No Happy Meals in San Francisco

[chargerboy69]

its perfectly legal and , apparentley, morally correct to allow that same child to go to one of the several public sex fairs the city allows each year so they can watch large men  in leather chaps fuck each other on a sunny afternoon.

 That is a great line.


Ya know, I think I will just stick with the fairs that have a few rides, maybe some elephant ears and pizza-on-a-stick.

Yeah, but us californians are the messed up ones.  

Ponch, if you get through Indiana in the summer I may have to take you to a fair for pizza-on-a-stick.  Not as good as a deep fried Twinkie, but still good.

[69rtse4spd]

Hay Tim, that would not be the Bluffton street fair would it?. Finnaly got the drive train out of the 66, Pat came over, took some picts. & will post them in other web sites for sale. Will try & get your AC/heater box out this week for you.   

[chargerboy69]

Hey ya Jeff, Bluffton Street Fair is a good one, so is Three Rivers Festival.  Both serve the delicious entree.

Thats cool on the A/C heater box.  The Bee is still with the body guy, running a little behind.

Good deal on the 66, do you have the car sold yet?

[RD]

See, what you're in essence saying is that it's ok for a state to be a "nanny state" if the people in it agree with it.

NO, Kansas is not a nanny state.  Never was, never will be.  The thing about California is that your minority controls legislation, whereas in Kansas the majority dictates legislation.  The majority in Kansas believes in lesser government intrusion, hence the adverse to a nanny state. 

*waves future telling wand* In California..  you will not be able to wipe your ass without a city permit from the local Health Administration while you have an overpaid bureaucrat, eating a big mac watching you shit in an environmentally friendly, disposal bag (made from hemp), using recycled shit paper, and ensuring you dispose of said feces in a toilet using Arizona water in a lavatory lit by Arizona electricity.

Just because KS is a mostly conservative, religious state it doesn't mean that there aren't non-religious, non-conservative people there for whom those things you find reasonable are intrusive. Remember, just like with Obamacare and anti-gun laws...just because something it's supposed to be for your benefit and it makes people feel good doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.

What things would they find intrusive about Kansas Law?  I am drawing a blank, but maybe you know something I do not.  Anti-gun laws are not prevalent in Kansas.  We dont worry about them, because they will never pass.  Hell, our recently departed Kathleen Sebelius (democrat mind you) passed a law that collectors can own "automatic weapons".  So much for the democrats and their bitch about intrusiveness.  That is something that would make Sarah Palin happy! hehe (man she's hot!... sorry tangent).

Now, on the economic angle. Yes, California is in debt and running a deficit. But it's not because it's a "poor" state that doesn't generate/create wealth, it's because the clowns running things here don't know how to manage that wealth. Think of a guy who makes $300,000 a year but is still in the red because he has a ton of expenses and lives beyond his means.

Never said the state had no means of making revenue it is just that they seem to want to concentrate on stupid legislation that wastes taxpayers dollars instead of focusing on how to increase profit and decrease spending.  You said it best.. they are clowns.. but i would make an addendum and put "ass" in front of that word.

I think you and chargerboy are missing the point of my comment about California being a donor state. What that means is that for every dollar (taxes, etc) that California sends to the Federal government, it only gets back about 78 cents in the form of services, benefits, funding etc. Now you look at Kansas, and for every dollar they give they get back $1.12.  But these aren't my numbers...they're all in those links I posted above. Basically it's places like California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Minnesota, Florida, and a handful of other states that are subsidizing and bailing out the rest of the states. And that's a big reason why these states, who are also the wealthiest,  are in similar situations as California.

So Mr. $300K a Year is not only bad at managing his money, but on top of that he's gotta send money to his bum brother and lazy distant cousins who can't really provide for themselves, and thus it's harder for him to get his own finances straightened out. You don't need to be an expert economist to see that if you give more money than you get, you are bleeding money. It's high school economics guys, it ain't rocket surgery.

I wish we could cut off California's contribution to the feds.  That way, the ass clowns in Washington would do a better job at what they are supposed to be doing as well as California's ass clowns.  I do not dictate who gets what money from California and who does not.. that is way above my echelon, but it is irrelevant in the sense that those $$$ are out of California's control and purview and should not be accounted for in regards to what the state does with what it does control.