could likely built a second level on most LA freeways and still be quite busy. LA's light rail system is a relatively recent thing, dating back only to 1990. Initially, it was thought that LA is so invested in it's "car culture" that nobody would use it. That, and money, factored into an above-ground system designed for limited use. Of course, the first line(the Blue Line) is essentially a best-fit-line through the poorest parts of LA...IE, the people most likely to use public transportation. Because of this, the platforms had to be expanded in the first 10 years of operation to allow larger trains. This is a running issue in LA transit: The people who design and run the system have no realistic view on who and how it is used, because the LA Metro is almost exclusively the domain of people with lower incomes. Very few people who can afford a car decline to use, despite the horrific traffic. Another interesting feature of the LA system is the Purple line. If you look at a subway map, you'll see a line that goes for about 4 stops, ending in the Wilshire area west of downtown. Half of the stops are concurrent with the Red line, with only 2-3 independent. Why such a small line, you ask? Well we had to stop digging when we ran into some controversy over environmental concerns. Somehow, the line simply can't figure out how to go west of that point. What's west of there, you ask?  Another interesting choice in LA rail design is the Green line, which runs down the center of the 105 freeway to LAX airport. Or rather, near LAX airport. It stops about 100 yards from the property but does not go in. You have to switch to a bus for the rest of the trip, despite the fact that there is literally a turn-off built into the track for an LAX connection. Mysteriously, nobody with the City can quite explain why this connection never got built. We're also building a north-south Train along Crenshaw that will come just as close to the airport, but also not enter. As far as I'm aware, LA is the only city in the US with a light rail system that doesn't connect it to the airport.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
BART alone isn't a good comparison with other transit networks because it is only a regional commuter rail system. For getting around inside of SF (or any other cities that it serves) it is practically useless. BART has four stops total in downtown SF, two in downtown Oakland, and one in downtown Berkeley. Muni, AC Transit, et al. are the systems that you actually use to get around inside of cities. VTA is a token system so that San Jose can say that they have public transit; a real transit system down there would attract too many poor people to the rest of SC County and the peninsula.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Thats the thing, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the money they need spending. LA has a nice tidy system that only serves a fraction of the population. A ton of people ride the buses, just not white people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Another interesting choice in LA rail design is the Green line, which runs down the center of the 105 freeway to LAX airport. Or rather, near LAX airport. It stops about 100 yards from the property but does not go in. You have to switch to a bus for the rest of the trip, despite the fact that there is literally a turn-off built into the track for an LAX connection. Mysteriously, nobody with the City can quite explain why this connection never got built. We're also building a north-south Train along Crenshaw that will come just as close to the airport, but also not enter. As far as I'm aware, LA is the only city in the US with a light rail system that doesn't connect it to the airport. LAX Bus "G" which runs from the Aviation Green line stop to the airport is actually really great and probably works as well as any rail connector would. Also once the Crenshaw rail line is built then they'll probably have to put in a rail connector to LAX.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Rah! posted:But the parts that it does serve are served pretty well, better than many American cities in fact. The bus system is large and widely used in the areas that it does serve well (over 1 million riders every weekday), and LA has been expanding it's metro and light rail lines, and has more expansions planned, so things have been steadily getting better over the past couple decades. It's not quite as lovely as it was in the 1950s-1980s, which is when LA really got famous for having bad public transit. The LA metro rail system has an average of 360,000+ riders every weekday, which is actually almost as many daily riders as BART, though neither systems have the best coverage...which is amplified for LA seeing as it has over twice the population of the Bay Area (plus the Bay also has the MUNI metro and VTA light rail in addition to BART). So it's a mix of pretty good and completely lovely in LA, depending on where you are. That's just LA county though, the rest of the LA area is even more hosed, but then so are the suburban regions of most US cities. The bus system is overcrowded, slow, unreliable, and they're actively cutting lines. People ride the bus because they have to, not because it's convenient. Often