edbenton wrote: Let them attack our economy we can do without the cheap crap they ram down our throats
They are attacking the American economy, with the "cheap crap" that most Americans keep buying. They don't want to devalue the dollar, as they are stuck holding over a trillion of them. The best way to defend the American economy in the short range would be to devalue the dollar, making imports from China more expensive. Over the long range, America needs to shift their focus from military warfare to economic warfare, and start investing in infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, the Alaska natural gas pipeline, and railroads. CREATE would be an excellent first step.
Midnight Railroader wrote: futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: futuremodal wrote: mudchicken wrote: Nice try...Your rants only further destroy your case.That's your problem mudchicken - you can't argue a case on merits, so you resort to personal insults and content denial. The Chi-coms have got their collective hand right up your backside, pulling your strings and putting their words in your mouth. You just can't fathom that your employer is cross subsidizing Asian imports on the backs of domestic rail shippers, and harming the US economic base in the long run. So you come out with froth like "lemmings over the cliff" and "your rants blah blah blah" - it's apparent you never made your high school debate team.Here's a clue for you to consider - Anti-trust exemption elimination isn't a "return" to pre-Staggers regulation, unless you want to stretch it back to the pre-Granger days.Again - Eliminating anti-trust exemption is not "reregulation", as is being shoveled by Ed Hamberger and his disingenuous cronies. In fact, no one of even remote credibility can make a case for the railroads' anti-trust exemption in a partially deregulated environment.The fact that a bunch of *elected* urban numskulls can't make that distinction either isn't something to grasp onto by someone who should know better. Let's just hope you don your bio-hazard suit next time you feed your cat with that toxic imported crap from your spiritual homeland.FM has one of the worst cases of xenophobia that I've ever seen.Well, we have had numerous news items regarding faulty Chinese made products, now we have the Chi-coms threatening to devalue the US dollar if we don't behave to their liking. If the Chinese can indeed excert that much influence over the US economy, why is it so hard to comprehend their influence over the US rail industry?Why would an awareness of this spector be considered xenophobic by you?That's why Mudchicken's "lemmings" comment is so ironic - the "lemmings" as I see it are those who continue to ignore or spin the economic threats and influence of Communist China.You maintain a shack with a well-stocked arsenal and provisions somewhere in the woods, don't you?
futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: futuremodal wrote: mudchicken wrote: Nice try...Your rants only further destroy your case.That's your problem mudchicken - you can't argue a case on merits, so you resort to personal insults and content denial. The Chi-coms have got their collective hand right up your backside, pulling your strings and putting their words in your mouth. You just can't fathom that your employer is cross subsidizing Asian imports on the backs of domestic rail shippers, and harming the US economic base in the long run. So you come out with froth like "lemmings over the cliff" and "your rants blah blah blah" - it's apparent you never made your high school debate team.Here's a clue for you to consider - Anti-trust exemption elimination isn't a "return" to pre-Staggers regulation, unless you want to stretch it back to the pre-Granger days.Again - Eliminating anti-trust exemption is not "reregulation", as is being shoveled by Ed Hamberger and his disingenuous cronies. In fact, no one of even remote credibility can make a case for the railroads' anti-trust exemption in a partially deregulated environment.The fact that a bunch of *elected* urban numskulls can't make that distinction either isn't something to grasp onto by someone who should know better. Let's just hope you don your bio-hazard suit next time you feed your cat with that toxic imported crap from your spiritual homeland.FM has one of the worst cases of xenophobia that I've ever seen.Well, we have had numerous news items regarding faulty Chinese made products, now we have the Chi-coms threatening to devalue the US dollar if we don't behave to their liking. If the Chinese can indeed excert that much influence over the US economy, why is it so hard to comprehend their influence over the US rail industry?Why would an awareness of this spector be considered xenophobic by you?That's why Mudchicken's "lemmings" comment is so ironic - the "lemmings" as I see it are those who continue to ignore or spin the economic threats and influence of Communist China.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: futuremodal wrote: mudchicken wrote: Nice try...Your rants only further destroy your case.That's your problem mudchicken - you can't argue a case on merits, so you resort to personal insults and content denial. The Chi-coms have got their collective hand right up your backside, pulling your strings and putting their words in your mouth. You just can't fathom that your employer is cross subsidizing Asian imports on the backs of domestic rail shippers, and harming the US economic base in the long run. So you come out with froth like "lemmings over the cliff" and "your rants blah blah blah" - it's apparent you never made your high school debate team.Here's a clue for you to consider - Anti-trust exemption elimination isn't a "return" to pre-Staggers regulation, unless you want to stretch it back to the pre-Granger days.Again - Eliminating anti-trust exemption is not "reregulation", as is being shoveled by Ed Hamberger and his disingenuous cronies. In fact, no one of even remote credibility can make a case for the railroads' anti-trust exemption in a partially deregulated environment.The fact that a bunch of *elected* urban numskulls can't make that distinction either isn't something to grasp onto by someone who should know better. Let's just hope you don your bio-hazard suit next time you feed your cat with that toxic imported crap from your spiritual homeland.FM has one of the worst cases of xenophobia that I've ever seen.
