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".
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".
Paul, don't get caught, Dave the local troll is fishing again.
An "expensive model collector"
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."
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........
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.
edbenton wrote:Dave if the China was STUPID enough to do what they warning aka devalue the dollar. They would make the entire world mad at them. Remember this we are still a great INDUSTRIAL POWER yes we may not make consumer goods like toys shoes and stuff like that. However we FEED THE WORLD PROVIDE THE COTTON FOR MOST OF THE WORLD PLUS WE DO HAVE ONE OF ONLY 2 AIRCRAFT MAKERS LEFT. Let them attack our economy we can do without the cheap crap they ram down our throats at worst Wal-Mart would be forced to buy American again and put more of us back to work. Plus by doing the attack China's currency would actually show what it is worth and their products would cost more and their economy would collapse ever seen 1.3 BILLION people sleeping over a heating grate we might. Sorry I do not by Imports if I can especally from China.
When was the last time you bought a television?
jeaton 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.Is that a fear of xenon gas or xylophones?
Fear of Xenos, which I believe, are a species of extarterrestrials.
I'm afraid of them, too.
edbenton wrote:Dave just look at the FACTS for once will you PRIOR to derugulation RR were in in bankraupt about as much as they were profitable after WW2 once the OTR trucking industry caught on. Also the ICC was slow in letting the RR increase rates stay ahead of inflation. When the US Goverment had to create Conrail to keep an ENTIRE section of the US from losing rail service that is when they finally realized that the RR needed help. The Rock Island just shut down completly do to regulation since it could not get rid of trackage fast enough to make itself profitable we also almost lost the IC CNW Milwaukee Road and a few others because the ICC was to slow in allowing abandonments to allow them stay profitable.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Ed. The argument as stated by the topic link is this obfuscation of railroad anti-trust exemption in with the notion of railroad ""reregulation. I have stated quite clearly I am opposed to the type of pre-Staggers regulation that resulted in the delays and greased palms to which you refer. I agree that those railroads you mentioned were hamstrung by the ICC. We all remember the Milwaukee threads where larger railroads excerted influence over ICC and bankrupcty judges to aid in the elimination of those smaller railroads.
My question to you is this: Would you be in favor of eliminating the railroads' anti-trust exemption if that was all, e.g. no return to rate and service regulation?
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
edbenton wrote:Dave the company you are talking about also got the Indiana tollway and they then removed 40% of the service plazas raised tolls 60% then REFUSED to allow truckers to get a discount toll card for the Indiana toll way. By the way Dave is now the reason route 30 and 20 are bumper to bumper with trucks across IN and OH is full with trucks on its stretch is JAMMED FULL. These companies that lease the tollways think they have a cash cow and jack up therates thinking well the trucks HAVE to use them. NO THEY DO NOT they go back to running the way they used to may take a little longer but they will get the load there.
edbenton wrote:Alot of the best maintained BRIDGES are toll ones. Look at the George Washington and the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC and the Delaware Memorial Water Gap linking Delaware and New Jersey also the Golden Gate Bridge they are all toll bridges and if they need repair they get it. That is simply do to the fact that the commisions in charge of them have workers that all they do is maintain the bridge they do not care about costs they fix it when it needs it. The Golden Gate is 70+ years old and is as good of shape now as when built as survived a 7 on the Richter scale without any damage since it had the maintance it needed. The Brooklyn Bridge is over 100 years old and they right now are redoing the cable attachments but it was overbuilt by a facter of 10 they found out.
Imisswc wrote: wernt these toll ways suppose to be used for a small time to help pay for the road? then remove the tolls?
wernt these toll ways suppose to be used for a small time to help pay for the road? then remove the tolls?
That was the theory that was advanced when the toll roads were proposed and built in the late 1940's and early 1950's, before the 90-10 split on Federal/State funding for express highways and revenue bonds had to be sold to pay for the construction. Most toll roads were built by newly created governmental units which had their own budget for upkeep and retiring the bonds. The various toll road authorities were often self-supporting and did not depend on the state legislatures for any funding, a situation which was beneficial to both the toll road authority and the state legislature. Even after the bonds were paid off, the toll roads could be maintained and improved without going to the state legislature for money.
nanaimo73 wrote: where a few carriers are successful, but there is a constrant stream of bankruptcies or accidents ?
where a few carriers are successful, but there is a constrant stream of bankruptcies or accidents ?
