futuremodal wrote:Name for me any other industry where the customer is labeled as "the competition".
Up until last year GM boughts engines from Honda for use in the Saturn Vue, making GM a customer of Honda. I am sure that even you consider GM as competition to Honda, right? I don't see why this is so hard for you to grasp. The railroads have to prove to the JB Hunts and UPSs of the world that putting their trailers on the railroad is better than driving them themselves. So the railroads are in competition with the trucking companys over costs for transporting the trailers. If it became much cheaper to drive the trailers from say LA to Chicago, I am sure you would see much less UPS traffic on that corridor.
An "expensive model collector"
futuremodal wrote: n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: The last time I looked, railroads and truckers did compete with each other, hardly a monopoly.Yep, I just read where JB Hunt was thinking of entering the Powder River Basin to haul coal to Midwest utilities! Meanwhile, Schnieder is thinking of contracting with Cargill to move Montana grain to the pacific coast ports, and Navajo will soon start their own single stack road trains to haul containers from LA to Chicago!Yep, them truckers provide tons of competition for the rairoads! (insert sarcastic smilie here) Dave"...of the People" - Learn it, love it, live it!Thats right, I forgot that in Daves little world, industrys are supposed to be punished when they become more efficent than their competition. As for your little absurb twisted statement above, one of similar mindset could apply that to the artificial GVW and length limits placed on truckers - certainly that's an example of an industry being punished for "efficiency", isn't it?
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: The last time I looked, railroads and truckers did compete with each other, hardly a monopoly.Yep, I just read where JB Hunt was thinking of entering the Powder River Basin to haul coal to Midwest utilities! Meanwhile, Schnieder is thinking of contracting with Cargill to move Montana grain to the pacific coast ports, and Navajo will soon start their own single stack road trains to haul containers from LA to Chicago!Yep, them truckers provide tons of competition for the rairoads! (insert sarcastic smilie here) Dave"...of the People" - Learn it, love it, live it!Thats right, I forgot that in Daves little world, industrys are supposed to be punished when they become more efficent than their competition.
futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: The last time I looked, railroads and truckers did compete with each other, hardly a monopoly.Yep, I just read where JB Hunt was thinking of entering the Powder River Basin to haul coal to Midwest utilities! Meanwhile, Schnieder is thinking of contracting with Cargill to move Montana grain to the pacific coast ports, and Navajo will soon start their own single stack road trains to haul containers from LA to Chicago!Yep, them truckers provide tons of competition for the rairoads! (insert sarcastic smilie here) Dave"...of the People" - Learn it, love it, live it!
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: The last time I looked, railroads and truckers did compete with each other, hardly a monopoly.
The last time I looked, railroads and truckers did compete with each other, hardly a monopoly.
Yep, I just read where JB Hunt was thinking of entering the Powder River Basin to haul coal to Midwest utilities! Meanwhile, Schnieder is thinking of contracting with Cargill to move Montana grain to the pacific coast ports, and Navajo will soon start their own single stack road trains to haul containers from LA to Chicago!
Yep, them truckers provide tons of competition for the rairoads!
(insert sarcastic smilie here)
Dave
"...of the People" - Learn it, love it, live it!
Thats right, I forgot that in Daves little world, industrys are supposed to be punished when they become more efficent than their competition.
As for your little absurb twisted statement above, one of similar mindset could apply that to the artificial GVW and length limits placed on truckers - certainly that's an example of an industry being punished for "efficiency", isn't it?
As long as you don't own the right of way that you operate on, you gotta play by other people's rules.
n012944 wrote: futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: The last time I looked, railroads and truckers did compete with each other, hardly a monopoly.Yep, I just read where JB Hunt was thinking of entering the Powder River Basin to haul coal to Midwest utilities! Meanwhile, Schnieder is thinking of contracting with Cargill to move Montana grain to the pacific coast ports, and Navajo will soon start their own single stack road trains to haul containers from LA to Chicago!Yep, them truckers provide tons of competition for the rairoads! (insert sarcastic smilie here) Dave"...of the People" - Learn it, love it, live it!Thats right, I forgot that in Daves little world, industrys are supposed to be punished when they become more effiecent than their competition.