you'll see a bus go right by because it's too full. The trains definitely get used, but they don't cover enough areas and they need to be bigger. Often in the evening rush hour, the Blue line will be standing room only, so much so that at literally the first stop, people can't get on. The Expo is OK most times, but I think once it actually connects Santa Monica to downtown it's going to be packed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:LAX Bus "G" which runs from the Aviation Green line stop to the airport is actually really great and probably works as well as any rail connector would. Having taken that bus many times, and been in airports with rail connections, I can assure you this is not the case. It's not awful, but it makes no sense for the Green Line to not actually enter the airport. Additionally, that was original plan because it would be utterly stupid not to....unfortunately, as is usual in LA, some lobbying got involved. quote:Also once the Crenshaw rail line is built then they'll probably have to put in a rail connector to LAX. The Crenshaw gets close but doesn't go in either. But yes, there are plans for an LAX connection completely independent of Crenshaw/Green Line construction. Dusseldorf posted:A ton of people ride the buses, just not white people. This is entirely true of all of the LA Metro system. And also why the system is such an afterthought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Another interesting choice in LA rail design is the Green line, which runs down the center of the 105 freeway to LAX airport. Or rather, near LAX airport. It stops about 100 yards from the property but does not go in. You have to switch to a bus for the rest of the trip, despite the fact that there is literally a turn-off built into the track for an LAX connection. Mysteriously, nobody with the City can quite explain why this connection never got built. We're also building a north-south Train along Crenshaw that will come just as close to the airport, but also not enter. As far as I'm aware, LA is the only city in the US with a light rail system that doesn't connect it to the airport. To get to Oakland Airport from BART you have to take a bus from the nearest station (~10 minute ride). They are currently building an honest-to-god, boondoggle-scale elevated monorail to replace the bus. The monorail will cost more and probably take longer in total because it will drop off at a station in the middle of the airport parking lot a few hundred yards away from the terminals instead of at the terminal doors like the current bus does. But hey, the economy was down and spending money building whatever is conveniently at hand is surely better than spending money on planning, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Having taken that bus many times, and been in airports with rail connections, I can assure you this is not the case. It's not awful, but it makes no sense for the Green Line to not actually enter the airport. Additionally, that was original plan because it would be utterly stupid not to....unfortunately, as is usual in LA, some lobbying got involved. I've been told anecdotally that the main reason the trains go almost but not quite to LAX is due to lobbying from cabbies, bus/shuttle companies, and airport parking services who didn't want the competition. And, yes, if white people rode public transit, maybe we'd have wound up with something slightly less half-assed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I've been told anecdotally that the main reason the trains go almost but not quite to LAX is due to lobbying from cabbies, bus/shuttle companies, and airport parking services who didn't want the competition. That's the conventional wisdom, but I wasn't here at that time so I don't' know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Between this and "Democrats spending like drunken sailors" it's pretty clear you either don't know what you're talking about, or are being dishonest. I made no mention of Democrats aside from the specific case of Gray Davis and SB400 and I fail to see how I'm incorrect in my assessment of pensions as the base level. You need X amount of new workers to pay for the $Y benefits of Z retirees. If Z is growing (and it is, because people living a pretty long rear end time now and die way later than they did when many of these were set up), then Y is growing and thus you need X to grow. But X is shrinking due to automation/budget cuts/slower population growth/etc, so the contribution from X has to increase (via higher taxes) or Y needs to decrease. Yes, the pension money doesn't just go into a box and gets invested, but a certain return % is needed as well, which could require a risky strategy, something a pension plan should not engage in. Rah! posted:That's never going to happen. Detroit is the way it is because half the population abandoned the city because of the american automotive industry getting poo poo on/lost jobs, and to escape the scary black people. And to escape the crime that arose because of all that abandonment and neglect and the lovely economy combined with the disproportionately large population of poor people that remained. Obviously LA wouldn't have the same problems Detroit has, but there's plenty of potential for things to go sideways, and union-related inanity is one of the things that drove Detroit into the ground. Aside from that, LA's economy is still in rough shape and unemployment is at 10%. The city also has a large population of poor people that are dependent on government benefits, a notoriously bad school system, and as already mentioned, a crumbling infrastructure. Also, aerospace is probably going to shrink again due to the budget cuts. These are all challenges that will have to be dealt with and the city has no money to do so with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