futuremodal wrote: mudchicken wrote: Nice try...Your rants only further destroy your case.That's your problem mudchicken - you can't argue a case on merits, so you resort to personal insults and content denial. The Chi-coms have got their collective hand right up your backside, pulling your strings and putting their words in your mouth. You just can't fathom that your employer is cross subsidizing Asian imports on the backs of domestic rail shippers, and harming the US economic base in the long run. So you come out with froth like "lemmings over the cliff" and "your rants blah blah blah" - it's apparent you never made your high school debate team.Here's a clue for you to consider - Anti-trust exemption elimination isn't a "return" to pre-Staggers regulation, unless you want to stretch it back to the pre-Granger days.Again - Eliminating anti-trust exemption is not "reregulation", as is being shoveled by Ed Hamberger and his disingenuous cronies. In fact, no one of even remote credibility can make a case for the railroads' anti-trust exemption in a partially deregulated environment.The fact that a bunch of *elected* urban numskulls can't make that distinction either isn't something to grasp onto by someone who should know better. Let's just hope you don your bio-hazard suit next time you feed your cat with that toxic imported crap from your spiritual homeland.
mudchicken wrote: Nice try...Your rants only further destroy your case.
Nice try...Your rants only further destroy your case.
That's your problem mudchicken - you can't argue a case on merits, so you resort to personal insults and content denial. The Chi-coms have got their collective hand right up your backside, pulling your strings and putting their words in your mouth. You just can't fathom that your employer is cross subsidizing Asian imports on the backs of domestic rail shippers, and harming the US economic base in the long run. So you come out with froth like "lemmings over the cliff" and "your rants blah blah blah" - it's apparent you never made your high school debate team.
Here's a clue for you to consider - Anti-trust exemption elimination isn't a "return" to pre-Staggers regulation, unless you want to stretch it back to the pre-Granger days.
Again - Eliminating anti-trust exemption is not "reregulation", as is being shoveled by Ed Hamberger and his disingenuous cronies. In fact, no one of even remote credibility can make a case for the railroads' anti-trust exemption in a partially deregulated environment.
The fact that a bunch of *elected* urban numskulls can't make that distinction either isn't something to grasp onto by someone who should know better. Let's just hope you don your bio-hazard suit next time you feed your cat with that toxic imported crap from your spiritual homeland.
FM has one of the worst cases of xenophobia that I've ever seen.
Well, we have had numerous news items regarding faulty Chinese made products, now we have the Chi-coms threatening to devalue the US dollar if we don't behave to their liking. If the Chinese can indeed excert that much influence over the US economy, why is it so hard to comprehend their influence over the US rail industry?
Why would an awareness of this spector be considered xenophobic by you?
That's why Mudchicken's "lemmings" comment is so ironic - the "lemmings" as I see it are those who continue to ignore or spin the economic threats and influence of Communist China.
We have a few acres on the Palouse, and yes, like most real Americans we have a few guns. You gotta problem with that, Nancy?
Not sure what that stereotypecasting has to do with the topic at hand though........
If most real Americans (whatever that means, I've never met an artificial or synthetic American) have guns (documented proof, please), than they must also believe in Chairman Mao's dictum that "Political power emanates from the barrel of a gun".
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: If most real Americans (whatever that means, I've never met an artificial or synthetic American) have guns (documented proof, please), than they must also believe in Chairman Mao's dictum that "Political power emanates from the barrel of a gun".
Soooooo Paul, are you saying that the 2nd Amendment is the moral equivalent of Mao's alleged dictum? Don't you think that maybe your Mao statement is predicated on the one ruling party owning all the guns, while our 2nd Amendment is predicated on the citizenry owning guns?
Or have you even read the 2nd Amendment?
"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."
Paul, don't get caught, Dave the local troll is fishing again.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: Dave doesn't have the Second Article of Amendment phrased properly anyway. "of the people" isn't in it.
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.
A real American is one who supports and upholds ALL of the Constitution of the United States of America.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Do you and Ed go to the Zoo and poke sticks into the lion cages?
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
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.
What on earth does the militia have to do with rail monopolies?
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.
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.
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
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.
MichaelSol wrote: 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.
The last time I looked, railroads and truckers did compete with each other, hardly a monopoly.
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!
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.
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.
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)?
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".
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?
PS - care to tell us your name?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.