bmags

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 05:12 PM) Probably not as bad but a high speeding train with 1000 people on it seems like a desirable terrorist target...especially since planes are near impossible to target now. well, this'll be off topic, but there's been cases of government watchdog groups who have taken things they shouldn't be able to take just to prove a point that it's still ineffective and takes forever.

yeah i can't, maybe some drug dogs and metal detectors but nothing as inefficient and terrible as airplanes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) That would be something like a full day on a train, correct? I don't know that Americans are ready for that. They want to be there now, which is why the car wins out over the train most of the time. My trip from Jefferson city (about...130 miles from STL) to Union station was 11.5 hours with a stop in STL. It is a 7 hour car ride there. I'd imagine a high speed rail would be quite comparable.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) Locally, yes. but many people prefer to fly to take business trips and vacations. My wife and I have friends in St. Louis who we'd love to go and visit more often. but there is no way we can afford to fly... and the idea of driving 5 hours for a weekend visit isnt enticing. However, a 4 hour train ride where we can play card,s read, or nap... now that is enticing. And if there was a way to link the Chicago hub to the Florida hub and have some sort of a high speed line from Chicago to Orland (DIsney)... man, I'd be in heaven. Well, in my experience with my father/father's friends/brothers since they entered the work force, is that since 9/11 they prefer to drive for business trips because they can get work done calling while driving, as opposed to on a plane, and the hassle of security with the lap tops and shoes and wait time, which is pretty much just time lost. I think a train would be enticing for that group, because you could add email to that list if we eventually create a large wireless network. What an investment that would be.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 03:50 PM) You would have to convince an entire culture to shift how they move. This country is 100% about the car. Unless you can change that, you are going to have a really tough time pitching anything that isn't automotive related. People want to be able to jump into their cars and go. gas moves up to $5 again and I'll take my chances convincing them.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) I have an interesting point of comparison here. My wife sells European Rail for a living and she cant begin to tell you how embarrassed she is of America's rail system. It's a total disgrace. Europeans are totally shocked when they come to America. "Plane? Who flys by plane? I have to drive from Chicago to St. Louis?" I have been a big proponent of completely replacing our current system, but it's just WAY too expensive. I cant find it, but I used the LA-Las Vegas rail line proposal and extrapolated those numbers out for a nation wide system. As a rider, it was cheaper than flying.. about half as fast... but expensive as hell to build. but, in what time could a return be made on that investment? I mean nuclear energy is through the roof to install, but many in the country find that worth it, in what time in America could this be made up, especially with a proposed rise in gas the next decade (forever)

so how many news papers are going to use the following pun: Flowers blooms in transition to catcher

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 03:41 PM) I dont really have time to read through all the articles, but I'm just gonna say that I would love if we had a large system of high-speed rail travel in this country similar to that of Europe. Me too. Especially being in Columbia, MO and needing to travel back to Chicago, I would much rather take a train where you can move around, write, read then a plane, where you need to be there 4 hours in advance for a 30 minute flight and wait an hour for luggage. I would use the rail all the time.

yes, why can't we create Pinochet's chile??????

man doesnt getz look like morneau?

go missouri!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 06:11 AM) Maybe my memory is wrong, but I thought Obama has expressed interest in keeping the supreme court "balanced". Basically, lean it to the left, but keep it 5-4... no "activist" supreme court. I may be totally wrong or misheard him. Probably are totally wrong. A big reason why people were pissed at hillary's win at all cost campaign was the high number of liberal court justices people felt were holding out for a democratic president. They were selling to her former supporters to remember that. Of course he supports a balanced court, but that would mean not appointing a conservative for a more liberal judge.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 23, 2009 -> 06:03 AM) In all fairness, how many times have movies with an "Indian theme" or cast (I'm thinking Monsoon Wedding or Bend It Like Beckham) ever even come close? And it wasn't directed by an Indian, either. Gay characters, the Holocaust, you can make some arguments, and musicals like Chicago, Moulin Rouge...but it's not like 1958-1968 when musicals just dominated that era in terms of the Academy. For real. People are mad that an actor who played a character nothing like him beat out an actor who played a character with many similarities. With Rourke as that character you say "oh that's the perfect match", with Penn you say "ooh I can't wait to see what he did with it". In terms of the history of the oscars, I thought Benjamin Button was the classic academy pick. Numerous locations and documents different era's and costumes, it's the 'epic' movie they love rewarding so much.

If you were like me you were drunk

btw, I was drunk last night and couldn't tell the difference between Burris resigning and his spokesperson.

Thank God! Now for a real senator from Illinois.

holy s*** northside is jack london

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) That's the liberal calling card.....and there have been no mag. articles on it....Weird. Perhaps because what you said doesn't make sense.

Well, yeah. The problem is the issues of race that affect people are subtle, and, ala wizard of oz, we keep our eyes on the big green floating heads, argue about the stuff that is only real for a very small number of extreme cases, and become embarrassed to talk about how who we are affects us in America. In Columbia, a number of bars have dress codes clearly targeting blacks, and while there has been a few mag. articles on it, it just kind of gets swept up as a disturbing anecdote. You can be black, as long as you are our kind of black

Not surprising. Well, I guess I kind of thought they might just let these guys take the fall, but alas, no one will be charged. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7899472.stm Famous russian journalist killed contract style, government feigns shock, convicts no one.

are we really sure it's only 2%

Tex- Oscar *Wilde

It's not avant-garde, but it's BEYOND cutting edge... democrats. are. f***ed.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) Will I be allowed the same freedom to post a poll that's derogatory and intended to piss off African Americans? By far the funniest post in the thread. "This pisses me off! Ipso Facto, I should be able to piss off blacks!"

You're RNC Chairman Steele ladies and gentleman: "We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles," Steele told the Washington Times. "But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings." "It will be avant garde, technically," he said of the new public relations team he's signing on. "It will come to the table with things that will surprise everyone - off the hook." He also added: "I don't do 'cutting-edge.' That's what Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting-edge."