I'm a white person who rode the Metro/busses for work for 6 months. I tried to do my part, you guys.  Seriously, the Metro was amazing for when I used it. I would have been spending a shitload on gas and getting super stressed if I had to drive every day (my commute was from Pasadena to near LAX). I'm really sad the Metro funding tax didn't get voted through. The 2/3rds rule to raise taxes is goddamned idiotic and shortsighted, just like Prop 13. But overall? California is a god damned paradise compared to my home state Florida.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:A ton of people ride the buses, just not white people. Thats the thing, buses especially in LA aren't very effective as a mass transit system. Lots of people use them but ultimately thats because are few alternatives beyond paying for a car. LA has mass transit, it just doesn't have the efficiency and capacity to make it effective. More light rail lines are fine (I guess) but once you start looking at their comfortable capacity, it is pretty clear they won't make much of a dent. Roughly 10 million people live in LA county alone, we are really only talking about a fraction of the population. The problem is more investment in roads won't lead to real improvement (look at the 405). The Bart is okay, but as others have said it has issues of its own and it really a commuter train. San Francisco does okay since it is such a dense and contained urban area but there are still glaring issues and lets not start on the Santa Clara valley. Also, yeah the situation with the green line and LAX is a disaster. Even Portland, Oregon has its light rail line to directly into the terminal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
redscare posted:Obviously LA wouldn't have the same problems Detroit has, but there's plenty of potential for things to go sideways, and union-related inanity is one of the things that drove Detroit into the ground. Aside from that, LA's economy is still in rough shape and unemployment is at 10%. The city also has a large population of poor people that are dependent on government benefits, a notoriously bad school system, and as already mentioned, a crumbling infrastructure. Also, aerospace is probably going to shrink again due to the budget cuts. These are all challenges that will have to be dealt with and the city has no money to do so with. You're doing a lot of handwaving here. Most large cities have significant poor/working poor populations, and yes LAUSD is pretty terrible but what of the higher education in the area? The community colleges are incredibly good and the big universities are world-class. Aerospace might be a declining industry, but there's a growing tech industry here too. I forget the name of the project, friend of mine that's in Marketing in Silicon Valley was telling me about how there's a lot of movement toward making Santa Monica a new Silicon Valley type area. Los Angeles isn't going to pull a Detroit unless the world decides to stop watching American TV and film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:there's a growing tech industry here too. Well that's wonderful news, for white and Asian men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Thats the thing, buses especially in LA aren't very effective as a mass transit system. Lots of people use them but ultimately thats because are few alternatives beyond paying for a car. Nevermind the capacity, there's so much stupid built in that it hurts. Think the LAX thing is bad? Try the other end of the Green Line, where the final station is all of 2.4 miles away from the Metrolink (regional commuter rail) station. As a result, there's no easy mass transit link for anyone that lives in Orange County and works in the South Bay. And given how much aerospace and poo poo is around here, that's a considerable amount of people. Same for going the other way - I live in Long Beach within walking distance of the Blue line, but have no connection to the regional rail system unless I want to go all the way up to Grand Central station. Then there's the purple line spur, the lack of a connection to Glendale/Burbank of any kind, and the over-extension of the Gold line, to name a few others. Oh and the afore-mentioned 10/30 plan failed not only because of the tax hike's failure, but also because it was dependent on federal funding and well, lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
