Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Same cow patties, same pile. I just hope that the American majority know what they are doing. I hope they are careful and don't drown in the mounting pile of cow patties........
Have fun with your trains
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith This admin is far more catering to the airline and auto industry than to rail or bus services.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Dont be too surprised if we do see the demise of a national passenger rail service in this next administration. This admin is far more catering to the airline and auto industry than to rail or bus services.
QUOTE: Originally posted by broncoman I can't see much of an erosion in unions since there is becoming a bigger gap of good paying journeyman type jobs going unfilled, at least on the west coast in the union I belong to (I.B.E.W.). I would imagine that this is the same across the country. Its giving our union a little more bargaining power especially with the amount of retirees.. Capitalism is good.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Dont be too surprised if we do see the demise of a national passenger rail service in this next administration. This admin is far more catering to the airline and auto industry than to rail or bus services. Do you think your observations concerning the Administrative attitudes also apply to freight rail? Just curious.
QUOTE: Originally posted by tabiery QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Same cow patties, same pile. I just hope that the American majority know what they are doing. I hope they are careful and don't drown in the mounting pile of cow patties........ [?] Americans embrace trade and good relations with Canada. We let you take control of the Illinois Central. CP trains operate into our nation daily. Our highways are filled with your trucks. And Canada remains our number one trading partner. We also invest in your welfare. General Motors is investing $1,000,000,000 billion dollars into refurbishing its auto plant neat Toronto. Republicans have allowed free trade to take place which benefits both nations. Yes Americans know what we are doing. And we plan on keeping the worlds longest undefended border open for business and pleasure. Friends forever. [:)][:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by sammythebull This is a sad day for the US.This adm is no freind of union labor and it is not going to get any better. Not only have 6000 engr jobs been wiped out within the last three yrs account remote control. The rr clerks union have also taken a hit with many crew calling positions abolished account automatic computerized calling. The root cause of all this is that the Democratic party continues to put people up who are not winnable and cannot connect with voters. We saw this in other elections, such as Dashle loosing the SD Senate. This party is in a mess. There is no clear focus . Who now takes over as minority leader? This is all not good for union labor. My projections for 08 is John McCain vs. Bill Richardson (NM Gov)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. Maybe Amtrak and the NEC might broken up into Train operating companies ala the British Privatization scheme. The Bushies might tout the fact that UK railridership is up over 40% since privatization. to sell it the Frosk?Delay Congress.
QUOTE: Originally posted by sammythebull This is a sad day for the US.This adm is no freind of union labor and it is not going to get any better. Not only have 6000 engr jobs been wiped out within the last three yrs account remote control. The rr clerks union have also taken a hit with many crew calling positions abolished account automatic computerized calling.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
"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
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds President Bush isn't anti passenger rail. I'll bet there are several hours per day that he doesn't even think about passenger trains even once. I've never heard him address the subject, but if I had to guess he'd resist spending other people's money to run trains when the people who use the trains won't pay for the trains.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Bush has bigger fi***o fry - he will pretty much ignore Amtrak and then sign whatever spending bill comes his way
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds I don't think the government should confiscate the money people earn and spend it on things like Amtrak. The Federal government is authorized in our Constituion to do certain things; and taking money from people to run a railroad ain't one of those things. I dont know about anyone else here but I would reather see MY tax dollars being spent on a national high speed rail service that I could actually USE! But squandering $$$'s and lives on a war in a country that DID NOT attack us, was based on faulty intellegence, and had more to do with the Presidents personal HUBRIS while letting the real enemies sneak out of Afghanistan all while US jobs flee oversea's is OK with you? I feel like the whole country is taking Crazy Pills! Have fun with your trains Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 3:20 PM ...It's going to be scary. Not much ability for checks and balances. Quentin Reply fuzzybroken Member sinceOctober 2002 From: Milwaukee, WI, US 1,384 posts Posted by fuzzybroken on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 3:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. Two possible explanations: 1. The railfans who voted for the "anti-passenger rail" administration are much like the railroads of 30-40 years ago, and don't like passenger trains. 2. The candidates' positions on passenger trains are only a small part of the total package, e.g. a "pro-rail" candidate might be otherwise lousy, while an "anti-rail" candidate might be much more favorable in other ways. (The tax cuts that I received over the past four years have gone a long way toward railroad magazine subscriptions, computer equipment, a digital camera, HO railroad supplies, etc.) QUOTE: Maybe Amtrak and the NEC might broken up into Train operating companies ala the British Privatization scheme. The Bushies might tout the fact that UK railridership is up over 40% since privatization. to sell it the Frosk?Delay Congress. This is actually something I would like to see -- new operating companies to bid on and take over Amtrak and other passenger routes. Much like today's Amtrak, federal and state subsidies would be a must, but different operating companies would reintroduce something that the rail passenger market has been lacking since the creation of Amtrak -- competition! Amtrak itself has been in constant peril for about as long as I can remember (~20 years), with the government constantly threatening to kill all funding, it might be time to look for a new way of doing things. One thing I like about Amtrak, at least recently, is the way that they have covered some of the steam excursions under their insurance. I would like to see more of this, at least until tort reform and a corresponding reform in insurance happens. -Mark http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken -Fuzzy Fuzzy World 3 Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 3:25 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. Maybe Amtrak and the NEC might broken up into Train operating companies ala the British Privatization scheme. The Bushies might tout the fact that UK railridership is up over 40% since privatization. to sell it the Frosk?Delay Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. I have been stating for years is was time for Amtrak to become a fallen flag. If the states want it, let them pay for it. And the highway money is not all the money spent on roads, most of the money is in matching funds that the states must put up so much to get the federal money. I would not be against a scenario like that. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 3:49 PM Kevin Whether you like it or not, the Germans, French and all of the rest of their EU partners are having a rather massive impact on your life, and they are able to accompli***heir goals with out infringing on the sovereignty of the U.S. While this may not have had any impact on you personally, the European Union declared that the once proposed 25 billion dollar merger between General Electric and Honeywell violated their anti-trust laws and for that reason the merger was called off. (Our Department of Justice had given the OK.) While the EU could not legally block the merger, they could and would say that the merged companies could not do business in any of the 25 EU countries. As the then GE CEO Jack Welch explained, GE could not afford to stop doing business with Europe and its 500 million citizens. "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 Reply SALfan Member sinceApril 2002 From: Northern Florida 1,429 posts Posted by SALfan on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 3:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support. As to unions, in too many cases all they want to do is create more jobs for their members whether or not there is any actual work to be done. I'm all for safeguarding the working person (been abused by an employer more times than I care to remember), but get real. Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:03 PM I have no doubt about that, but we also have a large impact on them also. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:05 PM Dont even talk about security against terrorists. They are one of the smallest threats to americans. 9/11 killed about 3000 people. The same year 40,000 people were killed, in the US, in car crashes. Dont let scare tactics get to you. Drive safe. Reply Edit fuzzybroken Member sinceOctober 2002 From: Milwaukee, WI, US 1,384 posts Posted by fuzzybroken on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. I am a Teamster, and was very upset that in mailing after mailing, as well as several rallies and T-shirt handouts, MY union was endorsing all Democrats, not to mention lying about Bu***aking away overtime. And all this after a recent dues increase! [:(!][soapbox][banghead] [|(] Then there is the issue about manufacturing jobs "leaving the country". Yes, it is true, Americans are buying more low-cost products that are made in low-paying foreign countries. Though it is easy to blame the gov't, the only thing they can do is impose tarriffs, which is just not PC in today's world. And besides, that just means MORE TAXES. [V] Of course, it is just as easy to blame Wal*Mart, but their fellow discounters are just as much to blame -- who really wants to pay "Always the HIGHEST price" anyways??? One thing that the Teamsters really have going for them is that their main focus is on those industries whose jobs cannot be "shipped" overseas -- transportation. The only thing that will eliminate jobs from this industry is the constant progress of technology, but even technology will affect only so many jobs. Other unions that will remain strong are the construction unions, where the jobs cannot be outsourced and technology will affect relatively few jobs. The manufacturing unions end up on the short end of the stick, since any job that can be done overseas and shipped here at less cost is an obvious advantage to business and the end consumer. Even Bush said this, although the Democrats twisted it around to make it look like he doesn't care about American workers (either that, or they're extremely short-sighted). These unions would be much better off unionizing those industries that provide products to the consumer, where all the "lower-paying jobs" are being created. Of course, Wal*Mart hates unions, so it would be a long uphill battle, but any union with a great amount of determination should be able to get it done. Unfortunately, it seems to me that unions are about 10-20 years behind the times, and I think it will be another 10-20 years before they actually wake up and realize what they need to do. I just hope that by that time, it won't be too late. My [2c] and then some, -Mark http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken -Fuzzy Fuzzy World 3 Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:31 PM Well Keven, you are entitled to your opinion but what the heck is folk supposed to do for rail service than? As some folk have stated in other threads, it would be more sensible to start over than drop the whole thing. The government wanted it to fail so of course it is failing. Government needs to shamed into restarting passenger service. If you look at Canada which has a population of 26 million tops, VIA is funded by the federal government but people sure do ride it. Our VIA trains are generally much longer than Amtrak's and we usually are on-time provided VIA doesn't run into bad CN dispatching or slow orders which doesn't usually make too much of a negative impact. Did you know that the Canadian (train #1) is usually no more than 15-20 cars was once 40 cars long and we don't run mail (just passenger cars plus some baggage)? Surely VIA is doing something right; I have not heard one complaint against VIA being a stupid investment at least that I can remember. If anything, the demand for rail is increasing and in fact some communities like Toronto are getting impatient with all 3 levels of government for not getting more GO trains and VIA trains up and running to meet the commuting worker, student or anybody else going when they want to go. Of course the Canadian government has really sold us Canadians that the rail industry is important to us; maybe not so much for the past decade but it has still been an important part of our economy which is to avoid gridlock. The U.S who has a much higher density population than Canada, has far more gridlock problems than Canada does. Putting all cultural and political ideologies aside, I think we can both agree that the economy is what keeps a country alive. Now if you can't get goods and services through gridlocked roads nor can a person or persons commute on the roads with in a reasonable amount of time, businesses will suffer. What are your choices? Invest in more roads which costs alot of money or invest in mass transit options. We know what is easier and cheaper (mass transit). Now then; if you can't run it by road because it is already a conjestion problem with the roads / highways, you have to go by rail. You can build commuter trains now. This is fine if a state can afford to put it on their budget. What if they can't and they already are spending money they don't have? Who pays then? The federal government must pick up the tab. Cities like New York and Chicago can pay for much of the commuter systems necessary to get keep the city moving but that does not solve the problem of city to city travel nor does it address the communities abroad that commute to and from those cities but are far enough to not qualify city commuter train service. You can't take the Greyhound because again that is road gridlock territory, you could take air but is it worth the money? Does the plane go to that city? If the answer is no, you have to go by rail right? You need an Amtrak like (notice I said Amtrak like and not Amtrak) kind of passenger train to take you. The passenger train service should act as a kind of long distance commuter service if it can. Of course at this time it isn't possible because Amtrak is currently out for failure but if a new system that was set up properly was established and funded right, it will work. You can't take a plane from Windsor to Toronto because there is no airport in Windsor that would do this at least that would be cheap. Along the way, other people will want to get to Toronto too. You could take a bus to Toronto but most people no better and avoid the gridlock on the highways from just volume, construction, accidents or amazingly all of the above. As a result, our economy is doing pretty good and more foreign investors are investing into Canada. Our unemployement is going down here and there and our dollar is rising but not effecting our businesses too badly. I don't know how much of that is because of VIA but surely VIA helps out a bit. Another example is Toronto and Montreal. Some people take the plane from Toronto to Montreal and Toronto to Ottawa too but the distance is so small for the plane really that it's kind of silly to wait at Pearson Airport all that time waiting to go through the massive security checks and the delays, most take other means. VIA has always been the more favourable alternative and so the Montreal/Toronto corridor has always been quite profitable and busy for VIA. Their trains are as little as 3 LRCs to as much as 12 and go as much as 115 mph with 1 or 2 P-42s often. VIA is given a lot of priority on CN likely because the feds paid CN enough money to make it so. So as I hope I have made a convincing arguement, federally funded passenger rail system CAN work and be very profitable if not through the making of tangable profit, the ensurance that the economy is doing well from gridlock easement so everybody has or could have a job thus improving the federal budget by spending money to keep people from needing unemployment money or welfare. (I hope that last paragraph made sense) Andrew Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:37 PM You cannot compare those who died in terrrorist act to those who died in auto accidents. Other than a handfull who commited suicide by stepping in front of cars or using their cars for that purpose as to those who were murdered by cretins. That shames the memory of those who were murdered. I understand the global economy, it is here to stay whether certain people want it or not. Look at the continuing fight between the US and the EU over subsidies to Boeing and Airbus. Or the foolish barriers that Bush put into place over steel. But I do object to them telling us how to defend ourself's and what actions we do, whether or not all approve, to keep the people of the US safe. These are two seperate issues and should not be confused. I am 46 and have been a life long Republican. The only time I have not voteed for the GOP in a major election was for Gov here in LA. Just no way I could vote for David Duke. I see McCain in 08, probably against Hillary. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:46 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support. I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions. You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population? What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy? Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt Have fun with your trains Reply fuzzybroken Member sinceOctober 2002 From: Milwaukee, WI, US 1,384 posts Posted by fuzzybroken on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc I am 46 and have been a life long Republican. The only time I have not voteed for the GOP in a major election was for Gov here in LA. Just no way I could vote for David Duke. I see McCain in 08, probably against Hillary. I don't blame you for not voting for Duke. Hillary is happy that Kerry lost!!! Otherwise she would have had to wait another four years to be realistically able to take the Democratic nomination. I have to believe that there is somebody better than McCain to run for the Republicans in '08 -- anybody wanna volunteer??? [swg] Seriously though, I think Colin Powell or Condi Rice would make great serious candidates for president in twenty-08. -Mark http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken -Fuzzy Fuzzy World 3 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:52 PM vssmith is correct in that the Democrats did a good job in getting folks out to vote. My problem is that the party is going to have to reform itself. If they ever want to put a man back in DC, they need a southern conservative like a Clinton type or a western conservative like Richardson. The days of running northern liberals are over. We saw this in '72,84 & 88. You think they would have got the message by now. I'm just pretty poed right now like many of us but I'll get over it. Reply Edit ajmiller Member sinceOctober 2003 From: State College PA 344 posts Posted by ajmiller on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 5:56 PM I don't think McCain will run again. He had his shot 4 years ago. It'd be like Bob Dole running in 1996 Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:05 PM I think Bush would find it easier to try Al Quaida members as war criminals and not unlawful combatants. This way the international community won't have anything to nag at the U.S about plus it increases legitamacy when you execute the S.O.Bs. Consider how much more difficult it would have been morally for other countries, if the *** were tried as unlawful combatants and not war criminals because lets face it; who really authorized World War 2 other than those who started it? How can you say that the *** asked legal killed civilians so techically you could have argued that the *** were unlawful combatants. Same thing, Al Quaida as far as I am concerned, was a partisan military group of the Taliban government therefore the U.S would have justification to label them as war criminals because their attack was a kind of Pearl Harbor. The fact that they attacked civilian targets (embassy, World Trade Center) doesn't mean they didn't start a war, it just means that it was a sneak attack and so the U.S responded by attacking Afghanistan. Like in Europe, the *** are still being hunted all over the world to be "brought to justice" same thing except the location orginates from the middle east and its name is Al Quaida. Just some friendly advise from an ally from the north. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:45 PM More to the point on the sweep, Many a judicial nominee will find themselves an easier confirmation to the federal bench than in the past due to the numbers on the Republican side of the isle in the Senate. This will mean more than just speeder appointment but the influence on the nation will extend for some time into the future. Remember these judges and justices sit for life. Their attitudes on labor, business, property ownership, environmentalism, civil and personal injury litigation, employment regulation and jury awards will be felt for many years. In short this may be the beginning of another facet in the great experiment called the United States. A country that many a European has said hasn't got a chance to survive beyond the next electon. Is this a great country or what we, just keep proving them wrong. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:05 PM Im just glad that all this polictal crap is fianlly over with!.................. Thank god! Oh ya congratulations to the Bush family,Bush all the way in his second term....YES! Reply Edit vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:23 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. Im just glad that all this polictal crap is fianlly over with!.................. Thank god! Oh ya congratulations to the Bush family,Bush all the way in his second term....YES! As a former teacher of mine would say... "For good or bad, May you recieve all that you deserve" Have fun with your trains Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:29 PM To which one of mine would retort to you as " MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES"[bow] Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:31 PM What religion is Bush? I know Kerry is Roman Catholic but was is Bush? Andrew Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:39 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan What religion is Bush? I know Kerry is Roman Catholic but was is Bush? He claims to be an Evangelical Christian... I grew up around people and friends who were of this faith. Probably why I dont trust him as far as I could pick him up and throw him. Have fun with your trains Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:45 PM I am watching a CBC News program called 5th Estate right now about Pastor Benny. I must say I am very outraged with him. People who do what they do for profit and is a fake, burn in hell. I can't imagine why God would tolerate such a breach of trust of faith. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I am watching a CBC News program called 5th Estate right now about Pastor Benny. I must say I am very outraged with him. People who do what they do for profit and is a fake, burn in hell. I can't imagine why God would tolerate such a breach of trust of faith. I do beg you pardon sir, but this entry is a bit[#offtopic] Reply Edit jeffhergert Member sinceMarch 2003 From: Central Iowa 6,848 posts Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:52 PM IMHO it doesn't really matter in the long run which political party is in charge. Many things that Republicans are blamed for, Democrats have also helped pass. There are a couple of books out there about the changes that have happened to the middle class in this country. One is "America, what went wrong?" and "America, who really pays the taxes." The first came about from a series of articles in, I think, the Philadelphia Inquirer. The second was kind of a follow up. While about 15 or so years old, if you look at both, you see members of both parties helping out "special interests" at the expense of the "average" people. Republicans may stand out more, but Democrats are often just as guilty. An old head (a Democrat by the way) I work with once said that if a contract dispute went to a Presidential Emergency Board, they usually sided more with the company than with labor, no matter which party held office. I think Amtrack would fare no better under a Kerry presidency. Jeff PS, Yes, I did vote for Bush, but the last few elections, even if my candidate wins, I still feel like the country loses. They are all long on promise, but short on delivery. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:54 PM Yeah as if it Wasn't Already Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I am watching a CBC News program called 5th Estate right now about Pastor Benny. I must say I am very outraged with him. People who do what they do for profit and is a fake, burn in hell. I can't imagine why God would tolerate such a breach of trust of faith. I do beg you pardon sir, but this entry is a bit[#offtopic] You are right. My apologies to the forum. I guess I shouldn't have watched the show and typed at the same time. Sorry about that; I just can't stand folk who take advantage of other people like that.[:(] Andrew Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:08 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I think Bush would find it easier to try Al Quaida members as war criminals and not unlawful combatants. This way the international community won't have anything to nag at the U.S about plus it increases legitamacy when you execute the S.O.Bs. Consider how much more difficult it would have been morally for other countries, if the *** were tried as unlawful combatants and not war criminals because lets face it; who really authorized World War 2 other than those who started it? How can you say that the *** asked legal killed civilians so techically you could have argued that the *** were unlawful combatants. Same thing, Al Quaida as far as I am concerned, was a partisan military group of the Taliban government therefore the U.S would have justification to label them as war criminals because their attack was a kind of Pearl Harbor. The fact that they attacked civilian targets (embassy, World Trade Center) doesn't mean they didn't start a war, it just means that it was a sneak attack and so the U.S responded by attacking Afghanistan. Like in Europe, the *** are still being hunted all over the world to be "brought to justice" same thing except the location orginates from the middle east and its name is Al Quaida. Just some friendly advise from an ally from the north. Al Queda is not a partisan group or any part of the Taliban. The Taliban was the ruling party of Afghaistan led at least publically by the Mullah Omar. They rose from the ashes and tribal infighting following the meltdown of the Soviet backed regime that occurred when the pulled out, feeding on an extreme brand of Islamic Fundamentalism, that included a Quaker/Amish style rejection of all things modern and western. Al Queda, with strong anti-western rhetoric found refuge there, because they were 1) running out of friends...friends don't like you blowing up stuff in their country, or US retalitory strikes, and 2) they had money and lots of it. They co-existed, and fed on each other but are two distinct groups, both of which have little purpose on earth, other than perhaps to feed the worms. So, technically speaking Al Queda are unlawful combatants, because they are stateless, like a mercenary, and very few actual Al Queda are Afghans. War Criminals implies that it was being done on behalf of a state. This was not the case, the fighting they have done together has been out of alliance against a common enemy. Reply RudyRockvilleMD Member sinceSeptember 2001 From: US 1,015 posts Posted by RudyRockvilleMD on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:09 PM It's too early to tell what will happen to the railroads now that President Bush was reelected. First of all the Republican party has controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency since 2001 so this election is nothing more than the Republican party extending its sweep. Much of what will happen to the railroads will depend on who the Secretary of Transportation is, and who the FRA Administrator is. Cetainly, there will be no new starts. Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:10 PM I know that folks are gonna start getting a little worked over politcs alone, so let's keep the religion...at least opinions of various religions alone...just my advice... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon I know that folks are gonna start getting a little worked over politcs alone, so let's keep the religion...at least opinions of various religions alone...just my advice... Very good advise kindly given, my compliments[^] Reply Edit Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:47 PM ...There are still enough Democrats in the Senate to keep check on who enters the Judical system. And speaking of 08, I believe Richardson {of NM}, might be a good choice for the Democrats and we have another one, our Senator, Evan Bayh...But Hillary will be front and center as well.... Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:59 PM Bush, Cheney, and Edwards are United Methodists. Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,053 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:46 AM I still believe that National Defense is the best argument passenger rail supporters have. Suppose that in the event of some emergency, and it could happen, like the wrong people taking control in Saudi Arabia (pardon me, I gues I should say even worse people!) that North America had to rely entirely on North Amereican energy sources. This argument must be raised now, so USA interests need not be submerged in keeping a bunch of foreign despots happy. Canada is much better prepared than the USA, because it funds passenger trains better (and does some other things better as well). Too long, energy and transportation policy in the USA has been based on: What is good for Sauid Arabia is good for GM. It costs money to mothball a neede passenger train fleet. And then who would man them instantly when needed for mass movement of either civilians or troops? A good passenger rail system is a very vital part of National Defense and this is the argument that can win Bush and conservatives over. It is the same kind of thinking that good railroad management has when for example the UP keeps the Tennesse Pass line and won't sell it or rip it up. This prudence MUST be practiced on a national level or America may some day be blackmailed. Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:02 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I think Bush would find it easier to try Al Quaida members as war criminals and not unlawful combatants. This way the international community won't have anything to nag at the U.S about plus it increases legitamacy when you execute the S.O.Bs. Consider how much more difficult it would have been morally for other countries, if the *** were tried as unlawful combatants and not war criminals because lets face it; who really authorized World War 2 other than those who started it? How can you say that the *** asked legal killed civilians so techically you could have argued that the *** were unlawful combatants. Same thing, Al Quaida as far as I am concerned, was a partisan military group of the Taliban government therefore the U.S would have justification to label them as war criminals because their attack was a kind of Pearl Harbor. The fact that they attacked civilian targets (embassy, World Trade Center) doesn't mean they didn't start a war, it just means that it was a sneak attack and so the U.S responded by attacking Afghanistan. Like in Europe, the *** are still being hunted all over the world to be "brought to justice" same thing except the location orginates from the middle east and its name is Al Quaida. Just some friendly advise from an ally from the north. Al Queda is not a partisan group or any part of the Taliban. The Taliban was the ruling party of Afghaistan led at least publically by the Mullah Omar. They rose from the ashes and tribal infighting following the meltdown of the Soviet backed regime that occurred when the pulled out, feeding on an extreme brand of Islamic Fundamentalism, that included a Quaker/Amish style rejection of all things modern and western. Al Queda, with strong anti-western rhetoric found refuge there, because they were 1) running out of friends...friends don't like you blowing up stuff in their country, or US retalitory strikes, and 2) they had money and lots of it. They co-existed, and fed on each other but are two distinct groups, both of which have little purpose on earth, other than perhaps to feed the worms. So, technically speaking Al Queda are unlawful combatants, because they are stateless, like a mercenary, and very few actual Al Queda are Afghans. War Criminals implies that it was being done on behalf of a state. This was not the case, the fighting they have done together has been out of alliance against a common enemy. I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Andrew Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,370 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:42 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Greyhounds Does that same arguement apply to gas taxes and the interstate highway system? Jay Well, I guess not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump. Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:52 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Greyhounds Does that same arguement apply to gas taxes and the interstate highway system? Jay Well, I guess not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump. Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not. I don't directly use alot of the services the Govt pays for. That doesn't mean I want them to go away!! Would you like to start allocating where the Govt can spend your tax dollars? I'm sure the Dept of Defense and the CIA would love that policy!! Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:16 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I still believe that National Defense is the best argument passenger rail supporters have. Suppose that in the event of some emergency, and it could happen, like the wrong people taking control in Saudi Arabia (pardon me, I gues I should say even worse people!) that North America had to rely entirely on North Amereican energy sources. This argument must be raised now, so USA interests need not be submerged in keeping a bunch of foreign despots happy. Canada is much better prepared than the USA, because it funds passenger trains better (and does some other things better as well). Too long, energy and transportation policy in the USA has been based on: What is good for Sauid Arabia is good for GM. It costs money to mothball a neede passenger train fleet. And then who would man them instantly when needed for mass movement of either civilians or troops? A good passenger rail system is a very vital part of National Defense and this is the argument that can win Bush and conservatives over. It is the same kind of thinking that good railroad management has when for example the UP keeps the Tennesse Pass line and won't sell it or rip it up. This prudence MUST be practiced on a national level or America may some day be blackmailed. Two comments: (1) I think your argument is very valid and is why even long distance hauls will be around throughout at least the first two years of Bush's term. As Mark said, economics and defense is very related. God willing, there will not be another terrorist attack on American soil or elsewhere. But if there is involving airliners, one does not need to guess what that will do to the immediate future of long distance airline travel. In short, the economy needs long distance transportation to function properly and needs long distance rail to back up airlines for at least a little while. The counter argument is, if Israel can run a safe airline, so can we. So, I suspect, as time marches on, this argument will grow less persuasive. (2) Why is everyone so much against the Saudis? I know people said that a lot of terrorist came from Saudi Arabi, but need I present a list of bad Americans to counter this argument? The Saudis let us fly over their territory during the second gulf war and allegedly helped us with some intelligence matters. Is it because they pike us on oil prices? If so, we should pat them on the back for practicing what we preach--good capitalism. I am not saying the Saudis are good people. I am however saying that they are good capitalists and know their success is linked to ours. Gabe Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:33 AM ....The Saudi regime should treat this country with as much fairness in supporting decent oil prices as possible......How much oil might they have to control and sell if it wasn't for good old Uncle Sam that came to the region and removed Sadam H. from his overbearing actions of invading Kawait and probably would have headed for them next back in 90-91 era..... Quentin Reply broncoman Member sinceFebruary 2003 From: Gateway to Donner Summit 434 posts Posted by broncoman on Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:33 AM Since the government deeply subsidises the airline industry and there would need to be a big reason why the government would change this, does anyone know what the breakdown is of the cost of fuel per person for flight is versus the cost of fuel per high speed rail travel. This would probably be the only thing that may force the current establishment to change their thinking as the price of oil continues to rise. Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:09 AM I think the OPEC nations should realize that the U.S and other large oil consuming nations, should be treated like a customer and as such should becareful on the prices otherwise their customers will look elsewhere for fuel. U.S has plenty of coal to fire up power plants. Natural gas is somewhat plentiful too. I don't think we North Americans should depend on so much foreign oil but if the oil companies don't want to price themselves into being obsolete, they may want to rethink their strategy. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:13 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds [ss not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump. Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not. Not so fast there buddy. Money given to Amtrak isn't STOLEN out of people's paychecks anymore than money dumped into the overly subsidized air and highways systems are. The gas tax "user fee" is a myth, since those taxes hardly pay HALF of what it costs to build the roads. They don't even come close to paying for these things... -Law enforcement -Court costs (DUIs, etc). -pollution -original construction of the Interstate highway system. Paid entirely by federal funds - not user fees. That "Big Dig" in Boston - that freeway project has cost about $30 billion - what Amtrak has received in its 30 years. I guarentee you very little of that money paid to build that monster freeway program came out of the gas tax. Even if it WAS paid for by so-called "user fees" - a majority of the funding would have been "stolen" out of the pockets of taxpayers who do or don't own cars in Oklahoma, California, Oregon, Colorado, and many other places that one might ignorantly think won't benefit from such a highway project. Ditto for Denver International Airport - which cost as much if not more. I-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City needs to be rebuilt. Estimated cost: $3 biliion. Missouri's senators say they have no idea WHERE that money will come from. Oh I forgot. Those "user fees" are supposed to pay for that money-losing highway that is totally irrelevant to anyone on the East or West coast. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:21 AM For those that think Amtrak has "gotten too much fed money" - look at this chart, which shows how many BILLIONS have been dumped into AIR and HIGHWAYS - which lose TONS of money. http://www.narprail.org/fund2.htm Yet Amtrak has only gotten less and less over the years. Amtrak is constantly derided by so-called "railfans" and "railforaders" - right - they disgrace their profession by hating trains - on this board by people who think less means more. I'm not going to let them continue to lie about Amtrak. "Since we've given so much money to Amtrak, why, it should have a larger market share," etc. They actually think a skeletal system should be improving its market share. How can THAT happen when it isn't given proper resources to do the job? Let's stiff highways and airports the same way we've cheated Amtrak. Let's consistently gut funding for road building and air traffic systems over the next three decades. Let's then see how good the roads become and how crappy air service deterioriates. You get what you pay for. Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:24 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans. Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:38 AM Just a couple of thoughts as to why the demise of those loser modes of transit like Amtrack and Greyhound are so vital to the country... How soon we forget....Just what happened to this country on 9-11 and the days after when all air traffic was grounded. This country ground to a halt! In the days after there were only three ways to get around. 1. Amtrack-which after being halted for a day went on to carry record passenger loads. 2. Greyhound-ditto 3. Rent a Car, which quickly was not an option as the lots were emptied by stranded air passengers. Its stratigicly wrong not to have a viable passenger rail system in this country. A HSR system between major hubs would be even more intellegent, but rational intellegent desicions is the absolute LAST thing I've come to expect from on our government and business leaders minds. In Government its all about ploitical ideology and in business its all about making as much cash as you can, whether or not you provide a viable system is beside the point. Have fun with your trains Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:07 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans. Interesting; I guess they truly are unlawful combatants then. Andrew Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:10 AM The problem with passenger rail service is that many of the benefits accrue to others besides the operator and rider. For example, reduced air polution and noise pollution are societal benefits. Reduction in asthma attacks reduces heath care costs but none of that money saved winds up in the operator's pockets. Avoided capital expenditures for highway and airports reduces tax burden paying construction bonds and keeps private property on the tax rolls. Reduced highway patrols or avoidance of hiring and equipping more is another benefit that accrues elsewhere. Reduced oil consuption improves national security and the federal budget. Reduced carbon emissions may slow global warming. Reduced highway canage and property damage., etc, etc, Its never as simple as simple "free marketers" make it sound! Free markets are a great tool, not a "be all - end all", nor are they some sort of devine gift. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Exactly. The free market is a means to an end. It isn't the end. Unless your a neo-con, then it becomes treated like religion. Have fun with your trains Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:03 AM Mark, Is the end you're thinking of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Reply Edit SALfan Member sinceApril 2002 From: Northern Florida 1,429 posts Posted by SALfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:04 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support. I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions. You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population? What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy? Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt I wish Osama were in prison too; I am hopeful he will be either in prison or dead soon. If I had to choose, and if both were equally easy to attain, I'd prefer it were Osama in prison. No, I don't know how many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq. I'm sorry that even one has lost his/her life. However, our objective was to get rid of a bloodthirsty tyrant who gave aid and comfort to the terrorists AND who every intelligence service in the world thought had and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Our aim as I understand it is to leave some sort of democratic gov't in place when we exit (its exact form to be determined by the Iraqis themselves). Is it a tragedy that even one innocent Iraqi civilian was killed? Of course. Given our objectives for going into Iraq, was the death of some civilians an acceptable price to pay? I think so. Compare our aims to those of the terrorists; I know which ones I'd choose to get behind. As to Abu Ghraib, it's not a lot worse than some fraternity initiations. It's certainly one hell of a lot less than Saddam did to his own people. As far as I am aware, no Americans pitched people off second-story roofs onto concrete, applied cattle prods to sensitive parts of the detainees anatomy, or used chemical weapons on them, like Saddam did to his own people. Humiliation isn't fatal and doesn't leave permanent physical harm. People who didn't want their tax dollars going into a war in Iraq, and didn't want a large deficit created had their chance to change things on Nov. 2. Would you feel that way about large and useless social programs? I do. Reply rrnut282 Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana 2,148 posts Posted by rrnut282 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:54 AM On the whole, not much will change in railroading due to the results of Nov 02. Why? Because railroading is glacial when it comes to change. Four more years still isn't enough time to do anything serious to railroading as we know and love. Just my opinion, no crystal ball was involved. Mike (2-8-2) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. Maybe Amtrak and the NEC might broken up into Train operating companies ala the British Privatization scheme. The Bushies might tout the fact that UK railridership is up over 40% since privatization. to sell it the Frosk?Delay Congress. Are you too young to remember 1992? Clinton promise all kinds of pass rail investment and delivered ZERO, except for polishing off the north end of the NEC, in 8, count'em, 8 years. If you vote based on espoused policies, you will be disappointed every time - particularly if you are concerned only with a narrow range of issues. We're better off, I think, when we look at values and then become active advocates of the policies we'd like to see. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support. I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions. You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population? What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy? Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt I wish Osama were in prison too; I am hopeful he will be either in prison or dead soon. If I had to choose, and if both were equally easy to attain, I'd prefer it were Osama in prison. No, I don't know how many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq. I'm sorry that even one has lost his/her life. However, our objective was to get rid of a bloodthirsty tyrant who gave aid and comfort to the terrorists AND who every intelligence service in the world thought had and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Our aim as I understand it is to leave some sort of democratic gov't in place when we exit (its exact form to be determined by the Iraqis themselves). Is it a tragedy that even one innocent Iraqi civilian was killed? Of course. Given our objectives for going into Iraq, was the death of some civilians an acceptable price to pay? I think so. Compare our aims to those of the terrorists; I know which ones I'd choose to get behind. As to Abu Ghraib, it's not a lot worse than some fraternity initiations. It's certainly one hell of a lot less than Saddam did to his own people. As far as I am aware, no Americans pitched people off second-story roofs onto concrete, applied cattle prods to sensitive parts of the detainees anatomy, or used chemical weapons on them, like Saddam did to his own people. Humiliation isn't fatal and doesn't leave permanent physical harm. People who didn't want their tax dollars going into a war in Iraq, and didn't want a large deficit created had their chance to change things on Nov. 2. Would you feel that way about large and useless social programs? I do. Again as I said earlier, no comprehension of our actions...your thinking like a westerner, not an arab... I'll try to be an precise as I can. To understand what I said you HAVE to take yourself OUT of your western mind and look at it thru the eyes of those we are fighting. Since 9/11 I try to consider why we are hated around the world, and what we as a country have been doing so wrong to bring about the anger. Tsu Sun in "The Art of War" says to defeat your enemy you must think like your enemy, only then will you see why they are fighting and understand thier motivation. We in the west have not done this, we just call them "blood thirsty killers" but they have what to them are serious and to them legitamite reasons for fighting US involvement in the middle east, this go back as far the CIA back overthrow of the Iranian Shah back in the 50's, with US support for Isreal and no support for the Palastinians, and for supporting Governments that were (Iraq) and still are (Saudi Arabia) oppresive. When the US does get involved they come in like the calvary, say here we are aint ya glad to see us, and then wonder why no one is glad to se them. This is part of why we will fail in the middle east because we cant get out of this damn cowboy mentality when it comes to dealing with other cultures. I should have posted my previous comments that I deleated, it was much clearer. To say Abu Grab was no worse than a College prank shows what I already knew, that most Americans simply DO NOT get what an unbeleiveable insult that was to the arab world. You say "Humiliation isn't fatal and doesn't leave permanent physical harm" maybe no physical harm, but the psychological scars are PERMANANT, and those scars are also cultural scars across the Muslim world. THAT is what will be remembered, the arab world has a LONG memory, they still fight over disagreements thats are centuries old, we now have added ourselves to that list. In the Arab world it doesnt matter what Saddam did to them, those crimes will be delt with there own way, (This usually involves a sword and a large block of wood) What happened at Abu Grab is considered SEPERATE and a crime in its OWN right, outside of Saddams crimes. Its THAT, that we will be paying for over the next several years. You said "Given our objectives for going into Iraq, was the death of some civilians an acceptable price to pay? I think so. " Consider that the latest estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq is at 100,000 civilians killed. Not Insurgents, not Iraqi soldiers, civilians. Men, women, and children caught in the crossfire or bombings from both sides. We will get the blame directly and indirectly as being resposible simply because we are there. Our leaders completely failed to comprehend that the Iraqi and insurgent resistance would be so vemonent. Why did they fail to consider this as a real possibility? it simply didnt fit there one-sided western view of the world. The neo-cons that talkied Bush into this war were so sure that they knew what would happen they didnt even bother to develop a post war plan. We know this because we are dealing with it on a daily basis there. I dont see anyway out of the box we are now in. With a change in leadership it might have been possible to find a way out, but with the hatred Bush has generated in the arab populace towards the US, (Dont think for a minute that just because an arab government is freindly towards the US, the whole country is. Go visit Pakastan if you believe that) I see a never ending supply of insurgents ready to die for there cause (the aversion to comprehend the suicide/soldier is another western mind-set we must get of to fight this war) Dont get me wrong, I'm in no way trying to defend the actions of these terrorist. But it is CRUCIAL that we as Americans understand WHY it is happening. Everything has a reason, whether or not you agree with that reason is irrelevant, it is THIER reason and that is what we must combat, and not, in their viewpoint, to ride in like the calvary, blow the crap out of everything and then set up residence in what they consider Holy Ground. The PRIMARY reason bin Laden turned against the US was the fact that after the 1st Gulf War, instead of pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia like we said we would, we set up permanent military bases in what for them is considered Holy Ground, to them it is a tremendous sacralig to have foriegn non-muslim soldiers stationed in the heart of thier religious center. Again it does not matter that the government agreed to it, the population, and the radicals see it as a great affront to their beliefs. Again something that has gone completely over the heads of most westerners. That very presence was the spark that lit the fuse to 9/11. If we had left, and based our troops outside of the Arab penisula how different would things be today? but the first Bush admin had a vested interest in protecting and supporting the Saudi royal family, which was one of the reasons the troops remained. We are now in this war for the long haul. But I cant help but remember that a relatively small group of people with rich backing was able to defeat the full military might of the US and force them out of a nation. Of course I'm refering to the Viet Cong, with the backing of the Soviet Union. We KNEW who they were, where they were getting funding, and we still could not defeat an enemy that could simply dissapeared into the jungle. Now we are fighting a shadow war where literally anyone could be the enemy, can now be anywhere in the world, and we are fighting it with a flamethrower when we should be using a knife. I know I sound cynical as hell, but thats the way it is kiddies, better educate yourselves as to WHY we got where we are and what needs to be done. I still fail to see why we didnt encircle Tora Bora and turn it into a gravel pit. This is my chief beef with Bush, he failed to deliver. Oh an Amtrack will survive, although I fear that many routes will get cut in order to save the rest of thh system. Have fun with your trains Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:22 PM Colin wrote: "I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. " I did. "Radical Right" is better than Radical Left/Michael Moore/Barbra Streisand/George Soros types. Sen. Kerry wanted to return those making $200,000+ to a higher tax rate. This would hurt small businesses (some rail users?) since their owners report their business's income on their personal tax returns. A tax increase would reduce buying power which would affect working people like you and me. A reduction in buying power would slow the growth in (or possibly reduce) rail freight traffic. The economy would slow as well. Remember the Clinton tax increases of 1993? Why did it take the economy (and the stock market?) until about 1995 to boom (Ironically when Rep's took control of Congress)? Why did frequent announcements of corporate downsizing continue as late as 1996? Amtrak is at its best and most efficient when it has to fight for its life (1980's under Graham Claytor) and at its worst and most inefficient when it does not (late 1990's/early 2000's under George Warrington). I would rather see Amtrak not have to fight for its life and most members of Congress are supporters of the nation's intercity passenger rail system. If the Bush Administration wanted to kill Amtrak they should have appointed Jimmy Carter as its president rather than David Gunn! Reply Edit greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,370 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The problem with passenger rail service is that many of the benefits accrue to others besides the operator and rider. For example, reduced air polution and noise pollution are societal benefits. Reduction in asthma attacks reduces heath care costs but none of that money saved winds up in the operator's pockets. Avoided capital expenditures for highway and airports reduces tax burden paying construction bonds and keeps private property on the tax rolls. Reduced highway patrols or avoidance of hiring and equipping more is another benefit that accrues elsewhere. Reduced oil consuption improves national security and the federal budget. Reduced carbon emissions may slow global warming. Reduced highway canage and property damage., etc, etc, Its never as simple as simple "free marketers" make it sound! Free markets are a great tool, not a "be all - end all", nor are they some sort of devine gift. To me "external costs" and "external beinifits" are part of a game played by groups seeking to spend other people's money. Avoiding an airport capital expenditure by making a railroad capital expenditure sure doesn't save the capital expenditure. The game involves just ticing off a list of "code word benifits" such as reduced polution, reduced "highway carnage" etc. and using them to justify spending other people's money on project you want. The "benifits" can't be quantified and the people receiving them can't be identified. The worst offenses seem to be with sports standiums. If people want to go watch a football game, fine. They can pay the cost of the stadium. But since that won't happen there has to be a way to force other people to pay for the statium. This is justified by citing "externalities". For example, think of the prestige the city will get when its team is on national TV. Think of all the food/alcohol sales/ made by bars and restaurants as people flood into the city to watch the football game in the stadium they wouldn't pay for. Well, if they weren't doing a shot and a beer in a tavern near the stadium, they'd be doing it somewhere else. And nobody can quantify these benifits honestly although the costs are very real. The Free Market is the best method of allocating scarce economic resources. It represents a continuous voting process of the general population who continually and feely decide, as individuals, how to spend their money. Elitist groups often do not like the decisions made in this continuous process. "Everybody knows" that "we" "need" passenger trains/sports stadiums/Public Radio etc. Even if the public refuses to freely buy what the elites "know" the public needs. So the people have to be forced to spend their cash on what is presented to be in their own best interest. Citing unquntifiable "externalities" and saying "it's not that simple" are just part of the game. As to the "Big Dig" in Boston which somebody else mentioned - that's just corruption. It was a way to divert people's money into politically connected pockets . "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,053 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:57 PM I have to answer the question about the Saudis. Yes, there are some very fine Saudi people, a lot of them are doctors and engineers and scientists who have worked with Christian and Jewish colleagues (and possibly secular humanists and Budhists and Hindus and whatever) outside Saudi Arabia. But the country itself from all descriptions, and I think the February 2003 issue of National Review's article on Saudi domestic help (hope I got the date right) hit the nail on the head, is an example of exactly what Nazi Germany would have been with zero Jews, and Slavs and Galls used as slaves, and peace of course. In other words, only ONE ideology and ONE form of prayer is permitted and the ethos is that in the future that is the way the whole world should be. It is basically an extremist society. (it happened to be created by British Imperialism coupled with thirst for oil profits, but that is another story.) So even though the Royal Family and most of the Imams who are the educators tell people to keep it cool and not provoke foreign countries, the extremists become very extreme indeed. That is why some, most of the 11.09.01 terrorists, Saudis, became terrorists and that is why others fund them. But there is hope because some members of the Royal Family do understand that they do need to coexist in the modern world, that Israelis are not about to nuckle under terrorism and "go back to Europe" or Iraq or America, and possibly we will see a future where Saudi children are taken to a synagogue and Protestant and Catholic churches, possibly on a USA military base, a Post Chapel, to learn what other people are like. Then, there will be a hope for a future free of terrorism, eventually. Meanwhile, I think the USA should take all steps possible to insure that energy independence is a possibility, if only reserved for emergencies, and a strong passenger and freight rail system is essential for that kind of preparedness. Incidentally, all Vienese Children are taken on a tour of the city's major functioning synagogue at least once during their education. As you know, Hitler lived in Vienna and worked there as a house painter and started writing Mein Kampf there. Sure there is a "skinhead" Nazi group in Vienna, but the average Austrian is pretty free from that kind of prejudice today, and many different religious groups get along there. The city has a terrific streetcar system, by the way, one of the most interesting in the World and they run museum tramcars for tourists regularly. The ride up to Semering Pass isn't far and is spectacular, and there is the interurban line to Baden. Reply espeefoamer Member sinceNovember 2003 From: West Coast 4,122 posts Posted by espeefoamer on Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:01 PM Before you go bashing alleged Republican hatred of Amtrak, remember the infamous "Carter Cuts" of 1979. We lost the North Coast Hiawatha the second Seattle Chicago train,the Floridian,from Chicago to Florida,and the National Limited between St Louis and New York.We also lost the Inter American,sucessor to the Texas Chief.Under Clinton, we lost the Pioneer, the Desert Wind,and the Texas Eagle which was later restored.Both of these Presidents were Democrats[:(!]. Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:41 PM Time to roll out those shackle cars. Reply Edit vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:41 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I have to answer the question about the Saudis. Yes, there are some very fine Saudi people, a lot of them are doctors and engineers and scientists who have worked with Christian and Jewish colleagues (and possibly secular humanists and Budhists and Hindus and whatever) outside Saudi Arabia. But the country itself from all descriptions, and I think the February 2003 issue of National Review's article on Saudi domestic help (hope I got the date right) hit the nail on the head, is an example of exactly what Nazi Germany would have been with zero Jews, and Slavs and Galls used as slaves, and peace of course. In other words, only ONE ideology and ONE form of prayer is permitted and the ethos is that in the future that is the way the whole world should be. It is basically an extremist society. (it happened to be created by British Imperialism coupled with thirst for oil profits, but that is another story.) So even though the Royal Family and most of the Imams who are the educators tell people to keep it cool and not provoke foreign countries, the extremists become very extreme indeed. That is why some, most of the 11.09.01 terrorists, Saudis, became terrorists and that is why others fund them. But there is hope because some members of the Royal Family do understand that they do need to coexist in the modern world, that Israelis are not about to nuckle under terrorism and "go back to Europe" or Iraq or America, and possibly we will see a future where Saudi children are taken to a synagogue and Protestant and Catholic churches, possibly on a USA military base, a Post Chapel, to learn what other people are like. Then, there will be a hope for a future free of terrorism, eventually. Meanwhile, I think the USA should take all steps possible to insure that energy independence is a possibility, if only reserved for emergencies, and a strong passenger and freight rail system is essential for that kind of preparedness. Incidentally, all Vienese Children are taken on a tour of the city's major functioning synagogue at least once during their education. As you know, Hitler lived in Vienna and worked there as a house painter and started writing Mein Kampf there. Sure there is a "skinhead" Nazi group in Vienna, but the average Austrian is pretty free from that kind of prejudice today, and many different religious groups get along there. The city has a terrific streetcar system, by the way, one of the most interesting in the World and they run museum tramcars for tourists regularly. The ride up to Semering Pass isn't far and is spectacular, and there is the interurban line to Baden. Dave I agree. My worry about the Saudi family and US troop involvement there is that it is a double edged sword. US troop stationing is Saudi Arabia is what triggered a lot of the vemonent anti-US extremist, however, if the mere presence of those troops were not there, the Saudi family could have been toppled by now or at least the country could be in civil war, either way, where would that scenario have left us today. The Saudi royal family is not loved by the majority populace who view them as corrupt. The general lack of a comprehensive education in the arab world is also another huge problem, for many, all the education they ever recieve in their lifetime is at religious schools and they are thought one viewpoint only. Pluralism or secular education principles are considered abhorant to the operators of these schools. But as long as the masses are kept under the thumbs of the government nothing changes, JOdom mentions some of the crimes commited by Saddam's regime, unfortunatley the Saudi security forces are not much kinder. Thats another part of the problem. Have fun with your trains Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:51 PM I think that argument is a bit circular. The Saudis hate the Royal Family because it allows American troops in the Muslim Holy Land, ergo, American troops need to be there to keep the government from being toppled. That is not why American troops were there. We were concerned about possible aggression by Iraq or Iran and we needed a quick response option. I know that you claim that Royal family corruption is another reason for the dislike, but from every source that I have seen, it is allowing the infidels (AKA us) in the Holy Land that is the major problem. I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. The soldiers have now been largely removed from Saudi Arabi and have either been repositioned in Iraq or Qutar. Hopefully that will ease tensions. Gabe Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer Before you go bashing alleged Republican hatred of Amtrak, remember the infamous "Carter Cuts" of 1979. We lost the North Coast Hiawatha the second Seattle Chicago train,the Floridian,from Chicago to Florida,and the National Limited between St Louis and New York.We also lost the Inter American,sucessor to the Texas Chief.Under Clinton, we lost the Pioneer, the Desert Wind,and the Texas Eagle which was later restored.Both of these Presidents were Democrats[:(!]. Personally I dont think Bush cares one way or the other on Amtrack, I forsee a loss of routes simply due to budget cuts that will be necessary to fund the war spending in Iraq. You cant go around cutting taxes and still spend like a drunken sailor. Alot of federal programs are going to get cut or scaled back across the board unless new income sources are found. Thats why I see a loss of routes, or at least they might shift to state or local control. Here in Kalifoonia the three main commuter agencies could conceivably take over the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and San Luis Obispo, and the Coast Starlight between LA and SF/Sacramento. Long Distance haulers would be the biggest loosers since they are the least profitable. Sad but it could come to be. Have fun with your trains Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, November 4, 2004 2:57 PM ....All the above mentioned train off's were certainly not what most of us on this foum wanted to see and most of us would condem those Presidents for doing what they did but we sure don't see any attempt by this administration to even fund what skeleton shadow is left of Amtrak and each fiscal year they've been in charge...tried to reduce or eliminate the Amtrak operation altogether. They simply want nothing to do with passenger rail, except sometimes climb on the back of one to campaign for office. Quentin Reply kevin1978 Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: Britain 31 posts Posted by kevin1978 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:04 PM Its an interesting debate, but at the end of the day, we rail supporters must speak as one voice and lobby our politicians if the time comes to ensure that rail is expanded. Climate change is a very important problem for us all, whatever our views on politics or transport. As such we have the strongest of cases to argue for an expanded passenger (and freight) rail network. Someone mentioned that passenger rail levels in the UK are significantly up. Please remember that regardless of privatisation, rail supporters and the general public have made it politically unacceptable to tamper with rail service, unless you plan to improve it! www.britainbyrail.co.uk Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:06 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I think that argument is a bit circular. The Saudis hate the Royal Family because it allows American troops in the Muslim Holy Land, ergo, American troops need to be there to keep the government from being toppled. That is not why American troops were there. We were concerned about possible aggression by Iraq or Iran and we needed a quick response option. I know that you claim that Royal family corruption is another reason for the dislike, but from every source that I have seen, it is allowing the infidels (AKA us) in the Holy Land that is the major problem. I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. The soldiers have now been largely removed from Saudi Arabi and have either been repositioned in Iraq or Qutar. Hopefully that will ease tensions. Gabe Gabe, when it comes to Saudi Arabia and the surrounding countries, I hope your right. I agree it is a circular aurgument , but hey, its the Middle East. These guys still fight viciously over which brand of Islam is correct, Suni or She-ite. Its like Northern Ireland 20 years ago, outsiders looked at the situation and just shake their heads, but insiders saw the violence as perfectly just and rational. Unfortunatly, the troops leaving will do nothing about Al Quida. They had the chance to use the Hammer at Tora Bora and failed to do so, now we need to use the scalpel. I fear using the hammer will only break off more terrorists. This is the last I will post regarding non-train related wacky-iraqi related topic, save to say this has been one the best , most lively discussions I've had on this forum in a while. However I will continue with the Jamtrack discussions....Thanks to all the others involved but maybe we should get back on topic...[:D] Have fun with your trains Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I think that argument is a bit circular. The Saudis hate the Royal Family because it allows American troops in the Muslim Holy Land, ergo, American troops need to be there to keep the government from being toppled. That is not why American troops were there. We were concerned about possible aggression by Iraq or Iran and we needed a quick response option. I know that you claim that Royal family corruption is another reason for the dislike, but from every source that I have seen, it is allowing the infidels (AKA us) in the Holy Land that is the major problem. I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. The soldiers have now been largely removed from Saudi Arabi and have either been repositioned in Iraq or Qutar. Hopefully that will ease tensions. Gabe Gabe, when it comes to Saudi Arabia and the surrounding countries, I hope your right. I agree it is a circular aurgument , but hey, its the Middle East. These guys still fight viciously over which brand of Islam is correct, Suni or She-ite. Its like Northern Ireland 20 years ago, outsiders looked at the situation and just shake their heads, but insiders saw the violence as perfectly just and rational. Unfortunatly, the troops leaving will do nothing about Al Quida. They had the chance to use the Hammer at Tora Bora and failed to do so, now we need to use the scalpel. The Hammer will only break off more terrorists. As much as I'd like to enter this part of the debate, there are obvious reasons why I can't and won't. But the action at Tora Bora, was just that, a chance. That territory is some of the most rugged, unpleasant land I've ever seen. There are no guarantees in any military action, particularly when they have the home field advantage. And in this case the home turf is a lot of really rugged terrain. As a defensible position, there pretty isn't much better than that. To say that our troops let him get away isn't fair to the dudes that had to be on the gound slugging it out through that crap. High tech weapons can only do so much, but the have more rock than than we've got munitions. Tora Bora down and dirty is a low tech arena of going rock by rock. Nobody let him get away. Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:22 PM vsmith, Your statement I exactly what I fell but dared not utter them because I am Canadian not American. Just to add to it, remember (to the rest of the forum) there is a cause and effect to everything we do. After the first world war, the allies made some rules against Germany which were complete nonsense. It resulted in people looking for anything that would help Germany. The effect was the people elected Hitler as chancellor. Same thing could be said for most of the dictators. Communism started because of the aristrocracy (Russia, China) or corrupt governments that were in the pocket of crooks (Cuba). Ever seen the movie Day After Tomarrow, and the Core? Very good example of cause and effect concerning environment. The ways we treat others is no different. If you act like some kind of shallow vain macho ego freak, people will get fed up and want to do something not from jealousy but just to shut you up. I know I get fed up with my sister's irritating vanity and believe me, I often will tell her to shut up. Well I don't feel that way about the U.S personally because I have more patience and understanding (at least I try to), clearly other people and nations feel that way about the U.S. I would say that it is mostly the fault of the U.S administration as they are the ones that dictate foreign policies; the people are just the victims of it. Let's face it, you the people have been put in the middle of a fight that really should be between the government and the terrorist. The best thing you can do is demand your government fix the foreign policies. I don't expect you to want the government to start kissing foreign butt, just try to play nicer in the international sandbox. That's why I was kinda hoping that Kerry would have won because as Kerry said Bush has not demonstrated any strategy in winning the peace. I hope Bush will take Kerry's concerns to heart at least and be use a more tactful way of winning the war on terrorism as well as winning the peace. It concerns me everytime the U.S gets into a war because if some kind of weapon of mass destruction went off in a U.S city, Canada would likely get it too. So it is very much our problem too. I don't mind fighting a war as long as a plan of victory is in there somewhere. All I see is just another Vietnam in Iraq with the horrible guerila warfare except instead of it taking place in the jungle, it takes place in either the desert or in the city for an even more terrifying form of warfare; urban warfare. Andrew Reply SALfan Member sinceApril 2002 From: Northern Florida 1,429 posts Posted by SALfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. Gabe I do blame the Saudis for feeling this way. Come to my neighborhood in Nawthun Vuhjinya - Muslims/Hindus/Asians outnumber Americans to the point that if I hear English spoken outside, I perk up and take notice. Taken a cab ride in a major city lately? At least in DC, foreigners vastly Americans as cab drivers. My point is, this country has vast numbers of foreigners, and if there is any significant backlash/hatred/whatever, I haven't heard of it. Don't know of any incidents where Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians or any denomination other than Muslims have flown planes into buildings. If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country. Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom [i] I haven't heard of it. Don't know of any incidents where Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians or any denomination other than Muslims have flown planes into buildings. Ummm.....Oklahoma City? Have fun with your trains Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:11 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon As much as I'd like to enter this part of the debate, there are obvious reasons why I can't and won't. But the action at Tora Bora, was just that, a chance. That territory is some of the most rugged, unpleasant land I've ever seen. There are no guarantees in any military action, particularly when they have the home field advantage. And in this case the home turf is a lot of really rugged terrain. As a defensible position, there pretty isn't much better than that. To say that our troops let him get away isn't fair to the dudes that had to be on the gound slugging it out through that crap. High tech weapons can only do so much, but the have more rock than than we've got munitions. Tora Bora down and dirty is a low tech arena of going rock by rock. Nobody let him get away. Dan, I know a full frontal mass military assault would effect nothing, thats not the intent of what i was advocating. The Soviet's tried it and lost the highest number of troops since WW2. My point was that if enough troops had been deployed to contain the area and prevent anyone from escaping we could have either using special forces captured or killed him, or if nothing else starved him out. Believe me if we had sent 150,000 troops to encircle that area, we were interogating every shepard, goat, and lizard coming out of there, and the special forces were still slowely rooting out or collasping every single cave, hole, crack, and gopher hole they came across I would not complain. But W's eyes were already looking west to Iraq by that time, and Gen. Franks was also aware of the Soviet experience, but letting Afgan forces do the job was a mistake and he escaped. Now he is still putting his ugly face on Al Jazira and still a figure head to his followers. Guess I'm just still mad as hell about it and dont have any other way of expressing it, Sorry. Have fun with your trains Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:34 PM This is getting a bit far afield... LC Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country. Just as an aside, all Arabs, which I believe is what you mean, are not Muslim and by no way are all Muslims Arabic. Nor all they all zealots or savage. After spending a good deal of one's professional life involved in disputes that have religion or ethinicity as a reason, it's important to get to know the playing field. As far as Arabs or Muslims go, over the course of history...white, Christian types...Europeans, Slavs, etc...have commited quite a few atrocites and actions that rival driving a plane into the WTC. So Muslims nor Arabs have the corner on the market. Menacham Begin, PM of Israel was himself considered a terrorist by the British for his role in the bombing of the King David Hotel in the 40s. Evil and hate have little basis in religion or ethicity, but that is how it always gets turned. I never want to see this country in a position where we hate so much that we do to anyone what we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII using ethnicity, race or religion as a basis. My 2 cents. And by the way..you can blame T E Lawrence for teaching the Arabs how to use explosives and to blow up TRAINS. Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:13 PM I'm sure if planes were invented during the crusades, some knight would have flown it into some enemy city. We Christians are not without our fanatism either even in today's society. Andrew Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Guess I'm just still mad as hell about it and dont have any other way of expressing it, Sorry. It's all good. Reply M636C Member sinceJanuary 2002 4,612 posts Posted by M636C on Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country. OK, I'm a foreigner and I won't have the same view! But US taxpayer dollars are still being spent disrupting indoor plumbing in Fallujah, while plans are being made to restore it at the expense of the same people. As I understand it, many Iraqis do not understand why the US troops are in Iraq, because, although they are happy that Saddam has been deposed, the fighting has made life significantly worse than it was under Saddam. A correspondent in Baghdad wrote that if Saddam could stand in the upcoming elections, and promised a swift return to pre war conditions (dictatorship, secret police, censorship but public order and effective peace) he would win by a landslide, for reasons not unlike those that returned George W Bu***o power. I find worrying similarities between the news coverage I see, possibly different to that in the USA, and the conditions in Saigon pictured in "Good Morning Vietnam". The worrying part in that movie to me was the realisation by the Robin Williams character that his close Vietnamese friends were active members of the Viet Cong. In Iraq, it appears that many people, not "Terrorists" or "Insurgents" just want the fighting to stop and are actively trying to oppose the Coalition troops. It was said that 30 000 members of the current Iraqi security forces, after long and expensive training, were found to have views inconsistent with their continued employment in that role and were quietly "let go". Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. But Iraq will have to run its own affairs eventually, whether or not they adopt a form of government favoured by the present US Administration. But US (and British and Australian and other..) troops will have to try to protect the majority of Iraqis for some time yet, until a local administration, of whatever political leaning can effectively run the country. Peter Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:24 PM I don't mind too too much with the Republicans being in power. It is projected that the Canadian dollar will be worth $1.03 U.S by spring time which means I can vacation in the U.S more often. It just means that I need to get better I.D for the boarder. In a couple of years when I become a customs officer, I.D won't be a problem at all. I will return Fostoria!! Keep a motel room for me. Andrew Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:05 PM The following is a quote from an article in today's Janesville Gazette. "What next?" By Ron Hutcheson and William Douglas-Knight Ridder Tribune. "Over the next four years, Bush intends to set Iraq on the road to democracy, defeat global terrorism and send a wave of freedom across the Middle East" You guys shouldn't be so hard on the President. Obviously he has spent a great deal of work on this-watching beauty pagents and all... Further from the article." "I think he really wants to leave a legacy" said Stephen Moore, president of The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group that supports Republicans." I would have added something about success qualifying for something like overacheiver of the millenia, but I guess that would be a biased view. Jay "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 Reply Sterling1 Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Traveling in Middle Earth 795 posts Posted by Sterling1 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:07 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? Amtrak -- no change in the existing trends. Transit -- no change in the existing trends Unions -- no change in the existing trends Class Is -- no change in the existing trends Short lines -- no change in the existing trends What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, the House the radical body (conservative meaning, don't change too fast, radical meaning change fast). Democrats retain filibuster power in the Senate, and will use it just like in the last four years to keep the radical tendencies of the House moderated. I would expect to see an Administration effort to kill Amtrak once again, and just like the last four or five efforts, it will be halted by Republican Congressmen and Senators who will seek to protect their home districts -- thus Amtrak will be even more beholden to local interests and run for local purposes, instead of an actual national system. As for unions, market power has been undergoing a steady erosion since 1946, when Taft-Hartley was passed. That won't change -- it will just continue. Maybe slightly faster than before, maybe not. The real conflict is going to appear between states and the feds. Even Republican governors are becoming quite grumpy at the unfunded mandates foisted on them by the Congress and Administration, and are becoming increasingly prickly about where the federal money is spent. Health care payments are crushing states. From the Metallica song SAD BUT TRUE . . . heavy guitar and drum playing "There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.] Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:29 PM ...."Crystal-ball gazing time" by Mark....All sounds believable and probable and I would add: Adminstration will REALLY try to kill Amtrak this time..... Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by kevin1978 Its an interesting debate, but at the end of the day, we rail supporters must speak as one voice and lobby our politicians if the time comes to ensure that rail is expanded. Climate change is a very important problem for us all, whatever our views on politics or transport. As such we have the strongest of cases to argue for an expanded passenger (and freight) rail network. Someone mentioned that passenger rail levels in the UK are significantly up. Please remember that regardless of privatisation, rail supporters and the general public have made it politically unacceptable to tamper with rail service, unless you plan to improve it! Kevin, Can you explain the relationship between passenger rail and alleged climate change? I know that the concept of climate change occuring due to man's burning of fossil fuels is accepted as holy writ over in Europe, but it seems that the voices of reason and historical perspective regarding the cyclical nature of climate change have been suppressed. Please read the following link, and then tell us if you still believe that man is causing drastic climate change: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Once you've done that, explain how passenger rail can even put a dent in the amount of emissions from the various passenger transport modes. In North America, most people whether it be Canada, U.S., or Mexico travel by auto/plane/bus more so than rail, for the simple reason that the former are the most convienient and flexible. Increasing tax spending on passenger rail will not result in significantly more people traveling by rail, ergo it will not have a real effect on global emissions. It would be more prudent for global warming proponents to instead focus their efforts on reducing local and regional pollution effects, since those effects have a genuine impact on the quality of life. The man-caused global warming myth only takes resources away from the real environmental battles. Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Kevin, Can you explain the relationship between passenger rail and alleged climate change? I know that the concept of climate change occuring due to man's burning of fossil fuels is accepted as holy writ over in Europe, but it seems that the voices of reason and historical perspective regarding the cyclical nature of climate change have been suppressed. Please read the following link, and then tell us if you still believe that man is causing drastic climate change: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Once you've done that, explain how passenger rail can even put a dent in the amount of emissions from the various passenger transport modes. In North America, most people whether it be Canada, U.S., or Mexico travel by auto/plane/bus more so than rail, for the simple reason that the former are the most convienient and flexible. Increasing tax spending on passenger rail will not result in significantly more people traveling by rail, ergo it will not have a real effect on global emissions. It would be more prudent for global warming proponents to instead focus their efforts on reducing local and regional pollution effects, since those effects have a genuine impact on the quality of life. The man-caused global warming myth only takes resources away from the real environmental battles. And after that Kevin, we'd like you explain why the earth rotates in the direction it does and why why have daylight savings time. And after that, why Belgians like mayo on their fries. Now get to it...you've got a lot of splaining to do........ Reply espeefoamer Member sinceNovember 2003 From: West Coast 4,122 posts Posted by espeefoamer on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:39 PM Amtrak's new L.A. to San Louis Obispo train starts Nov.17 [:)]!Due to a shortage of Surfliner cars the train will run with Horizon equipment.It will have the dome car when avalible[:D].Right now the dome is being used on the Reno Fun Train. This train will leave L.A. in the early morning and return in the early afternoon. Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool. Reply fuzzybroken Member sinceOctober 2002 From: Milwaukee, WI, US 1,384 posts Posted by fuzzybroken on Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. You are very much correct!!! The high concentration of Muslims in Hamtramck, MI (Detroit suburb) has raised the ire of "American extremists" -- one who happens to be on the radio every morning on my way to work. As for me, I live less than 1/2 mile from a major Islamic church/temple/mosque/whatever. Doesn't really bother me any. -Mark -Fuzzy Fuzzy World 3 Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans. Interesting; I guess they truly are unlawful combatants then. I would have to say then that Al Quadia and terrorists are war criminals. They are enemy combatants of a "recognized warring party", aren't they, and they most certainly violate the Geneva Convention(That is the questionable part, considering they are not a state, but?). We(meaning the US gov.) have stated from the beginning of hostilities that we are fighting a "war on terror". Wouldn't that then justify them being war criminals? Shrek Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:57 PM There is one statement about religion in general that most people would have to agree on. Religion in itself(not any one in particuliar) through the centuries has been the single largest cause of more war and genocide than anything else probably put together. Which goes to show that any religion taken to the "fanatical" level can be extremely devastating no matter what century we live in. Scary when you think about it. Shrek Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:58 PM Sorry, had to get number 50 right NOW!!!!!! Be safe, Shrek Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:22 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by shrek623 I would have to say then that Al Quadia and terrorists are war criminals. They are enemy combatants of a "recognized warring party", aren't they, and they most certainly violate the Geneva Convention(That is the questionable part, considering they are not a state, but?). We(meaning the US gov.) have stated from the beginning of hostilities that we are fighting a "war on terror". Wouldn't that then justify them being war criminals? Shrek Actually no. It's kind of complicated. And first, I guess I need to preface this with, I am not at liberty to discuss policies, that would be a breach with my employer if you understand my meaning. First a determination has to be made as to whether a combatant is a POW or unlawful combatant. There us a fairly loose test that is applied...are they a recognized entity, do they have a chain of command, do they openly bear arms, can they be identified as a combatant, etc....if they pass the POW test, then if they have commited violations of the GC or "laws of war" they can be charged as war criminals, but there are guidelines about what can be done. Generally, it is accepted that stateless, terrorist organizations are not lawful combatants, and are therefore not POWs and are not accorded POW status. An Iraqi POW has many rights that an Al Queda detainee does not have per the GC (that is an example and not a lead in to an abuse discussion). Recognized entities is very loose also. We all recognize Al Queda for what they are, but legally that definition is murky at best, and they do not represent a state. The Taliban regime that they allied themsleves with was not universally recognized as a legimate government, though it may have been the de facto government....international law as Gabe can attest to is tricky and often defined by the winner so to speak. So Al Queda, being a stateless entity, and not officially recognized as one anyway, and not passing the POW test, are unlawful combatants subjest to prosecution as a criminal (as would a mercenary, though they fail the mercenary test) by the state that detained them or which they had commited acts against. Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:24 AM congrats on the star ..you booger eatin, green swamp ogre[;)] Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:48 AM I just saw a documentary on public television that showed how the military was being micromanaged by civilians during the Vietnam war, and subsequent military leaders over the years rebuilt the military avoid this ever happening again, with the success of the first gulf war being a reaffirmation of this movement. The documentary went on to show how the current administration has marginalized any leader in the military offering opinions not concurring with its agenda, leading to events behind current complaints of mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Could this be true? This administration in forcing their agenda on a resistant military ignored competant advice? Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 1:05 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jruppert I just saw a documentary on public television that showed how the military was being micromanaged by civilians during the Vietnam war, and subsequent military leaders over the years rebuilt the military avoid this ever happening again, with the success of the first gulf war being a reaffirmation of this movement. The documentary went on to show how the current administration has marginalized any leader in the military offering opinions not concurring with its agenda, leading to events behind current complaints of mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Could this be true? This administration in forcing their agenda on a resistant military ignored competant advice? Would this have been the Frontline piece on the SECDEF? That was quite interesting. Reply arbfbe Member sinceFebruary 2002 910 posts Posted by arbfbe on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:38 AM Did I mention the mad rush by the RR's to go to one man train crews? That idea is part of the section 6 notices served upon the UTO by the National Carrier's Conference. I doubt the UTU or BLET can expect much sympathy form any Presidential Emergency Board appointed by W should the unions not agree with the NCC on this item. I might add this is only a temporary measure until the railroads can install the technology necessary to reach their ultimate goal of crewless trains. I don't think that can happen during W's second term, though. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, November 5, 2004 8:02 AM Three things, then I am going to stop responding to this thread and get back to trains: (1) For those saying and thinking that this thread is way off railroad topics, you are obviously right. But, I find it interesting to see what the various political beliefs of railroaders are (I am noticing that they are somewhat different than the average American political belief--I find this very interesting and worthy of exploration). Also, when something is said as an aside while discussing legitimate railroad topics, I see no reason why not to comment. (2) When I said I don't expect it would be any different if a Muslim contingent moved into Mississippi (suggesting that Amercicans are really no different from Muslims and we should respect them more), the commentary on this comment has left out two very important factors: (A) I don't mean Muslim/Americans I mean true outsiders, and (B) I don't mean civilians, I mean a military contingent that could blow the hell out of anything and everybody if they wanted to. You cannot tell me that Americans would do everything and anything to get them out. (3) My larger point is that I think we would achieve more of our goals if we tried to understand Saudi Arabia and other Arab problems rather than just assuming they are bad people who are that different from us. I don't think they are that different and think their concerns are legitimate. Back to trains. Gabe Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,534 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, November 5, 2004 8:05 AM I would like to see evidence that the people who will be conducting the railroad renovations and presumably rebuilding in Iraq understand the needs and wants of the population -- both in Iraq and in countries with which Iraqi railroads would presumably interchange... Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, November 5, 2004 8:40 AM There is one way you can get away with scraping Amtrak; out-source the job to VIA. I don't imagine we will allow indemnification though. Andrew Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, November 5, 2004 9:41 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan There is one way you can get away with scraping Amtrak; out-source the job to VIA. I don't imagine we will allow indemnification though. How abo"o"t that guys?!? Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't respond to this post anymore, but it is railroad related and I couldn't pass that up. Gabe Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 10:09 AM Benjamin Franklin invented Daylight Savings time to save Candels. So let's see, No high speed rail? No rail amendments whatsoever? Damn; but don't worry I have an Idea- I've always fancied heavy Dental floss made of steal, from the Tracks. I bet they could make a lot of things out of the tracks- Why not? if they aren't going to go to any really good use, scrap it all, and I'm sorry.. An amtrak moving at the speed of 59 MPH is it? IS NOT a good use. So far were all arguing Apples Vs. Oranges, and most of you are arguing with other people for the sake of arguing. Oh and while i'm writing: The earth turns the way it does because of the ferromagnetivity in the core, and the magnetic pull on the outside. SO there you go, everybody, arguye with this one, I want RR Dental floss. No high speed Rail in Florida? Were all whining and moaning about that, yet look who you've just elected, a big guy on an Elephant who is terribly afraid of change!! And guess where his half-wit brother is? Governor of Florida!! Everybody now, And the green grass grows all around all around, and the green grass grows all around. Adn i'm not saying I don't like GW bush, I'm saying I don't like his behaviour or his policies. I'm sure hes a nice man and all. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, November 5, 2004 11:44 AM See if you can get Pelletier ex VIA president to run Amtrak. See what happens. P.S Beware of sponsership scandals...... Andrew Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon congrats on the star ..you booger eatin, green swamp ogre[;)] UUUUUMMMMMMM PROTEIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:p] Shrek Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:42 PM Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:45 PM Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Where have the fiscal conservatives gone? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 6:05 PM Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:00 PM There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. My father grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to serve family farmers coming to town by horse. My mother grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to maintain a few miles of the Katy RR and provide water and coal for steam locomotives. Before the Interstate highway system the old US highways went through the center of small towns along the way. Travelers from the city and small town shopkeepers depended on one another and knew each other. Now family farmers are disappearing, railroads need fewer people and city dwellers can bypass small town on the Interstate, in the air, and over the Internet. As a child I felt at home in small towns and on farms and my parents talked the same way in the city or the country. Now I look at the Red counties on the map and realize I never go there except occasionally speeding through on the Interstate. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. Bush has created an image of someone who doesn’t need the global economy but the jobs and stores and family farms will continue to disappear from Bush country. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Here, Here. Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. The maps which show the breakdown by county have very little Blue. California for instance 2/3 red. Many of the Red areas are not as backward as the elitists in the blue areas would like to believe. Many of the Blue areas are rotting at their core with a growing underclass kept down by the by the ill concieved policys and programs the elitists pu***o "help" them. There is a major disagreement on how to slove the problems. I am a "Red" voter. I am for freedom. I am for education. I am for helping people escape poverty. The policies pushed by the "blue" politicitions have not worked. Lyndon Johnson started a "war on poverty". Poverty is winning. Its time to change our tactics. I look at our schools. I see a few top students doing thing far beyond the level of the best students in my day, but I see far more who can not even read or do basic arithmatic at the level required for graduation 40 years ago. If it were not for an influx of well educated forigners, many business would have great trouble operating, the hospitials in my area would be gravely understaffed, especially with doctors. Many of the engineers I deal with are foreign born (although they usually received part of their education here) . Actually the split in the country by area is not as great as it looks. The State maps and statistics on the CNN site give a better picture http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ While their are exceptions both on the Red side and the Blue side, most of the country is fairly evenly split and as voting on other offices and issues show a vote for president is not necessairly a blanket endorcement of their perceived agenda. As far as Amtrak and other passenger rail services go, the people will express there will through their elected representatives at the local, state and federal level. Who is President does not really make a difference. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:27 PM ...If we could see a map of colors depicting exactly how we all voted we'd see generous amounts of both red and blue....The center of our country would not be all red but would have a portion of blue mixed with all the red....Same with both coasts and upper Great Lakes area..... As for expressing our will re: Amtrak through our representives...Sure that is the system, but the President can work his will somewhat on the system long before we have a chance to change anything through changes in our representives. Most people will agree in todays world the "programs" of the blue area are not a cure all but back in the 30's we may have dropped a bit lower if we wouldn't have had some of them to soften the blows all around us. Quentin Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:32 PM Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? 100, 2 per state Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:50 PM junctionfan, the united states senate has two senators representing each of our fifty states, ie, one hundred senators in all. may i ask why you would have made such an offensive comment about the american political scene if you have not at least a basic understanding of the subject. "Same cow patties, same pile. I just hope that the American majority know what they are doing. I hope they are careful and don't drown in the mounting pile of cow patties........" why is it always the job of americans to make the effort to understand and respect the needs and cultures of other nations? does it ever run both ways? Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:50 PM I don't like how politics in general work in Canada and the U.S. Politicians in general do a lousy job in office, don't keep their promises and never give straight answers. What kind of baffles me is that the U.S only votes for Democrats or Republican. They don't really give other parties a chance. In Canada, we have 5 groups in parliment. Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Independant. Soon we will likely see the Green Party gain some seats too. It just seems to me if you are not happy about either party (Republican or Democratic), maybe the American people should choose a different party. Me personally, I don't like the Liberals because they work themselves into political wedgees from sitting on the fence about almost every issue; the Conservatives are just a bunch of sherrifs of Nottingham stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I voted N.D.P. Of course the party didn't get in but the number of votes and seats in the house is growing. Andrew Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:56 PM Junctionfan....Interesting comments. "Never give straight answers"....Wonder if that will ever change...I doubt it as long as they're politicians. Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM i' m sorry you're unhappy with canada. i have visited your country and fine it a fine place with many decent people trying to do the best that they can.... a lot like the united states. Reply Edit jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM Amtrak will finally be "contracted out" and the Bush fallacy will be proven false! Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:53 PM Canada and United States are fine countries to live in. The problem is that the government isn't doing their jobs. It bugs me to no end to see great potential sullied by a bunch of insignificant do nothings who are suppose to represent the people's needs; not just themselves. They are suppose to do the job of care-taker/janitor of the country. All they do is play political games for political points and at the end of the term, try to get back in again, raise their salaries while the working class don't get anything and sit on their butts, ranting and raving like a bunch of foney bleeding heart liberals, pretending they actually give a damn. That is not the way I run my house so what makes thease "experts" think that they can run a country like that? Thease repugnent jerks are ruining our countries with their political games and their procastinating. I have little faith in the political system because they keep doing the same stupid things over and over again. I think thease universities and other ivy-league schools must preach and teach the traditions of ineffective governing so they do a "good job" once they get into office. After they smear each other in their campaigns, if there is a change, is it really? Don't you find that the platforms may be different and the candidates might be different but the actions and results are the same? I know democracy isn't perfect but come on; it's suppose to work a little bit better than what it is right now isn't it? Sorry folks for the ranting but I just can't stand our politicians. They don't really have any vision other than the one they are told to have either from the brain-washing from their universities, their party heads or their spin-doctor/ political advisors. I don't see much advancement as a society or any sign of advanced thinking in the government and I don't think we will until maybe a couple of hundred years from now when the rest of the world is far a head of us. Look at the ancient civilizations and the rate of advancements then and compare it to now; we should be far more advanced technologically speaking and socially as well. We have fallen behind thanks to politics either in a government or politics from religion (Vatican in the "Dark Ages") The middle east is a prime example of this. Look at the mighty Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians and now look at them.... What the heck is going on here? Why have we allowed this to happen? Andrew Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:01 PM Junctionfan In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. The founding fathers (pardon the politically incorrect phrase, but that is what they were) did not intend for their to be political parties and professional politicians. The intended that the people choose people the knew and trusted to meet and make the decisions for them. A knowlegeable friend pointed out to me the other day that the US is a "representative republic" (a term I had somehow not heard before). The US is not a "democracy" or even a "representative democracy" as it is often called. The political parties came about as a means for like minded persons to come together to promote their beliefs and policies and to choose and promote the election of canidates with whom they agreed. There is nothing sacred about the "two party" system. It just happens to be what evolved. Very Simplified History: Origionally there was only one party, the Federalist (Wig) Party. The Democratic Republican Party arose to chalenge the Wigs and eventually replaced them. We had a one party system for awhile, then the Republican Party formed to chalenge the Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republicans became the Democratic Party and the two party system we have today was born. There have been and are other parties in the US, but although some came close, none of them have so far gained broad enough support to become major players. If an agenda of a "third party" is gains broad support, one or both of the major parties adopt it, and the "third party" will whither away. For many years both major parties were actually fairly close their stands on most issues. Most of their differences were in detail and large numbers of people could feel comfortable in either party. The is no longer true. The Democrats claim that the Republicans have become too "right wing". I disagree. The Republicans are still a broadly based party. The Democrats are now largley dominited by the "radical left" and a coaliation pressure groups with different agendas that do not really reflect the beliefs of the majority of its registered membership. This is shown by the fact that "special agenda" proposals supported by the Democratic Party are not approved by the voters even in the States they "control". Ronald Reagan, when asked why he changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican said "I didn't leave the party, it left me" Retiring Democratic Senator Zell Miller recenently expressed the same sentiments. The recent Democratic candidate for president tried to hide his real beliefs and in fact in his speeches was inconsistent because he tailored his statements to fit the audiance. There are several other Democrats who would have been a much better choice for the party and would have given the voters a clear choice at the poles. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:32 PM Junctionfan, This continues as off-topic, but maybe it can shed some light. (Colorado defeated the change). Colorado's Crucial Vote America's federal system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities suited to this heterogeneous nation By George F. Will Newsweek Aug. 30 issue - November's most portentous vote is not for president. It is Colorado's vote on abandoning, beginning this year, the winner-take-all allocation of the state's electoral votes. Instead, they would be divided according to each candidate's percentage of the popular vote. This is a pernicious proposal, and not merely because one of its aims is partisan: if Colorado had had this system in 2000, its eight (now nine) electoral votes would have gone to Bush 5-3 instead of 8-0 and the six-vote swing would have elected Gore. The Colorado proposal, which may be a precursor of a nationwide drive to scrap the electoral-vote system, ignores how that system nurtures crucial political virtues. Winner-take-all allocation is a state choice, not a constitutional mandate, but 48 states have made it. Maine and Nebraska allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and award the two votes for the state's senators to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. America's constitutional system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities. It aims for majorities suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities. All 537 persons elected to national offices—the president, vice president, 100 senators and 435 representatives—are chosen by majorities that reflect the nation's federal nature. They are elected by majorities within states or within states' congressional districts. American majorities are not spontaneous; they are built. A two-party system builds moderate majorities by assembling them from coalitions of minorities. In multiparty systems, parties proliferate, each representing intense minorities. Then a group of parties strives to govern through (often unstable) coalitions improvised after the election. A two-party system is buttressed by an electoral system that handicaps minor parties by electing a single person from each jurisdiction, chosen by majority or plurality. In presidential elections, states are the jurisdictions. So in 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the popular vote but carried no state and won no electoral votes. Bill Clinton's 43 percent of the popular vote won him 68.8 percent of the electoral votes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson's 41.8 percent of the popular vote produced a strong presidency based on 81.9 percent of the electoral votes. If the proposed Colorado system had been used everywhere in 1992, Clinton would have led with just 236 electoral votes and the House would have selected the president. The House also would have selected in 1948 and 1968. Political scientist Judith Best notes that the electoral-vote system, combined with winner-take-all allocation, creates a "distribution condition." Candidates cannot just pile up popular votes in the most populous states. They must win many states, because legitimacy, and the capacity to govern this extensive republic, involves more than crude arithmetic. The federal principle, Best argues, prevents the most dangerous kinds of factions—racial, religious, economic—"from uniting their votes across state lines. It confines them within little republics and forces them to compromise early and often with their fellow state citizens." The 2000 election, the sixth in which the popular-vote margin between the winner and runner-up was less than 1 percent, was a reminder that the electoral-vote system quarantines electoral disputes. Imagine a close election—2000, or the 1960 election, in which Kennedy's margin over Nixon was just 118,574—under direct popular election. With all votes poured into a single national bucket, there would be powerful incentives to challenge the results in many thousands of the nation's 170,000 precincts. The outcome could remain murky for months, leaving whoever wins crippled by attenuated legitimacy. America has direct popular election of presidents, but has it within the states. As Best says, the states are not mere administrative agencies for a unitary government; they are components of a compound—a federal—republic. And today's electoral-vote system is not an 18th-century anachronism. It has evolved, shaping and being shaped by a large development the Constitution's Framers did not foresee—the two-party system. Under the Colorado proposal, almost all of that state's elections would result in 5-4 splits of its electoral votes. The one-vote prize would hardly be worth a Colorado stop by any candidate. Still, the proposal appeals to single-minded—hence simple-minded—majoritarians. And to some Kerry partisans who should be careful what they wish for. Suppose Kerry wins Colorado (in 2000 Bush won with 50.8 percent; Kerry's campaign says their man is leading today). And suppose winner-take-all is ended. Kerry will harvest five instead of nine electoral votes. He could lose the presidency by seven electoral votes (Gore lost by five), less than the eight-vote swing that Colorado's new system would produce. That would be poetic justice, the best kind. © 2004 Newsweek, Inc. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:29 PM I just get tired of the bull that is associated with politics in general. Would it be nice if who ever gets in power, they actually drop the partisan crap and get to work? In the process, wouldn't it be great if the politicians would do what they say they doing? Are you really satisfied with the politicans? I know I sound like a synic but why shouldn't I be? I can't think of to many instances where I would have said to myself "Now that's a good thing he or she did". I have heard the stories of how Congress intentionally set up Amtrak to fail; this is exceptable why? What kind of message does this send to future generations; that it's O.k to design a system that employs thousands of people and uses up billions of your tax money but don't worry because I will design it in such a way that the great investment of your money will mean nothing and now I can get rid of those thousands of workers and put them on welfare or unemployement using up even more of your money? Then they would profess that Amtrak fall is for the best of the country. No......it's the best for the railroads (ie) campaign contributors. How can people except a blatent misuse of money like that not to mention, you are going to cause unemployement and increase gridlock on the roads. I don't think people have really thought about the long-term consequences of their actions. It is like the myth that the Kyoto protocol in principal is a stupid idea. Who told you this, the oil companies, coal powered generating companies? What is the real motivation behind their so called good advice and concerns? What is the point of trying to stop global warming?-watch the movie Day after Tomarrow-that is the answer; saving our civilzation isn't less important than making just a bit more money I would hope. The point is, politicians are not doing their job whatever form of "democracy / republic" the government is doing because they are not doing it to better the people. Do you the people want your money to fail (Amtrak). If you were shareholders in some company, would you want the business to fail? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:49 PM Here's a few thoughts: 1. Unions. Republicans will continue to take action to erode the power of organized labor. Look for additional appointments to NMB and various other Federal Agencies including FRA, RRB and STB to be generally conservative. Also, look for major changes on the SUpreme Court and the balance of the Federal Bench to affect labor. 2. Amtrak. Although there are people including the administration that would like to terminate Amtrak, don't look at much of the Gil Carmichael Amtrak Board's recommendations to be implemented anytime soon. Plenty of strong Republican Senators and Congressmen value their Amtrak service, especially in the South. 3. Class 1s. Larger railroads will benefit from tighter Republican control of Presidency, House and Senate. 4. Short Lines. Having been noticed and contributed to Republican causes, short lines can be expected to continue pushing to advance their agenda through the ASLRRA and independently particularly efforts to overcome the 286,000 lbs challenge of infrastructure upgrade funding. LC Reply Edit joesap1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Tulsa, OK 140 posts Posted by joesap1 on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:13 PM I hope this doesn't degenerate into President bashing...I was listening to the Prairie Home Companion on the raidio tonight and ole whatshisface said, " Out of the election came some pretty good jokes." Then, there were a long series of jokes told, all anti-Bush. Such as, " What is the difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq? George Bush had a way out of the war in Viet Nam." Ha! Ha! Anyway, despite the Democrats acting like they love the poor, the minority's, and the unions, the fact is that they are like all politicians in that they use what they can to get elected. Therefore, it is only those who paid them big bucks that will get legislation that is slanted their way. So, as has been written previously- just more of the same. Some joksters will favor the railroad, so will not. To quote Will Rogers again: "When I make a joke it does hurt nobody, when congress makes a joke, it's a law." Joe Sapwater Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Sunday, November 7, 2004 1:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:16 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Our men and women in uniform not only need more than they get, they deserve more. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,053 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 7, 2004 4:22 AM Begin the terrorist to Begin the Statesman: Please know for certain that at the time of the Begin authorized bombing, (1) The Hotel was British Military Hq for Jerusalem and the only civilians present, including some Jews, were working for the British Military. (2) None of the terrorist groups active in Israel's War of Independence targeted any civiliians, only military targets, just as George Washington did. (3) The commander got a call from the Israeli underground advising him to evacuate the Hotel. His reply was "I don't take orders from Jews." That is why there were casualties. But I agree about Arabs in general, and I have some "Palestinian" friends. The conflict is really very artificial and British occupations, colonialism, have a great history of doing the opposite of making peace between the people they are ruling. Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakestan are a another example. Whabee Islam was something new, a desert tribe of maurauders have distorted what was a very tolerant religion. While the "moderates" are concerned about the terror that their educational system created and is now against their use of foreign experts and relations with the USA, some have continued to fund extremist schools and mosques in the USA itself. But there are some very fine Saudis, and hopefully their views will come to the fore shortly. But meanwhile, is a USA National Transportation Defense Bill necessary? Investigating how can the USA function if overseas oil supplies are cut off for any reason? Should the extra rail equipment and buses (hopfully hybrid) be stockpiled for such an emergency? How about a fleet of troop sleepers built to the outline of the new LIRR double deckers that DO fit through the Penn Sta. Tunnels and I would guess the Baltimore tunnels also, that can serve troops in time of emergency but also have curtians and removable panels to serve as "Sleepercoach II" for Amtrak? Economy sleepers have a long USA history and fit a market that is not addressed by Amtrak's current equipment. Should the slockpiled freight equipment be Roadrailers? What about containers that can be used not only on the highway and on rail but also in cargo planes? How much of the funding should come from the general revenue, from the Defense Budget, and from the Highway Trust Fund? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 8, 2004 1:39 PM [#offtopic][#offtopic][#offtopic]MR OR MS. MODERATOR: May it please the forum, I believe that this subject is about[xx(] (dead). May we plese move on, As an asside many of these topics would be good ones in their own right and would do well in individual threads. [tup] Reply Edit 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
I don't think the government should confiscate the money people earn and spend it on things like Amtrak. The Federal government is authorized in our Constituion to do certain things; and taking money from people to run a railroad ain't one of those things.
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress.
QUOTE: Maybe Amtrak and the NEC might broken up into Train operating companies ala the British Privatization scheme. The Bushies might tout the fact that UK railridership is up over 40% since privatization. to sell it the Frosk?Delay Congress.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person.
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc I am 46 and have been a life long Republican. The only time I have not voteed for the GOP in a major election was for Gov here in LA. Just no way I could vote for David Duke. I see McCain in 08, probably against Hillary.
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. Im just glad that all this polictal crap is fianlly over with!.................. Thank god! Oh ya congratulations to the Bush family,Bush all the way in his second term....YES!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan What religion is Bush? I know Kerry is Roman Catholic but was is Bush?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I am watching a CBC News program called 5th Estate right now about Pastor Benny. I must say I am very outraged with him. People who do what they do for profit and is a fake, burn in hell. I can't imagine why God would tolerate such a breach of trust of faith.
QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I am watching a CBC News program called 5th Estate right now about Pastor Benny. I must say I am very outraged with him. People who do what they do for profit and is a fake, burn in hell. I can't imagine why God would tolerate such a breach of trust of faith. I do beg you pardon sir, but this entry is a bit[#offtopic]
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I think Bush would find it easier to try Al Quaida members as war criminals and not unlawful combatants. This way the international community won't have anything to nag at the U.S about plus it increases legitamacy when you execute the S.O.Bs. Consider how much more difficult it would have been morally for other countries, if the *** were tried as unlawful combatants and not war criminals because lets face it; who really authorized World War 2 other than those who started it? How can you say that the *** asked legal killed civilians so techically you could have argued that the *** were unlawful combatants. Same thing, Al Quaida as far as I am concerned, was a partisan military group of the Taliban government therefore the U.S would have justification to label them as war criminals because their attack was a kind of Pearl Harbor. The fact that they attacked civilian targets (embassy, World Trade Center) doesn't mean they didn't start a war, it just means that it was a sneak attack and so the U.S responded by attacking Afghanistan. Like in Europe, the *** are still being hunted all over the world to be "brought to justice" same thing except the location orginates from the middle east and its name is Al Quaida. Just some friendly advise from an ally from the north.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon I know that folks are gonna start getting a little worked over politcs alone, so let's keep the religion...at least opinions of various religions alone...just my advice...
