Urban.

Warfare.

Why does it have to be about the environment or saving fuel?

How about having 100% of torque available at all speeds?

Besides, $109k for any car that does 0-60 in less than 4 (and has a chassis designed by lotus) is not a bad a deal - bonus if you never have to fill the thing with some flammable/combustible liquid to get it to work.

Maybe it makes me an asshole, but electric cars and hybrids for the sake of being 'green' are a stupid idea anyways, and I've grown to hate the notion that electric motivation = environmentally minded.

Eliminating the power curve and hundreds of additional moving parts from the gasoline engine formula makes for such huge performance potential for electric motivation.

Finally an electric car that can stand on its own in terms of performance, and is actually usable for every day - an electric car for those who appreciate performance, and decidedly not, kids with beards.

Forget about the Galgamack(s?)?!!?!!!! rubble rubble rubble arrr rubble...

Please, enough with your right to live, and your childish fear of guns. Cars kill more people than guns adjusted any way you like. One percent of one percent of deaths are gun related. How is this a credible threat to your "right to live"? The only answer is "It is not", contrary to what movies, television, and govt.'dependency-mongers' would have you believe.

And fascists don't come out of the 'right-wing-small-government-yokel-in-the-woods' fray. It requires a Socialist leader (Hitler, Mussolini) to create a fascist state: You have to tie industry and finance to the government under the guise of rescuing or improving the plight of the working class. Hey, wait a minute!-

Of course they don't plan on building it... This is just setting up some of the groundwork for the eventual i/p lawsuits which will happen once somebody actually does start building it.

Did you just blame the problems of the most liberal* state in the union on Republicans?
I'm neither republican or democrat, but living and voting here, you see every year, Democrat politicians continually pushing for more programs that may or may not be good ideas (banning black cars? - democrat nurtured.), but that we definitely can't afford...
And how exactly does the delay of the state budget cause the state to go broke... are you suggesting that the state not having a budget will cause it to spend more or earn less? I guarantee that with the way the legislature attempts to spend money, holding up the budget can only have the opposite effect of what you propose.
Further, why do you suppose the Republicans held up the budget? Perhaps because the state was literally, out of money, and democratic lawmakers were relentlessly pushing additional spending measures on the budget.
And yes, then there was also the issue of taxes. If you're a wealthy, high paid worker that's willing to put your money where you're politics are, that's fantastic, and commendable. But if you're an employer, such as myself, you're taxes are going to have a very real effect on the lives of current and potential employees--And that's exactly what we need right now, fewer jobs being created, right? So that we can pay out even more in unemployment benefits, right?
Sim-city got it right- case-and-point, the current Corporate mass-exodus from California. Which I'm sure is also because "the budget was held up by republicans". Christ.
California's budget problems are as obvious as your blue-collar neighbor in the McMansion with an Escalade in the driveway (or maybe that's just a California thing). It's all quite poetic: the most materialistic and consumerism-stricken populace in the nation is represented by politicians who continuously want expensive, shiny, new, fashionable things (policies, programs, etc) for their 'constituents'.
Look, I hate the legislation of morality and religion (prop 8) as much as.... well, a lot. But I would trust my brother's wife with a checkbook register sooner than I would California democrats.... and that's really fucking bad.

*"Most Liberal" Stats: Voters: 44.4% Dem. / 31.3% Rep. Assembly: 63.7% Dem. / 36.3% Rep. Senate: 24 Dem. / 15 Rep. Icing: Nancy Pelosi

Yes. Personal preference/taste aside, you can't compare the success, popularity or influence of The Beatles to any other pop music act of the 20th century/(ever). The degree to which they influenced the music which followed them IS on the order of Mozart. Not to mention that if man-kind survives until then, you're grandchildren^7 will read about the Beatles in music history, just a few chapters after Bach and Beethoven. That does-in-fact makes it timeless.

First of all, GAS PRICES have very little to do with the STOCK MARKET, seeing as how they're traded on the FUTURES MARKET. SECONDLY, Saying the stock market is nothing but "rumors and speculation" is implying that Warren Buffett (who started with less than probably most of us here) is the luckiest being in the universe, and "just happens" to guess it right every time. There is more than enough data available to make sound financial decisions in this market, if you would take the time to read and understand. Unfortunately, it's the 'understanding the data' part that loses most people- Case-and-Point: I'm pretty sure that this guy's in the norm, as far as people who don't-know/can't-describe the difference between futures and stocks and/or their respective trading ecosystems. And then you've got these same people giving their expert diagnosis on the economy while complaining about how it's all based on "rumors". Nice.

or powering our vehicles with corn.