redscare posted:The city also has a large population of poor people that are dependent on government benefits, a notoriously bad school system, and as already mentioned, a crumbling infrastructure. That school system view is a holdover from the 90s, when roughly 5,000 students were being sardined into schools built for a max capacity of 2,200. Since then, there's been an amazing public works buildout of community schools, bussing has all but been eliminated, schools are more focused towards providing small learning communities, and all but a handful of schools have transitioned to a traditional (10 months + summer break) schedule in place of a year round (track-based) schedule. But thanks to prop 13, most of the urban schools still face funding problems. And these happen to be the schools that receive heavy ESL/Special Ed. students. If you think that the testing people make any exceptions for the fact that they either have a learning disability, or they've been in the country for 3 months, when they take their standardized tests, you'd be wrong! Consequently, these are also students that are most likely to depend on the LA Metro for their travel needs!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Los Angeles isn't going to pull a Detroit unless the world decides to stop watching American TV and film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:That school system view is a holdover from the 90s, when roughly 5,000 students were being sardined into schools built for a max capacity of 2,200. Well that's good to hear, good news about the LAUSD rarely sees the light of day. Of course the standardized testing fucks everything, that entire approach needs to go the hell away, but that's not an LA- or even CA-specific problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
redscare posted:I made no mention of Democrats aside from the specific case of Gray Davis and SB400 and I fail to see how I'm incorrect in my assessment of pensions as the base level. You need X amount of new workers to pay for the $Y benefits of Z retirees. If Z is growing (and it is, because people living a pretty long rear end time now and die way later than they did when many of these were set up), then Y is growing and thus you need X to grow. But X is shrinking due to automation/budget cuts/slower population growth/etc, so the contribution from X has to increase (via higher taxes) or Y needs to decrease. Yes, the pension money doesn't just go into a box and gets invested, but a certain return % is needed as well, which could require a risky strategy, something a pension plan should not engage in. Pensions and social programs aren't Ponzi schemes. You have no idea what Ponzi scheme is, and are simply confused by standard PAYGO systems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
I love our little liberal stronghold up here in Humboldt County. And the people. Hoping it never changes and we keep our Dem majority for the near future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Lady Dank posted:I love our little liberal stronghold up here in Humboldt County. And the people. Hoping it never changes and we keep our Dem majority for the near future. It's also a impressive weed stronghold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
withak posted:To get to Oakland Airport from BART you have to take a bus from the nearest station (~10 minute ride). They are currently building an honest-to-god, boondoggle-scale elevated monorail to replace the bus. The monorail will cost more and probably take longer in total because it will drop off at a station in the middle of the airport parking lot a few hundred yards away from the terminals instead of at the terminal doors like the current bus does. But hey, the economy was down and spending money building whatever is conveniently at hand is surely better than spending money on planning, right? Is this happening? Last I heard it was kind of stuck in purgatory and I can't find any recent articles about the status either way. It's kind of a terrible idea from every practical point of view but I can see it making sense for the airport. The BART to SFO pulls straight into one of the airport terminals, and in Oakland you have to spend a couple of bucks for the shuttle bus that also takes you straight to the airport. I think they think that offering a nice, elevated monorail will alleviate the fear some people have of getting off BART in Oakland and taking a bus (which is about a 20 second walk once you get off the BART train) but it's a $500 million solution for something that isn't really a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Rah! posted:The most wrong opinions. "Cal-mex" uses plenty of cheese and steak, and has tortillas of many shapes and sizes and moisture levels, what are you talking about? And tex-mex uses beans too. As for where most Mexican food in CA is from or based on, look at the Northern Mexico and Western Mexico sections of this wikipedia article: I moved to Texas from California and definitely noticed that Mexican Food suddenly became very rare. Tex Mex is pretty much a huge burrito made with ground beef and jalapeņos on a plate covered with velveeta. I'm told Tex-Mex claims Fajitas as part of their tradition, but that doesn't go far enough to right the various and most heretical wrongs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that the California Burrito is an abomination to all nations, creeds, and religions, made only to appease whitebread OC bastards. (Seriously, fries in a burrito?) Thankfully, Carne Asada Fries make up for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I think we can all agree that the California Burrito is an abomination to all nations, creeds, and religions, made only to appease whitebread OC bastards. (Seriously, fries in a burrito?) Who the hell serves fries in a burrito and calls it "California?" I've found a use for domestic drone strikes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