edbenton wrote: Dave as I have stated many times OTR trucking is OA and out of 100 comapnies that start in a year 60% will fail in a year do to the simple reason they do not know what it costs to RUN a business. Look what happens when you defer maintance in an OA system take Minn I-35W brigde collaspe that is the result of NOT having the money to repair the roads in a OA system. We take the fact that the roads in america are free to use and are safe for us but they have been defered needed maintance for years. By not having OA on the RR's here in America the companies do not defer maintance since they are able to invest their own money into the comapny and know where it is going. With OA you have a companies that may not even know what they are doing when it comes to maintance of the tracks. The only income they would get would be the fees they would charge and out of that they would have to pay all the salaries of all their big wigs. When you do that defering maintance is next look at how bad the NE was in the 70's along with the Rock Island also. Privitazation of the RR's is not going to work the states are finding that out real fast with the Tollways the company that took over the Indiana Tollway has raised tolls 60% to cover costs and now Routes 20-30 are jammed packed again.
Dave as I have stated many times OTR trucking is OA and out of 100 comapnies that start in a year 60% will fail in a year do to the simple reason they do not know what it costs to RUN a business. Look what happens when you defer maintance in an OA system take Minn I-35W brigde collaspe that is the result of NOT having the money to repair the roads in a OA system. We take the fact that the roads in america are free to use and are safe for us but they have been defered needed maintance for years. By not having OA on the RR's here in America the companies do not defer maintance since they are able to invest their own money into the comapny and know where it is going. With OA you have a companies that may not even know what they are doing when it comes to maintance of the tracks. The only income they would get would be the fees they would charge and out of that they would have to pay all the salaries of all their big wigs. When you do that defering maintance is next look at how bad the NE was in the 70's along with the Rock Island also. Privitazation of the RR's is not going to work the states are finding that out real fast with the Tollways the company that took over the Indiana Tollway has raised tolls 60% to cover costs and now Routes 20-30 are jammed packed again.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253438,00.html
"Opportunities in Infrastructure: Should We Privatize Bridges and Roads?"
Quote of note: "Infrastructure businesses are the skeletons of economic activity - the essential things we use everyday but don't think much about. Generally, they're assets where a natural or near-natural monopoly exists, such as a toll road or power grid. Parking lots, bridges, water utilities, airports, even cell phone towers are all considered infrastructure assets. Over the last few years, it is an area of the capital markets that has undergone unprecedented growth." (underline mine)
Read through this article on the 3rd party infrastructure investment sector, then ask yourself: Why no mention of US railroads?
Could it be that the current closed integrated model is not condusive to such a huge investment sector, and the railroads are missing out on the chance to enhance their infrastructure without the obligatory stockholder meddling that you'd get with railroad stock purchases?
My opinion - it's asinine not to facilitate such 3rd party investments.
nanaimo73 wrote: So you are supporting the Democrats on this issue ?
So you are supporting the Democrats on this issue ?
It is a bi-partisan issue. As such, I would support any politician who has the foresight and resolve to take a hard look at the captive rail shipper issue and come up with a way to allow all US rail shippers access to intramodal rail competition, and do so in a way that doesn't reduce incentive to invest in rail transportation.
Ergo, I am fundamentally opposed to reintroducing pre-Staggers-style regulation of the industry, which seems to be the preferred *solution* of the Democrats. I do favor the idea of eliminating anti-trust exemptions for the rail industry, a notion first offered by a Republican from Wisconsin if I remember correctly.
It seems that the only way to get the STB to enforce the competitive caveats of Staggers is to force that action via litigation. Such litigation techniques worked to open up telecom, transmission, and pipeline access.
Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
nanaimo73 wrote: FM-Wouldn't OA just turn the American railroad system into another American airline industry, where a few carriers are successful, but there is a constrant stream of bankruptcies or accidents ?
FM-
Wouldn't OA just turn the American railroad system into another American airline industry, where a few carriers are successful, but there is a constrant stream of bankruptcies or accidents ?
Why? What's the evidence?
Besides, isn't the rail industry today an arena where a few carriers were successful, but there was a constant stream of bankruptcies and accidents?
Also, no one is talking OA at this point. Rather they're focussed on enabling intramodal competition via eventual anti-trust litigation. That's how it evolved in the telcom, transmission, and pipeline industries.
alphas wrote:I'd rather have 7 railroads making money than 40 railroads loosing money. Its just another example of the same old arguement we're used to hearing from the Left--"I don't think something works right so the governent has to step in and run things!"
Why do you think the current 7 Class I's can't make money if they competed nationwide over each other's tracks?
PS - the current rail oligarchy is a result of the Linda Morgan era of the STB, e.g. it was caused by the "Left". At this point, I don't think the issue of captive rail shippers and how to address that disparity is a leftwing nor rightwing talking point, rather the political leanings are exposed by the proffered *solutions* - reregulation (left wing) or vertical breakup of the oligarchy (right wing).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.