Thats right, I forgot that in Daves little world, industrys are supposed to be punished when they become more effiecent than their competition.
Only the railroad industry considers it's most predominant customer as "the competition". Not good business sense, is it?
Name for me any other industry where the customer is labeled as "the competition".
PS - care to tell us your name?
edbenton wrote: We meaning OTR truckers are the ONLY group of workers EXCEMPT from OVERTIME AND THE FAIR LABOR ACT yet everytime we tried to get those so they applied our own CUSTOMERS fought us so they would be able to keep us sitting at the docks and use us as warehouses.
We meaning OTR truckers are the ONLY group of workers EXCEMPT from OVERTIME AND THE FAIR LABOR ACT yet everytime we tried to get those so they applied our own CUSTOMERS fought us so they would be able to keep us sitting at the docks and use us as warehouses.
Well, without trying to belittle anyone, I wonder why folks who are treated like that dont find another line of work? Being a free country, it would seem if you dont like the working conditions, you could move on to something more to your liking.
If fewer people put up with such nonsence, in a free market economy it would seem conditions would change or they would pay more to entice folks to the job. Yet, this doesnt seem to be the case...I have read stories about how hard it is to get OTR drivers...perhaps its only hard to get OTR drivers for the wages the companies want to pay...could it be because if they raise their rates, they will lose business to another mode of transportation (Railroads, for instance)?
Dave considering that 80% of ALL FREIGHT in this nation NEVER touches a rail then the trucks do provide major competition to the RR. Remember Dave a OTR team can and does provide 40 service Chicago to anypoint on the West coast and OVERNIGHT to the East Coast. Name one RR that can do that. Also in the Produce field the RR basically gave it to the trucking industry and said here you go take all of our business from us. Trucking is a very hard to do indusrty with regulations written in the 30's that need to be updated and when they try to do it every special intrest group refuses to listen to the group that knows what needs to be done THE DRIVERS and then the courts throw out the changes 2 times now. We meaning OTR truckers are the ONLY group of workers EXCEMPT from OVERTIME AND THE FAIR LABOR ACT yet everytime we tried to get those so they applied our own CUSTOMERS fought us so they would be able to keep us sitting at the docks and use us as warehouses.
MichaelSol wrote: What on earth does the militia have to do with rail monopolies?
What on earth does the militia have to do with rail monopolies?
Just another attempt by the rail monopoly deniers to hijack the thread, per the usual.
jeffhergert wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: Dave doesn't have the Second Article of Amendment phrased properly anyway. "of the people" isn't in it.Also notice that he hasn't defined a "real" American.Every place I have seen the Second Amendment reproduced, the words, "of the people" is in it. I would agree to the extent that the "militia" has evolved into today's National Guard, however I don't believe all courts have ruled that ONLY the government has a right to keep firearms. If that had been the case, all guns would've been confiscated long ago. (I would almost think a reading like that would mean even the full time US Army couldn't have firearms, only that portion subject to call during a national emergency.)I didn't even look at the Wikipedia version, there are so many other places to read it. As for the rest of the argument over railroad monopolies, re-regulation, open access et al, FM your on your own. In those areas I don't agree with you. Jeff
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: Dave doesn't have the Second Article of Amendment phrased properly anyway. "of the people" isn't in it.Also notice that he hasn't defined a "real" American.
Dave doesn't have the Second Article of Amendment phrased properly anyway. "of the people" isn't in it.
Also notice that he hasn't defined a "real" American.
Every place I have seen the Second Amendment reproduced, the words, "of the people" is in it. I would agree to the extent that the "militia" has evolved into today's National Guard, however I don't believe all courts have ruled that ONLY the government has a right to keep firearms. If that had been the case, all guns would've been confiscated long ago. (I would almost think a reading like that would mean even the full time US Army couldn't have firearms, only that portion subject to call during a national emergency.)
I didn't even look at the Wikipedia version, there are so many other places to read it.