redscare posted:Nevermind the capacity, there's so much stupid built in that it hurts. Think the LAX thing is bad? Try the other end of the Green Line, where the final station is all of 2.4 miles away from the Metrolink (regional commuter rail) station. As a result, there's no easy mass transit link for anyone that lives in Orange County and works in the South Bay. And given how much aerospace and poo poo is around here, that's a considerable amount of people. Same for going the other way - I live in Long Beach within walking distance of the Blue line, but have no connection to the regional rail system unless I want to go all the way up to Grand Central station. Then there's the purple line spur, the lack of a connection to Glendale/Burbank of any kind, and the over-extension of the Gold line, to name a few others. Also, the Gold line, one of the largest light rail lines in country, is one of the slowest because it has to weave through residential areas. More or less, LA's public transportation system was built as a "optional" alternative and plenty of corners were cut in its design and construction. Granted, the ultimate issue is that the LA metro area is extremely vast and public transportation works best when it is walking distance. Regional rail in LA is simply an issue of there isn't enough track for both passenger and freight service. You have to take an amtrak bus to get to bakersfield because there is a only one rail line that goes north and its freight only. LA isn't the only city with a lot of infrastructure issues but Socal's population is comparable to the Greater New York area at this point and there differences in infrastructure is vast. LA isn't going to turn into Detroit, if it was, it would have already back in the mid-90s. It just is going to become a more and more unbearable place to live in. However, I would still take it over a lot American cities though. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
keevo posted:Has anyone been following the mayor of San Diego lately? I've heard some sketchy things (surprise surprise) were going on with him and his staff, but I haven't really followed up on it. Its the Obama effect. Its the lesser of two evils. DeMaio seemed just plain off in the head. duodenum posted:Who the hell serves fries in a burrito and calls it "California?" I think this is because of Carne Asada fries which also have SD roots. Someone figured "Lets put it all in a tortilla". The real abomination is taco shops selling California burritos with like home-style potato's and not french fries. That poo poo pisses me off. Tacos Al Pastor fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I think we can all agree that the California Burrito is an abomination to all nations, creeds, and religions, made only to appease whitebread OC bastards. (Seriously, fries in a burrito?) That one is absofuckinglutely San Diego's fault. quote:Thankfully, Carne Asada Fries make up for it. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
duodenum posted:Who the hell serves fries in a burrito and calls it "California?" Senor Sisig, for one. It's popular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Pensions and social programs aren't Ponzi schemes. You have no idea what Ponzi scheme is, and are simply confused by standard PAYGO systems. Right, but an economic bubble is a Ponzi scheme. So, reducing pension contributions to buy into a bubble (and to assume it will last forever), is to buy into a Ponzi scheme.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Lady Dank posted:I love our little liberal stronghold up here in Humboldt County. And the people. Hoping it never changes and we keep our Dem majority for the near future. I've always been pretty surprised by how many Humboldt natives were strongly against Prop 19. I get that legalizing weed would lower growers' profits, but surely all the other reasons to make it legal should have outweighed that! It just seems like a weird attitude coming from an otherwise liberal place. duodenum posted:Who the hell serves fries in a burrito and calls it "California?" Fries in a burrito are fuckin' delicious; death to burrito elitists!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Lady Dank posted:I love our little liberal stronghold up here in Humboldt County. And the people. Hoping it never changes and we keep our Dem majority for the near future. Ya'll have been dead to me since the Arcata Bon Boniere closed down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:Right, but an economic bubble is a Ponzi scheme. So, reducing pension contributions to buy into a bubble (and to assume it will last forever), is to buy into a Ponzi scheme. Not even that is true. A Ponzi scheme is not a catchall term for "things that are unsustainable that I don't like".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:42
|
|