As for the rest of the argument over railroad monopolies, re-regulation, open access et al, FM your on your own. In those areas I don't agree with you.
Jeff
That's alright Jeff, upstanding people can disagree on those other subjects since there's so much subjectiveness to them. But there is no subjectiveness to the fact that "of the people" is right there in the 2nd Amendment. It is inarguable, and those who claim otherwise are just plain ignorant fools.
edbenton wrote:Paul remember this about Dave he goes off anytime anyones disagrees with him on anything at all. I had a MONSTER arguement on the number of trailers and was getting my numbers from the very agency that regulates trucking and my cousin a COO of a major leasing company. Yet he was still claiming there are 4.7 million trailers in the country and my figures way lower then he started the personal attacks on me to the point the thread was DELETED.
There was no argument, just the fact that I referenced with links the 4.7 million figure, aka the CORRECT number of truck trailers plying the roads, while you just claimed to have talked to your cousin. Ergo, unless you can provide more credible evidence of your claim, aka with linkable references, you lose.
BTW1 - that's not a personal attack. It's a personal attack when you start degrading the person's place of residence, race, religion, intelligence, et al.
BTW2 - the thread was deleted because of your personal attacks as per BTW1 above, as you just couldn't resist throwing in references to tin hats and back woods shanties.
BTW3 - I also notice you're nowhere to be seen when I'm out there defending the trucking industry against the "truckers don't pay their own way" myth.
But, while I'm here, the pertinent provision of the US Code, one of the oldest provisions of the US Code, and which provides the acutal definition of "militia" as used in the Second Amendment, makes it quite clear what the "militia" is.
10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
jeffhergert wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: Dave doesn't have the Second Article of Amendment phrased properly anyway. "of the people" isn't in it.Also notice that he hasn't defined a "real" American.Every place I have seen the Second Amendment reproduced, the words, "of the people" is in it. I would agree to the extent that the "militia" has evolved into today's National Guard, however I don't believe all courts have ruled that ONLY the government has a right to keep firearms. If that had been the case, all guns would've been confiscated long ago. (I would almost think a reading like that would mean even the full time US Army couldn't have firearms, only that portion subject to call during a national emergency.)I didn't even look at the Wikipedia version, there are so many other places to read it. As for the rest of the argument over railroad monopolies, re-regulation, open access et al, FM your on your own. In those areas I don't agree with you. JeffJeff
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, not limited to the National Guard or any organized group. Any male between the ages of 18 and 65 not in some branch of the military (Army, Army Reserve, National Guard, etc.) is considered a member of the unorganized militia. Until the Supremes reverse those past decisions, end of discussion.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: edbenton wrote:Paul remember this about Dave he goes off anytime anyones disagrees with him on anything at all. I had a MONSTER arguement on the number of trailers and was getting my numbers from the very agency that regulates trucking and my cousin a COO of a major leasing company. Yet he was still claiming there are 4.7 million trailers in the country and my figures way lower then he started the personal attacks on me to the point the thread was DELETED.Don't worry. I'm having too much fun just prodding him. He is one of the few people who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge every time he opens his mouth.
Don't worry. I'm having too much fun just prodding him. He is one of the few people who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge every time he opens his mouth.
Do you and Ed go to the Zoo and poke sticks into the lion cages?
futuremodal wrote: This is straight from Wikipedia....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionThe Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."As you can clearly see, Paul, the phrase "the right of the people" is readily apparent to all but those who are unable to read English.
This is straight from Wikipedia....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
As you can clearly see, Paul, the phrase "the right of the people" is readily apparent to all but those who are unable to read English.
Hey everybody, FM uses Wikipedia as a primary reference. At any rate, the courts have used the text as passed by the House and Senate, with all its vagueness, as the proper text. So the real question is: WHOSE right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? I would read it as that of the well-regulated militia, now known as the National Guard.
Does anybody know if FM supports the Fifth Article of Amendment and the Sixteenth Article of Amendment?
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: Dave doesn't have the Second Article of Amendment phrased properly anyway. "of the people" isn't in it.
A real American is one who supports and upholds ALL of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.