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I think Bush would find it easier to try Al Quaida members as war criminals and not unlawful combatants. This way the international community won't have anything to nag at the U.S about plus it increases legitamacy when you execute the S.O.Bs. Consider how much more difficult it would have been morally for other countries, if the *** were tried as unlawful combatants and not war criminals because lets face it; who really authorized World War 2 other than those who started it? How can you say that the *** asked legal killed civilians so techically you could have argued that the *** were unlawful combatants. Same thing, Al Quaida as far as I am concerned, was a partisan military group of the Taliban government therefore the U.S would have justification to label them as war criminals because their attack was a kind of Pearl Harbor. The fact that they attacked civilian targets (embassy, World Trade Center) doesn't mean they didn't start a war, it just means that it was a sneak attack and so the U.S responded by attacking Afghanistan. Like in Europe, the *** are still being hunted all over the world to be "brought to justice" same thing except the location orginates from the middle east and its name is Al Quaida. Just some friendly advise from an ally from the north. Al Queda is not a partisan group or any part of the Taliban. The Taliban was the ruling party of Afghaistan led at least publically by the Mullah Omar. They rose from the ashes and tribal infighting following the meltdown of the Soviet backed regime that occurred when the pulled out, feeding on an extreme brand of Islamic Fundamentalism, that included a Quaker/Amish style rejection of all things modern and western. Al Queda, with strong anti-western rhetoric found refuge there, because they were 1) running out of friends...friends don't like you blowing up stuff in their country, or US retalitory strikes, and 2) they had money and lots of it. They co-existed, and fed on each other but are two distinct groups, both of which have little purpose on earth, other than perhaps to feed the worms. So, technically speaking Al Queda are unlawful combatants, because they are stateless, like a mercenary, and very few actual Al Queda are Afghans. War Criminals implies that it was being done on behalf of a state. This was not the case, the fighting they have done together has been out of alliance against a common enemy.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Greyhounds Does that same arguement apply to gas taxes and the interstate highway system? Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Greyhounds Does that same arguement apply to gas taxes and the interstate highway system? Jay Well, I guess not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump. Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not.
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I still believe that National Defense is the best argument passenger rail supporters have. Suppose that in the event of some emergency, and it could happen, like the wrong people taking control in Saudi Arabia (pardon me, I gues I should say even worse people!) that North America had to rely entirely on North Amereican energy sources. This argument must be raised now, so USA interests need not be submerged in keeping a bunch of foreign despots happy. Canada is much better prepared than the USA, because it funds passenger trains better (and does some other things better as well). Too long, energy and transportation policy in the USA has been based on: What is good for Sauid Arabia is good for GM. It costs money to mothball a neede passenger train fleet. And then who would man them instantly when needed for mass movement of either civilians or troops? A good passenger rail system is a very vital part of National Defense and this is the argument that can win Bush and conservatives over. It is the same kind of thinking that good railroad management has when for example the UP keeps the Tennesse Pass line and won't sell it or rip it up. This prudence MUST be practiced on a national level or America may some day be blackmailed.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds [ss not. Gas "taxes" are basically user fees - no one has to pay them (at least directly) if they don't drive. People can choose to live in a condo in downtown Chicago and never fork over a gas "tax" dime at a pump. Conversely, the money taken (stolen?) from out paychecks to fund Amtrak is going to be taken wether we use Amtak or not.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals?
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Exactly. The free market is a means to an end. It isn't the end.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support. I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions. You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population? What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy? Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin I don't understand how any railfan or rail advocate could vote for the anti passenger rail Bush Admin. and radical right Republican Congress. It was very easy - I put my family way ahead of railfanning. Bush has put more money in my wallet. And I did not want the French, Germans, or the UN dictating policy. Most of the time the unions blame the Republicans for their own shortcomings. They were needed at one time to protect workers, but their time has passed. Now all they do is sound like a group of crybabies if they do not get their way. If you look at the situation in Germany and France concerning their unions, do you really want to go down that path? I sure don't and niether should any sensible person. Thank you. I put my safety ahead of my pocketbook, because if we don't exterminate the terrorist vermin (or at least control them), anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. NOTHING gives terrorists the right to fly planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians. I didn't trust Kerry to deal with terrorists as effectively as Bush. I also don't want increasing amounts of my hard-earned money confiscated to pay for social programs I don't support. I would have an easier time agreeing with you if it was Osama in prison and not Saddam I deleted the rest of this message after writing a rather long reply for the sake of civiltity, save saying I notice an appalling lack of comprehension in this country for the ramifications of US actions. You say "Nothing gives terrorist the right...to kill innocent civilians"...Care to estimate how many innocent civilians, men, women, and children have been killed in Iraq? or have you even thought about it? and what that and images like Abu Grab have on the other half of the worlds population? What about those who are horrified seeing there tax dollars going down an endless hole in Iraq? Or a deficit that has the potential to hobble us into a third world economy? Too many people in this country think our concerns stop at the country's border... it doesnt I wish Osama were in prison too; I am hopeful he will be either in prison or dead soon. If I had to choose, and if both were equally easy to attain, I'd prefer it were Osama in prison. No, I don't know how many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq. I'm sorry that even one has lost his/her life. However, our objective was to get rid of a bloodthirsty tyrant who gave aid and comfort to the terrorists AND who every intelligence service in the world thought had and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Our aim as I understand it is to leave some sort of democratic gov't in place when we exit (its exact form to be determined by the Iraqis themselves). Is it a tragedy that even one innocent Iraqi civilian was killed? Of course. Given our objectives for going into Iraq, was the death of some civilians an acceptable price to pay? I think so. Compare our aims to those of the terrorists; I know which ones I'd choose to get behind. As to Abu Ghraib, it's not a lot worse than some fraternity initiations. It's certainly one hell of a lot less than Saddam did to his own people. As far as I am aware, no Americans pitched people off second-story roofs onto concrete, applied cattle prods to sensitive parts of the detainees anatomy, or used chemical weapons on them, like Saddam did to his own people. Humiliation isn't fatal and doesn't leave permanent physical harm. People who didn't want their tax dollars going into a war in Iraq, and didn't want a large deficit created had their chance to change things on Nov. 2. Would you feel that way about large and useless social programs? I do.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The problem with passenger rail service is that many of the benefits accrue to others besides the operator and rider. For example, reduced air polution and noise pollution are societal benefits. Reduction in asthma attacks reduces heath care costs but none of that money saved winds up in the operator's pockets. Avoided capital expenditures for highway and airports reduces tax burden paying construction bonds and keeps private property on the tax rolls. Reduced highway patrols or avoidance of hiring and equipping more is another benefit that accrues elsewhere. Reduced oil consuption improves national security and the federal budget. Reduced carbon emissions may slow global warming. Reduced highway canage and property damage., etc, etc, Its never as simple as simple "free marketers" make it sound! Free markets are a great tool, not a "be all - end all", nor are they some sort of devine gift.
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I have to answer the question about the Saudis. Yes, there are some very fine Saudi people, a lot of them are doctors and engineers and scientists who have worked with Christian and Jewish colleagues (and possibly secular humanists and Budhists and Hindus and whatever) outside Saudi Arabia. But the country itself from all descriptions, and I think the February 2003 issue of National Review's article on Saudi domestic help (hope I got the date right) hit the nail on the head, is an example of exactly what Nazi Germany would have been with zero Jews, and Slavs and Galls used as slaves, and peace of course. In other words, only ONE ideology and ONE form of prayer is permitted and the ethos is that in the future that is the way the whole world should be. It is basically an extremist society. (it happened to be created by British Imperialism coupled with thirst for oil profits, but that is another story.) So even though the Royal Family and most of the Imams who are the educators tell people to keep it cool and not provoke foreign countries, the extremists become very extreme indeed. That is why some, most of the 11.09.01 terrorists, Saudis, became terrorists and that is why others fund them. But there is hope because some members of the Royal Family do understand that they do need to coexist in the modern world, that Israelis are not about to nuckle under terrorism and "go back to Europe" or Iraq or America, and possibly we will see a future where Saudi children are taken to a synagogue and Protestant and Catholic churches, possibly on a USA military base, a Post Chapel, to learn what other people are like. Then, there will be a hope for a future free of terrorism, eventually. Meanwhile, I think the USA should take all steps possible to insure that energy independence is a possibility, if only reserved for emergencies, and a strong passenger and freight rail system is essential for that kind of preparedness. Incidentally, all Vienese Children are taken on a tour of the city's major functioning synagogue at least once during their education. As you know, Hitler lived in Vienna and worked there as a house painter and started writing Mein Kampf there. Sure there is a "skinhead" Nazi group in Vienna, but the average Austrian is pretty free from that kind of prejudice today, and many different religious groups get along there. The city has a terrific streetcar system, by the way, one of the most interesting in the World and they run museum tramcars for tourists regularly. The ride up to Semering Pass isn't far and is spectacular, and there is the interurban line to Baden.
QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer Before you go bashing alleged Republican hatred of Amtrak, remember the infamous "Carter Cuts" of 1979. We lost the North Coast Hiawatha the second Seattle Chicago train,the Floridian,from Chicago to Florida,and the National Limited between St Louis and New York.We also lost the Inter American,sucessor to the Texas Chief.Under Clinton, we lost the Pioneer, the Desert Wind,and the Texas Eagle which was later restored.Both of these Presidents were Democrats[:(!].
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I think that argument is a bit circular. The Saudis hate the Royal Family because it allows American troops in the Muslim Holy Land, ergo, American troops need to be there to keep the government from being toppled. That is not why American troops were there. We were concerned about possible aggression by Iraq or Iran and we needed a quick response option. I know that you claim that Royal family corruption is another reason for the dislike, but from every source that I have seen, it is allowing the infidels (AKA us) in the Holy Land that is the major problem. I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. The soldiers have now been largely removed from Saudi Arabi and have either been repositioned in Iraq or Qutar. Hopefully that will ease tensions. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I think that argument is a bit circular. The Saudis hate the Royal Family because it allows American troops in the Muslim Holy Land, ergo, American troops need to be there to keep the government from being toppled. That is not why American troops were there. We were concerned about possible aggression by Iraq or Iran and we needed a quick response option. I know that you claim that Royal family corruption is another reason for the dislike, but from every source that I have seen, it is allowing the infidels (AKA us) in the Holy Land that is the major problem. I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. The soldiers have now been largely removed from Saudi Arabi and have either been repositioned in Iraq or Qutar. Hopefully that will ease tensions. Gabe Gabe, when it comes to Saudi Arabia and the surrounding countries, I hope your right. I agree it is a circular aurgument , but hey, its the Middle East. These guys still fight viciously over which brand of Islam is correct, Suni or She-ite. Its like Northern Ireland 20 years ago, outsiders looked at the situation and just shake their heads, but insiders saw the violence as perfectly just and rational. Unfortunatly, the troops leaving will do nothing about Al Quida. They had the chance to use the Hammer at Tora Bora and failed to do so, now we need to use the scalpel. The Hammer will only break off more terrorists.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom [i] I haven't heard of it. Don't know of any incidents where Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians or any denomination other than Muslims have flown planes into buildings. Ummm.....Oklahoma City? Have fun with your trains Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:11 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon As much as I'd like to enter this part of the debate, there are obvious reasons why I can't and won't. But the action at Tora Bora, was just that, a chance. That territory is some of the most rugged, unpleasant land I've ever seen. There are no guarantees in any military action, particularly when they have the home field advantage. And in this case the home turf is a lot of really rugged terrain. As a defensible position, there pretty isn't much better than that. To say that our troops let him get away isn't fair to the dudes that had to be on the gound slugging it out through that crap. High tech weapons can only do so much, but the have more rock than than we've got munitions. Tora Bora down and dirty is a low tech arena of going rock by rock. Nobody let him get away. Dan, I know a full frontal mass military assault would effect nothing, thats not the intent of what i was advocating. The Soviet's tried it and lost the highest number of troops since WW2. My point was that if enough troops had been deployed to contain the area and prevent anyone from escaping we could have either using special forces captured or killed him, or if nothing else starved him out. Believe me if we had sent 150,000 troops to encircle that area, we were interogating every shepard, goat, and lizard coming out of there, and the special forces were still slowely rooting out or collasping every single cave, hole, crack, and gopher hole they came across I would not complain. But W's eyes were already looking west to Iraq by that time, and Gen. Franks was also aware of the Soviet experience, but letting Afgan forces do the job was a mistake and he escaped. Now he is still putting his ugly face on Al Jazira and still a figure head to his followers. Guess I'm just still mad as hell about it and dont have any other way of expressing it, Sorry. Have fun with your trains Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:34 PM This is getting a bit far afield... LC Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country. Just as an aside, all Arabs, which I believe is what you mean, are not Muslim and by no way are all Muslims Arabic. Nor all they all zealots or savage. After spending a good deal of one's professional life involved in disputes that have religion or ethinicity as a reason, it's important to get to know the playing field. As far as Arabs or Muslims go, over the course of history...white, Christian types...Europeans, Slavs, etc...have commited quite a few atrocites and actions that rival driving a plane into the WTC. So Muslims nor Arabs have the corner on the market. Menacham Begin, PM of Israel was himself considered a terrorist by the British for his role in the bombing of the King David Hotel in the 40s. Evil and hate have little basis in religion or ethicity, but that is how it always gets turned. I never want to see this country in a position where we hate so much that we do to anyone what we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII using ethnicity, race or religion as a basis. My 2 cents. And by the way..you can blame T E Lawrence for teaching the Arabs how to use explosives and to blow up TRAINS. Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:13 PM I'm sure if planes were invented during the crusades, some knight would have flown it into some enemy city. We Christians are not without our fanatism either even in today's society. Andrew Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 5:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Guess I'm just still mad as hell about it and dont have any other way of expressing it, Sorry. It's all good. Reply M636C Member sinceJanuary 2002 4,612 posts Posted by M636C on Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country. OK, I'm a foreigner and I won't have the same view! But US taxpayer dollars are still being spent disrupting indoor plumbing in Fallujah, while plans are being made to restore it at the expense of the same people. As I understand it, many Iraqis do not understand why the US troops are in Iraq, because, although they are happy that Saddam has been deposed, the fighting has made life significantly worse than it was under Saddam. A correspondent in Baghdad wrote that if Saddam could stand in the upcoming elections, and promised a swift return to pre war conditions (dictatorship, secret police, censorship but public order and effective peace) he would win by a landslide, for reasons not unlike those that returned George W Bu***o power. I find worrying similarities between the news coverage I see, possibly different to that in the USA, and the conditions in Saigon pictured in "Good Morning Vietnam". The worrying part in that movie to me was the realisation by the Robin Williams character that his close Vietnamese friends were active members of the Viet Cong. In Iraq, it appears that many people, not "Terrorists" or "Insurgents" just want the fighting to stop and are actively trying to oppose the Coalition troops. It was said that 30 000 members of the current Iraqi security forces, after long and expensive training, were found to have views inconsistent with their continued employment in that role and were quietly "let go". Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. But Iraq will have to run its own affairs eventually, whether or not they adopt a form of government favoured by the present US Administration. But US (and British and Australian and other..) troops will have to try to protect the majority of Iraqis for some time yet, until a local administration, of whatever political leaning can effectively run the country. Peter Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:24 PM I don't mind too too much with the Republicans being in power. It is projected that the Canadian dollar will be worth $1.03 U.S by spring time which means I can vacation in the U.S more often. It just means that I need to get better I.D for the boarder. In a couple of years when I become a customs officer, I.D won't be a problem at all. I will return Fostoria!! Keep a motel room for me. Andrew Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:05 PM The following is a quote from an article in today's Janesville Gazette. "What next?" By Ron Hutcheson and William Douglas-Knight Ridder Tribune. "Over the next four years, Bush intends to set Iraq on the road to democracy, defeat global terrorism and send a wave of freedom across the Middle East" You guys shouldn't be so hard on the President. Obviously he has spent a great deal of work on this-watching beauty pagents and all... Further from the article." "I think he really wants to leave a legacy" said Stephen Moore, president of The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group that supports Republicans." I would have added something about success qualifying for something like overacheiver of the millenia, but I guess that would be a biased view. Jay "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 Reply Sterling1 Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Traveling in Middle Earth 795 posts Posted by Sterling1 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:07 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? Amtrak -- no change in the existing trends. Transit -- no change in the existing trends Unions -- no change in the existing trends Class Is -- no change in the existing trends Short lines -- no change in the existing trends What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, the House the radical body (conservative meaning, don't change too fast, radical meaning change fast). Democrats retain filibuster power in the Senate, and will use it just like in the last four years to keep the radical tendencies of the House moderated. I would expect to see an Administration effort to kill Amtrak once again, and just like the last four or five efforts, it will be halted by Republican Congressmen and Senators who will seek to protect their home districts -- thus Amtrak will be even more beholden to local interests and run for local purposes, instead of an actual national system. As for unions, market power has been undergoing a steady erosion since 1946, when Taft-Hartley was passed. That won't change -- it will just continue. Maybe slightly faster than before, maybe not. The real conflict is going to appear between states and the feds. Even Republican governors are becoming quite grumpy at the unfunded mandates foisted on them by the Congress and Administration, and are becoming increasingly prickly about where the federal money is spent. Health care payments are crushing states. From the Metallica song SAD BUT TRUE . . . heavy guitar and drum playing "There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.] Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:29 PM ...."Crystal-ball gazing time" by Mark....All sounds believable and probable and I would add: Adminstration will REALLY try to kill Amtrak this time..... Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by kevin1978 Its an interesting debate, but at the end of the day, we rail supporters must speak as one voice and lobby our politicians if the time comes to ensure that rail is expanded. Climate change is a very important problem for us all, whatever our views on politics or transport. As such we have the strongest of cases to argue for an expanded passenger (and freight) rail network. Someone mentioned that passenger rail levels in the UK are significantly up. Please remember that regardless of privatisation, rail supporters and the general public have made it politically unacceptable to tamper with rail service, unless you plan to improve it! Kevin, Can you explain the relationship between passenger rail and alleged climate change? I know that the concept of climate change occuring due to man's burning of fossil fuels is accepted as holy writ over in Europe, but it seems that the voices of reason and historical perspective regarding the cyclical nature of climate change have been suppressed. Please read the following link, and then tell us if you still believe that man is causing drastic climate change: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Once you've done that, explain how passenger rail can even put a dent in the amount of emissions from the various passenger transport modes. In North America, most people whether it be Canada, U.S., or Mexico travel by auto/plane/bus more so than rail, for the simple reason that the former are the most convienient and flexible. Increasing tax spending on passenger rail will not result in significantly more people traveling by rail, ergo it will not have a real effect on global emissions. It would be more prudent for global warming proponents to instead focus their efforts on reducing local and regional pollution effects, since those effects have a genuine impact on the quality of life. The man-caused global warming myth only takes resources away from the real environmental battles. Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Kevin, Can you explain the relationship between passenger rail and alleged climate change? I know that the concept of climate change occuring due to man's burning of fossil fuels is accepted as holy writ over in Europe, but it seems that the voices of reason and historical perspective regarding the cyclical nature of climate change have been suppressed. Please read the following link, and then tell us if you still believe that man is causing drastic climate change: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Once you've done that, explain how passenger rail can even put a dent in the amount of emissions from the various passenger transport modes. In North America, most people whether it be Canada, U.S., or Mexico travel by auto/plane/bus more so than rail, for the simple reason that the former are the most convienient and flexible. Increasing tax spending on passenger rail will not result in significantly more people traveling by rail, ergo it will not have a real effect on global emissions. It would be more prudent for global warming proponents to instead focus their efforts on reducing local and regional pollution effects, since those effects have a genuine impact on the quality of life. The man-caused global warming myth only takes resources away from the real environmental battles. And after that Kevin, we'd like you explain why the earth rotates in the direction it does and why why have daylight savings time. And after that, why Belgians like mayo on their fries. Now get to it...you've got a lot of splaining to do........ Reply espeefoamer Member sinceNovember 2003 From: West Coast 4,122 posts Posted by espeefoamer on Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:39 PM Amtrak's new L.A. to San Louis Obispo train starts Nov.17 [:)]!Due to a shortage of Surfliner cars the train will run with Horizon equipment.It will have the dome car when avalible[:D].Right now the dome is being used on the Reno Fun Train. This train will leave L.A. in the early morning and return in the early afternoon. Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool. Reply fuzzybroken Member sinceOctober 2002 From: Milwaukee, WI, US 1,384 posts Posted by fuzzybroken on Thursday, November 4, 2004 10:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi. You are very much correct!!! The high concentration of Muslims in Hamtramck, MI (Detroit suburb) has raised the ire of "American extremists" -- one who happens to be on the radio every morning on my way to work. As for me, I live less than 1/2 mile from a major Islamic church/temple/mosque/whatever. Doesn't really bother me any. -Mark -Fuzzy Fuzzy World 3 Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans. Interesting; I guess they truly are unlawful combatants then. I would have to say then that Al Quadia and terrorists are war criminals. They are enemy combatants of a "recognized warring party", aren't they, and they most certainly violate the Geneva Convention(That is the questionable part, considering they are not a state, but?). We(meaning the US gov.) have stated from the beginning of hostilities that we are fighting a "war on terror". Wouldn't that then justify them being war criminals? Shrek Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:57 PM There is one statement about religion in general that most people would have to agree on. Religion in itself(not any one in particuliar) through the centuries has been the single largest cause of more war and genocide than anything else probably put together. Which goes to show that any religion taken to the "fanatical" level can be extremely devastating no matter what century we live in. Scary when you think about it. Shrek Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Thursday, November 4, 2004 11:58 PM Sorry, had to get number 50 right NOW!!!!!! Be safe, Shrek Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:22 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by shrek623 I would have to say then that Al Quadia and terrorists are war criminals. They are enemy combatants of a "recognized warring party", aren't they, and they most certainly violate the Geneva Convention(That is the questionable part, considering they are not a state, but?). We(meaning the US gov.) have stated from the beginning of hostilities that we are fighting a "war on terror". Wouldn't that then justify them being war criminals? Shrek Actually no. It's kind of complicated. And first, I guess I need to preface this with, I am not at liberty to discuss policies, that would be a breach with my employer if you understand my meaning. First a determination has to be made as to whether a combatant is a POW or unlawful combatant. There us a fairly loose test that is applied...are they a recognized entity, do they have a chain of command, do they openly bear arms, can they be identified as a combatant, etc....if they pass the POW test, then if they have commited violations of the GC or "laws of war" they can be charged as war criminals, but there are guidelines about what can be done. Generally, it is accepted that stateless, terrorist organizations are not lawful combatants, and are therefore not POWs and are not accorded POW status. An Iraqi POW has many rights that an Al Queda detainee does not have per the GC (that is an example and not a lead in to an abuse discussion). Recognized entities is very loose also. We all recognize Al Queda for what they are, but legally that definition is murky at best, and they do not represent a state. The Taliban regime that they allied themsleves with was not universally recognized as a legimate government, though it may have been the de facto government....international law as Gabe can attest to is tricky and often defined by the winner so to speak. So Al Queda, being a stateless entity, and not officially recognized as one anyway, and not passing the POW test, are unlawful combatants subjest to prosecution as a criminal (as would a mercenary, though they fail the mercenary test) by the state that detained them or which they had commited acts against. Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:24 AM congrats on the star ..you booger eatin, green swamp ogre[;)] Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 12:48 AM I just saw a documentary on public television that showed how the military was being micromanaged by civilians during the Vietnam war, and subsequent military leaders over the years rebuilt the military avoid this ever happening again, with the success of the first gulf war being a reaffirmation of this movement. The documentary went on to show how the current administration has marginalized any leader in the military offering opinions not concurring with its agenda, leading to events behind current complaints of mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Could this be true? This administration in forcing their agenda on a resistant military ignored competant advice? Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, November 5, 2004 1:05 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jruppert I just saw a documentary on public television that showed how the military was being micromanaged by civilians during the Vietnam war, and subsequent military leaders over the years rebuilt the military avoid this ever happening again, with the success of the first gulf war being a reaffirmation of this movement. The documentary went on to show how the current administration has marginalized any leader in the military offering opinions not concurring with its agenda, leading to events behind current complaints of mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Could this be true? This administration in forcing their agenda on a resistant military ignored competant advice? Would this have been the Frontline piece on the SECDEF? That was quite interesting. Reply arbfbe Member sinceFebruary 2002 910 posts Posted by arbfbe on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:38 AM Did I mention the mad rush by the RR's to go to one man train crews? That idea is part of the section 6 notices served upon the UTO by the National Carrier's Conference. I doubt the UTU or BLET can expect much sympathy form any Presidential Emergency Board appointed by W should the unions not agree with the NCC on this item. I might add this is only a temporary measure until the railroads can install the technology necessary to reach their ultimate goal of crewless trains. I don't think that can happen during W's second term, though. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, November 5, 2004 8:02 AM Three things, then I am going to stop responding to this thread and get back to trains: (1) For those saying and thinking that this thread is way off railroad topics, you are obviously right. But, I find it interesting to see what the various political beliefs of railroaders are (I am noticing that they are somewhat different than the average American political belief--I find this very interesting and worthy of exploration). Also, when something is said as an aside while discussing legitimate railroad topics, I see no reason why not to comment. (2) When I said I don't expect it would be any different if a Muslim contingent moved into Mississippi (suggesting that Amercicans are really no different from Muslims and we should respect them more), the commentary on this comment has left out two very important factors: (A) I don't mean Muslim/Americans I mean true outsiders, and (B) I don't mean civilians, I mean a military contingent that could blow the hell out of anything and everybody if they wanted to. You cannot tell me that Americans would do everything and anything to get them out. (3) My larger point is that I think we would achieve more of our goals if we tried to understand Saudi Arabia and other Arab problems rather than just assuming they are bad people who are that different from us. I don't think they are that different and think their concerns are legitimate. Back to trains. Gabe Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,534 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, November 5, 2004 8:05 AM I would like to see evidence that the people who will be conducting the railroad renovations and presumably rebuilding in Iraq understand the needs and wants of the population -- both in Iraq and in countries with which Iraqi railroads would presumably interchange... Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, November 5, 2004 8:40 AM There is one way you can get away with scraping Amtrak; out-source the job to VIA. I don't imagine we will allow indemnification though. Andrew Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, November 5, 2004 9:41 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan There is one way you can get away with scraping Amtrak; out-source the job to VIA. I don't imagine we will allow indemnification though. How abo"o"t that guys?!? Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't respond to this post anymore, but it is railroad related and I couldn't pass that up. Gabe Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 10:09 AM Benjamin Franklin invented Daylight Savings time to save Candels. So let's see, No high speed rail? No rail amendments whatsoever? Damn; but don't worry I have an Idea- I've always fancied heavy Dental floss made of steal, from the Tracks. I bet they could make a lot of things out of the tracks- Why not? if they aren't going to go to any really good use, scrap it all, and I'm sorry.. An amtrak moving at the speed of 59 MPH is it? IS NOT a good use. So far were all arguing Apples Vs. Oranges, and most of you are arguing with other people for the sake of arguing. Oh and while i'm writing: The earth turns the way it does because of the ferromagnetivity in the core, and the magnetic pull on the outside. SO there you go, everybody, arguye with this one, I want RR Dental floss. No high speed Rail in Florida? Were all whining and moaning about that, yet look who you've just elected, a big guy on an Elephant who is terribly afraid of change!! And guess where his half-wit brother is? Governor of Florida!! Everybody now, And the green grass grows all around all around, and the green grass grows all around. Adn i'm not saying I don't like GW bush, I'm saying I don't like his behaviour or his policies. I'm sure hes a nice man and all. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, November 5, 2004 11:44 AM See if you can get Pelletier ex VIA president to run Amtrak. See what happens. P.S Beware of sponsership scandals...... Andrew Reply shrek623 Member sinceJune 2004 From: North central Illinois 120 posts Posted by shrek623 on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon congrats on the star ..you booger eatin, green swamp ogre[;)] UUUUUMMMMMMM PROTEIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:p] Shrek Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:42 PM Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:45 PM Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Where have the fiscal conservatives gone? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 6:05 PM Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:00 PM There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. My father grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to serve family farmers coming to town by horse. My mother grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to maintain a few miles of the Katy RR and provide water and coal for steam locomotives. Before the Interstate highway system the old US highways went through the center of small towns along the way. Travelers from the city and small town shopkeepers depended on one another and knew each other. Now family farmers are disappearing, railroads need fewer people and city dwellers can bypass small town on the Interstate, in the air, and over the Internet. As a child I felt at home in small towns and on farms and my parents talked the same way in the city or the country. Now I look at the Red counties on the map and realize I never go there except occasionally speeding through on the Interstate. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. Bush has created an image of someone who doesn’t need the global economy but the jobs and stores and family farms will continue to disappear from Bush country. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Here, Here. Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. The maps which show the breakdown by county have very little Blue. California for instance 2/3 red. Many of the Red areas are not as backward as the elitists in the blue areas would like to believe. Many of the Blue areas are rotting at their core with a growing underclass kept down by the by the ill concieved policys and programs the elitists pu***o "help" them. There is a major disagreement on how to slove the problems. I am a "Red" voter. I am for freedom. I am for education. I am for helping people escape poverty. The policies pushed by the "blue" politicitions have not worked. Lyndon Johnson started a "war on poverty". Poverty is winning. Its time to change our tactics. I look at our schools. I see a few top students doing thing far beyond the level of the best students in my day, but I see far more who can not even read or do basic arithmatic at the level required for graduation 40 years ago. If it were not for an influx of well educated forigners, many business would have great trouble operating, the hospitials in my area would be gravely understaffed, especially with doctors. Many of the engineers I deal with are foreign born (although they usually received part of their education here) . Actually the split in the country by area is not as great as it looks. The State maps and statistics on the CNN site give a better picture http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ While their are exceptions both on the Red side and the Blue side, most of the country is fairly evenly split and as voting on other offices and issues show a vote for president is not necessairly a blanket endorcement of their perceived agenda. As far as Amtrak and other passenger rail services go, the people will express there will through their elected representatives at the local, state and federal level. Who is President does not really make a difference. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:27 PM ...If we could see a map of colors depicting exactly how we all voted we'd see generous amounts of both red and blue....The center of our country would not be all red but would have a portion of blue mixed with all the red....Same with both coasts and upper Great Lakes area..... As for expressing our will re: Amtrak through our representives...Sure that is the system, but the President can work his will somewhat on the system long before we have a chance to change anything through changes in our representives. Most people will agree in todays world the "programs" of the blue area are not a cure all but back in the 30's we may have dropped a bit lower if we wouldn't have had some of them to soften the blows all around us. Quentin Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:32 PM Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? 100, 2 per state Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:50 PM junctionfan, the united states senate has two senators representing each of our fifty states, ie, one hundred senators in all. may i ask why you would have made such an offensive comment about the american political scene if you have not at least a basic understanding of the subject. "Same cow patties, same pile. I just hope that the American majority know what they are doing. I hope they are careful and don't drown in the mounting pile of cow patties........" why is it always the job of americans to make the effort to understand and respect the needs and cultures of other nations? does it ever run both ways? Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:50 PM I don't like how politics in general work in Canada and the U.S. Politicians in general do a lousy job in office, don't keep their promises and never give straight answers. What kind of baffles me is that the U.S only votes for Democrats or Republican. They don't really give other parties a chance. In Canada, we have 5 groups in parliment. Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Independant. Soon we will likely see the Green Party gain some seats too. It just seems to me if you are not happy about either party (Republican or Democratic), maybe the American people should choose a different party. Me personally, I don't like the Liberals because they work themselves into political wedgees from sitting on the fence about almost every issue; the Conservatives are just a bunch of sherrifs of Nottingham stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I voted N.D.P. Of course the party didn't get in but the number of votes and seats in the house is growing. Andrew Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:56 PM Junctionfan....Interesting comments. "Never give straight answers"....Wonder if that will ever change...I doubt it as long as they're politicians. Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM i' m sorry you're unhappy with canada. i have visited your country and fine it a fine place with many decent people trying to do the best that they can.... a lot like the united states. Reply Edit jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM Amtrak will finally be "contracted out" and the Bush fallacy will be proven false! Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:53 PM Canada and United States are fine countries to live in. The problem is that the government isn't doing their jobs. It bugs me to no end to see great potential sullied by a bunch of insignificant do nothings who are suppose to represent the people's needs; not just themselves. They are suppose to do the job of care-taker/janitor of the country. All they do is play political games for political points and at the end of the term, try to get back in again, raise their salaries while the working class don't get anything and sit on their butts, ranting and raving like a bunch of foney bleeding heart liberals, pretending they actually give a damn. That is not the way I run my house so what makes thease "experts" think that they can run a country like that? Thease repugnent jerks are ruining our countries with their political games and their procastinating. I have little faith in the political system because they keep doing the same stupid things over and over again. I think thease universities and other ivy-league schools must preach and teach the traditions of ineffective governing so they do a "good job" once they get into office. After they smear each other in their campaigns, if there is a change, is it really? Don't you find that the platforms may be different and the candidates might be different but the actions and results are the same? I know democracy isn't perfect but come on; it's suppose to work a little bit better than what it is right now isn't it? Sorry folks for the ranting but I just can't stand our politicians. They don't really have any vision other than the one they are told to have either from the brain-washing from their universities, their party heads or their spin-doctor/ political advisors. I don't see much advancement as a society or any sign of advanced thinking in the government and I don't think we will until maybe a couple of hundred years from now when the rest of the world is far a head of us. Look at the ancient civilizations and the rate of advancements then and compare it to now; we should be far more advanced technologically speaking and socially as well. We have fallen behind thanks to politics either in a government or politics from religion (Vatican in the "Dark Ages") The middle east is a prime example of this. Look at the mighty Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians and now look at them.... What the heck is going on here? Why have we allowed this to happen? Andrew Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:01 PM Junctionfan In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. The founding fathers (pardon the politically incorrect phrase, but that is what they were) did not intend for their to be political parties and professional politicians. The intended that the people choose people the knew and trusted to meet and make the decisions for them. A knowlegeable friend pointed out to me the other day that the US is a "representative republic" (a term I had somehow not heard before). The US is not a "democracy" or even a "representative democracy" as it is often called. The political parties came about as a means for like minded persons to come together to promote their beliefs and policies and to choose and promote the election of canidates with whom they agreed. There is nothing sacred about the "two party" system. It just happens to be what evolved. Very Simplified History: Origionally there was only one party, the Federalist (Wig) Party. The Democratic Republican Party arose to chalenge the Wigs and eventually replaced them. We had a one party system for awhile, then the Republican Party formed to chalenge the Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republicans became the Democratic Party and the two party system we have today was born. There have been and are other parties in the US, but although some came close, none of them have so far gained broad enough support to become major players. If an agenda of a "third party" is gains broad support, one or both of the major parties adopt it, and the "third party" will whither away. For many years both major parties were actually fairly close their stands on most issues. Most of their differences were in detail and large numbers of people could feel comfortable in either party. The is no longer true. The Democrats claim that the Republicans have become too "right wing". I disagree. The Republicans are still a broadly based party. The Democrats are now largley dominited by the "radical left" and a coaliation pressure groups with different agendas that do not really reflect the beliefs of the majority of its registered membership. This is shown by the fact that "special agenda" proposals supported by the Democratic Party are not approved by the voters even in the States they "control". Ronald Reagan, when asked why he changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican said "I didn't leave the party, it left me" Retiring Democratic Senator Zell Miller recenently expressed the same sentiments. The recent Democratic candidate for president tried to hide his real beliefs and in fact in his speeches was inconsistent because he tailored his statements to fit the audiance. There are several other Democrats who would have been a much better choice for the party and would have given the voters a clear choice at the poles. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:32 PM Junctionfan, This continues as off-topic, but maybe it can shed some light. (Colorado defeated the change). Colorado's Crucial Vote America's federal system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities suited to this heterogeneous nation By George F. Will Newsweek Aug. 30 issue - November's most portentous vote is not for president. It is Colorado's vote on abandoning, beginning this year, the winner-take-all allocation of the state's electoral votes. Instead, they would be divided according to each candidate's percentage of the popular vote. This is a pernicious proposal, and not merely because one of its aims is partisan: if Colorado had had this system in 2000, its eight (now nine) electoral votes would have gone to Bush 5-3 instead of 8-0 and the six-vote swing would have elected Gore. The Colorado proposal, which may be a precursor of a nationwide drive to scrap the electoral-vote system, ignores how that system nurtures crucial political virtues. Winner-take-all allocation is a state choice, not a constitutional mandate, but 48 states have made it. Maine and Nebraska allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and award the two votes for the state's senators to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. America's constitutional system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities. It aims for majorities suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities. All 537 persons elected to national offices—the president, vice president, 100 senators and 435 representatives—are chosen by majorities that reflect the nation's federal nature. They are elected by majorities within states or within states' congressional districts. American majorities are not spontaneous; they are built. A two-party system builds moderate majorities by assembling them from coalitions of minorities. In multiparty systems, parties proliferate, each representing intense minorities. Then a group of parties strives to govern through (often unstable) coalitions improvised after the election. A two-party system is buttressed by an electoral system that handicaps minor parties by electing a single person from each jurisdiction, chosen by majority or plurality. In presidential elections, states are the jurisdictions. So in 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the popular vote but carried no state and won no electoral votes. Bill Clinton's 43 percent of the popular vote won him 68.8 percent of the electoral votes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson's 41.8 percent of the popular vote produced a strong presidency based on 81.9 percent of the electoral votes. If the proposed Colorado system had been used everywhere in 1992, Clinton would have led with just 236 electoral votes and the House would have selected the president. The House also would have selected in 1948 and 1968. Political scientist Judith Best notes that the electoral-vote system, combined with winner-take-all allocation, creates a "distribution condition." Candidates cannot just pile up popular votes in the most populous states. They must win many states, because legitimacy, and the capacity to govern this extensive republic, involves more than crude arithmetic. The federal principle, Best argues, prevents the most dangerous kinds of factions—racial, religious, economic—"from uniting their votes across state lines. It confines them within little republics and forces them to compromise early and often with their fellow state citizens." The 2000 election, the sixth in which the popular-vote margin between the winner and runner-up was less than 1 percent, was a reminder that the electoral-vote system quarantines electoral disputes. Imagine a close election—2000, or the 1960 election, in which Kennedy's margin over Nixon was just 118,574—under direct popular election. With all votes poured into a single national bucket, there would be powerful incentives to challenge the results in many thousands of the nation's 170,000 precincts. The outcome could remain murky for months, leaving whoever wins crippled by attenuated legitimacy. America has direct popular election of presidents, but has it within the states. As Best says, the states are not mere administrative agencies for a unitary government; they are components of a compound—a federal—republic. And today's electoral-vote system is not an 18th-century anachronism. It has evolved, shaping and being shaped by a large development the Constitution's Framers did not foresee—the two-party system. Under the Colorado proposal, almost all of that state's elections would result in 5-4 splits of its electoral votes. The one-vote prize would hardly be worth a Colorado stop by any candidate. Still, the proposal appeals to single-minded—hence simple-minded—majoritarians. And to some Kerry partisans who should be careful what they wish for. Suppose Kerry wins Colorado (in 2000 Bush won with 50.8 percent; Kerry's campaign says their man is leading today). And suppose winner-take-all is ended. Kerry will harvest five instead of nine electoral votes. He could lose the presidency by seven electoral votes (Gore lost by five), less than the eight-vote swing that Colorado's new system would produce. That would be poetic justice, the best kind. © 2004 Newsweek, Inc. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:29 PM I just get tired of the bull that is associated with politics in general. Would it be nice if who ever gets in power, they actually drop the partisan crap and get to work? In the process, wouldn't it be great if the politicians would do what they say they doing? Are you really satisfied with the politicans? I know I sound like a synic but why shouldn't I be? I can't think of to many instances where I would have said to myself "Now that's a good thing he or she did". I have heard the stories of how Congress intentionally set up Amtrak to fail; this is exceptable why? What kind of message does this send to future generations; that it's O.k to design a system that employs thousands of people and uses up billions of your tax money but don't worry because I will design it in such a way that the great investment of your money will mean nothing and now I can get rid of those thousands of workers and put them on welfare or unemployement using up even more of your money? Then they would profess that Amtrak fall is for the best of the country. No......it's the best for the railroads (ie) campaign contributors. How can people except a blatent misuse of money like that not to mention, you are going to cause unemployement and increase gridlock on the roads. I don't think people have really thought about the long-term consequences of their actions. It is like the myth that the Kyoto protocol in principal is a stupid idea. Who told you this, the oil companies, coal powered generating companies? What is the real motivation behind their so called good advice and concerns? What is the point of trying to stop global warming?-watch the movie Day after Tomarrow-that is the answer; saving our civilzation isn't less important than making just a bit more money I would hope. The point is, politicians are not doing their job whatever form of "democracy / republic" the government is doing because they are not doing it to better the people. Do you the people want your money to fail (Amtrak). If you were shareholders in some company, would you want the business to fail? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:49 PM Here's a few thoughts: 1. Unions. Republicans will continue to take action to erode the power of organized labor. Look for additional appointments to NMB and various other Federal Agencies including FRA, RRB and STB to be generally conservative. Also, look for major changes on the SUpreme Court and the balance of the Federal Bench to affect labor. 2. Amtrak. Although there are people including the administration that would like to terminate Amtrak, don't look at much of the Gil Carmichael Amtrak Board's recommendations to be implemented anytime soon. Plenty of strong Republican Senators and Congressmen value their Amtrak service, especially in the South. 3. Class 1s. Larger railroads will benefit from tighter Republican control of Presidency, House and Senate. 4. Short Lines. Having been noticed and contributed to Republican causes, short lines can be expected to continue pushing to advance their agenda through the ASLRRA and independently particularly efforts to overcome the 286,000 lbs challenge of infrastructure upgrade funding. LC Reply Edit joesap1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Tulsa, OK 140 posts Posted by joesap1 on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:13 PM I hope this doesn't degenerate into President bashing...I was listening to the Prairie Home Companion on the raidio tonight and ole whatshisface said, " Out of the election came some pretty good jokes." Then, there were a long series of jokes told, all anti-Bush. Such as, " What is the difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq? George Bush had a way out of the war in Viet Nam." Ha! Ha! Anyway, despite the Democrats acting like they love the poor, the minority's, and the unions, the fact is that they are like all politicians in that they use what they can to get elected. Therefore, it is only those who paid them big bucks that will get legislation that is slanted their way. So, as has been written previously- just more of the same. Some joksters will favor the railroad, so will not. To quote Will Rogers again: "When I make a joke it does hurt nobody, when congress makes a joke, it's a law." Joe Sapwater Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Sunday, November 7, 2004 1:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:16 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Our men and women in uniform not only need more than they get, they deserve more. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,053 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 7, 2004 4:22 AM Begin the terrorist to Begin the Statesman: Please know for certain that at the time of the Begin authorized bombing, (1) The Hotel was British Military Hq for Jerusalem and the only civilians present, including some Jews, were working for the British Military. (2) None of the terrorist groups active in Israel's War of Independence targeted any civiliians, only military targets, just as George Washington did. (3) The commander got a call from the Israeli underground advising him to evacuate the Hotel. His reply was "I don't take orders from Jews." That is why there were casualties. But I agree about Arabs in general, and I have some "Palestinian" friends. The conflict is really very artificial and British occupations, colonialism, have a great history of doing the opposite of making peace between the people they are ruling. Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakestan are a another example. Whabee Islam was something new, a desert tribe of maurauders have distorted what was a very tolerant religion. While the "moderates" are concerned about the terror that their educational system created and is now against their use of foreign experts and relations with the USA, some have continued to fund extremist schools and mosques in the USA itself. But there are some very fine Saudis, and hopefully their views will come to the fore shortly. But meanwhile, is a USA National Transportation Defense Bill necessary? Investigating how can the USA function if overseas oil supplies are cut off for any reason? Should the extra rail equipment and buses (hopfully hybrid) be stockpiled for such an emergency? How about a fleet of troop sleepers built to the outline of the new LIRR double deckers that DO fit through the Penn Sta. Tunnels and I would guess the Baltimore tunnels also, that can serve troops in time of emergency but also have curtians and removable panels to serve as "Sleepercoach II" for Amtrak? Economy sleepers have a long USA history and fit a market that is not addressed by Amtrak's current equipment. Should the slockpiled freight equipment be Roadrailers? What about containers that can be used not only on the highway and on rail but also in cargo planes? How much of the funding should come from the general revenue, from the Defense Budget, and from the Highway Trust Fund? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 8, 2004 1:39 PM [#offtopic][#offtopic][#offtopic]MR OR MS. MODERATOR: May it please the forum, I believe that this subject is about[xx(] (dead). May we plese move on, As an asside many of these topics would be good ones in their own right and would do well in individual threads. [tup] Reply Edit 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
[i] I haven't heard of it. Don't know of any incidents where Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians or any denomination other than Muslims have flown planes into buildings.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon As much as I'd like to enter this part of the debate, there are obvious reasons why I can't and won't. But the action at Tora Bora, was just that, a chance. That territory is some of the most rugged, unpleasant land I've ever seen. There are no guarantees in any military action, particularly when they have the home field advantage. And in this case the home turf is a lot of really rugged terrain. As a defensible position, there pretty isn't much better than that. To say that our troops let him get away isn't fair to the dudes that had to be on the gound slugging it out through that crap. High tech weapons can only do so much, but the have more rock than than we've got munitions. Tora Bora down and dirty is a low tech arena of going rock by rock. Nobody let him get away.
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the Muslims put as much energy into improving themselves and their surroundings as they do into hating other groups, they'd all have indoor plumbing by now. If they choose to remain savage zealots who want to exterminate everyone else, that's their business . . . . until they start attacking me or this country.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Guess I'm just still mad as hell about it and dont have any other way of expressing it, Sorry.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? Amtrak -- no change in the existing trends. Transit -- no change in the existing trends Unions -- no change in the existing trends Class Is -- no change in the existing trends Short lines -- no change in the existing trends What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, the House the radical body (conservative meaning, don't change too fast, radical meaning change fast). Democrats retain filibuster power in the Senate, and will use it just like in the last four years to keep the radical tendencies of the House moderated. I would expect to see an Administration effort to kill Amtrak once again, and just like the last four or five efforts, it will be halted by Republican Congressmen and Senators who will seek to protect their home districts -- thus Amtrak will be even more beholden to local interests and run for local purposes, instead of an actual national system. As for unions, market power has been undergoing a steady erosion since 1946, when Taft-Hartley was passed. That won't change -- it will just continue. Maybe slightly faster than before, maybe not. The real conflict is going to appear between states and the feds. Even Republican governors are becoming quite grumpy at the unfunded mandates foisted on them by the Congress and Administration, and are becoming increasingly prickly about where the federal money is spent. Health care payments are crushing states.
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevin1978 Its an interesting debate, but at the end of the day, we rail supporters must speak as one voice and lobby our politicians if the time comes to ensure that rail is expanded. Climate change is a very important problem for us all, whatever our views on politics or transport. As such we have the strongest of cases to argue for an expanded passenger (and freight) rail network. Someone mentioned that passenger rail levels in the UK are significantly up. Please remember that regardless of privatisation, rail supporters and the general public have made it politically unacceptable to tamper with rail service, unless you plan to improve it!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Kevin, Can you explain the relationship between passenger rail and alleged climate change? I know that the concept of climate change occuring due to man's burning of fossil fuels is accepted as holy writ over in Europe, but it seems that the voices of reason and historical perspective regarding the cyclical nature of climate change have been suppressed. Please read the following link, and then tell us if you still believe that man is causing drastic climate change: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Once you've done that, explain how passenger rail can even put a dent in the amount of emissions from the various passenger transport modes. In North America, most people whether it be Canada, U.S., or Mexico travel by auto/plane/bus more so than rail, for the simple reason that the former are the most convienient and flexible. Increasing tax spending on passenger rail will not result in significantly more people traveling by rail, ergo it will not have a real effect on global emissions. It would be more prudent for global warming proponents to instead focus their efforts on reducing local and regional pollution effects, since those effects have a genuine impact on the quality of life. The man-caused global warming myth only takes resources away from the real environmental battles.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I don't blame the Saudis for feeling this way. I don't think Americans would react any different if an all muslim contingent happened to be stationed in Mississippi.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I believe they were a mercenary group hired by Afghanistan, Iran and a few others. For the record (is what they will say) they are were not but in actuall fact, they likely did. Doesn't mercenary forces for hire fall under the category of war criminals? Negative just the opposite. They were not hired. They were provided safe haven to operate and train in Afghanistan because they shared similiar anti-western goals. They are the ones that had the bucks. A war criminal is an enemy combatant (of a state or recognized warring party) who violates the Geneva Convention Articles. Mercenaries are not state entities. The definitions and actual application of the terms has become somewhat skewed since the Balkans. Interesting; I guess they truly are unlawful combatants then.
QUOTE: Originally posted by shrek623 I would have to say then that Al Quadia and terrorists are war criminals. They are enemy combatants of a "recognized warring party", aren't they, and they most certainly violate the Geneva Convention(That is the questionable part, considering they are not a state, but?). We(meaning the US gov.) have stated from the beginning of hostilities that we are fighting a "war on terror". Wouldn't that then justify them being war criminals? Shrek
QUOTE: Originally posted by jruppert I just saw a documentary on public television that showed how the military was being micromanaged by civilians during the Vietnam war, and subsequent military leaders over the years rebuilt the military avoid this ever happening again, with the success of the first gulf war being a reaffirmation of this movement. The documentary went on to show how the current administration has marginalized any leader in the military offering opinions not concurring with its agenda, leading to events behind current complaints of mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Could this be true? This administration in forcing their agenda on a resistant military ignored competant advice?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan There is one way you can get away with scraping Amtrak; out-source the job to VIA. I don't imagine we will allow indemnification though.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon congrats on the star ..you booger eatin, green swamp ogre[;)]
Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:45 PM Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Where have the fiscal conservatives gone? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 6:05 PM Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:00 PM There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. My father grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to serve family farmers coming to town by horse. My mother grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to maintain a few miles of the Katy RR and provide water and coal for steam locomotives. Before the Interstate highway system the old US highways went through the center of small towns along the way. Travelers from the city and small town shopkeepers depended on one another and knew each other. Now family farmers are disappearing, railroads need fewer people and city dwellers can bypass small town on the Interstate, in the air, and over the Internet. As a child I felt at home in small towns and on farms and my parents talked the same way in the city or the country. Now I look at the Red counties on the map and realize I never go there except occasionally speeding through on the Interstate. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. Bush has created an image of someone who doesn’t need the global economy but the jobs and stores and family farms will continue to disappear from Bush country. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Here, Here. Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. The maps which show the breakdown by county have very little Blue. California for instance 2/3 red. Many of the Red areas are not as backward as the elitists in the blue areas would like to believe. Many of the Blue areas are rotting at their core with a growing underclass kept down by the by the ill concieved policys and programs the elitists pu***o "help" them. There is a major disagreement on how to slove the problems. I am a "Red" voter. I am for freedom. I am for education. I am for helping people escape poverty. The policies pushed by the "blue" politicitions have not worked. Lyndon Johnson started a "war on poverty". Poverty is winning. Its time to change our tactics. I look at our schools. I see a few top students doing thing far beyond the level of the best students in my day, but I see far more who can not even read or do basic arithmatic at the level required for graduation 40 years ago. If it were not for an influx of well educated forigners, many business would have great trouble operating, the hospitials in my area would be gravely understaffed, especially with doctors. Many of the engineers I deal with are foreign born (although they usually received part of their education here) . Actually the split in the country by area is not as great as it looks. The State maps and statistics on the CNN site give a better picture http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ While their are exceptions both on the Red side and the Blue side, most of the country is fairly evenly split and as voting on other offices and issues show a vote for president is not necessairly a blanket endorcement of their perceived agenda. As far as Amtrak and other passenger rail services go, the people will express there will through their elected representatives at the local, state and federal level. Who is President does not really make a difference. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:27 PM ...If we could see a map of colors depicting exactly how we all voted we'd see generous amounts of both red and blue....The center of our country would not be all red but would have a portion of blue mixed with all the red....Same with both coasts and upper Great Lakes area..... As for expressing our will re: Amtrak through our representives...Sure that is the system, but the President can work his will somewhat on the system long before we have a chance to change anything through changes in our representives. Most people will agree in todays world the "programs" of the blue area are not a cure all but back in the 30's we may have dropped a bit lower if we wouldn't have had some of them to soften the blows all around us. Quentin Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:32 PM Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? 100, 2 per state Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:50 PM junctionfan, the united states senate has two senators representing each of our fifty states, ie, one hundred senators in all. may i ask why you would have made such an offensive comment about the american political scene if you have not at least a basic understanding of the subject. "Same cow patties, same pile. I just hope that the American majority know what they are doing. I hope they are careful and don't drown in the mounting pile of cow patties........" why is it always the job of americans to make the effort to understand and respect the needs and cultures of other nations? does it ever run both ways? Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:50 PM I don't like how politics in general work in Canada and the U.S. Politicians in general do a lousy job in office, don't keep their promises and never give straight answers. What kind of baffles me is that the U.S only votes for Democrats or Republican. They don't really give other parties a chance. In Canada, we have 5 groups in parliment. Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Independant. Soon we will likely see the Green Party gain some seats too. It just seems to me if you are not happy about either party (Republican or Democratic), maybe the American people should choose a different party. Me personally, I don't like the Liberals because they work themselves into political wedgees from sitting on the fence about almost every issue; the Conservatives are just a bunch of sherrifs of Nottingham stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I voted N.D.P. Of course the party didn't get in but the number of votes and seats in the house is growing. Andrew Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:56 PM Junctionfan....Interesting comments. "Never give straight answers"....Wonder if that will ever change...I doubt it as long as they're politicians. Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM i' m sorry you're unhappy with canada. i have visited your country and fine it a fine place with many decent people trying to do the best that they can.... a lot like the united states. Reply Edit jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM Amtrak will finally be "contracted out" and the Bush fallacy will be proven false! Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:53 PM Canada and United States are fine countries to live in. The problem is that the government isn't doing their jobs. It bugs me to no end to see great potential sullied by a bunch of insignificant do nothings who are suppose to represent the people's needs; not just themselves. They are suppose to do the job of care-taker/janitor of the country. All they do is play political games for political points and at the end of the term, try to get back in again, raise their salaries while the working class don't get anything and sit on their butts, ranting and raving like a bunch of foney bleeding heart liberals, pretending they actually give a damn. That is not the way I run my house so what makes thease "experts" think that they can run a country like that? Thease repugnent jerks are ruining our countries with their political games and their procastinating. I have little faith in the political system because they keep doing the same stupid things over and over again. I think thease universities and other ivy-league schools must preach and teach the traditions of ineffective governing so they do a "good job" once they get into office. After they smear each other in their campaigns, if there is a change, is it really? Don't you find that the platforms may be different and the candidates might be different but the actions and results are the same? I know democracy isn't perfect but come on; it's suppose to work a little bit better than what it is right now isn't it? Sorry folks for the ranting but I just can't stand our politicians. They don't really have any vision other than the one they are told to have either from the brain-washing from their universities, their party heads or their spin-doctor/ political advisors. I don't see much advancement as a society or any sign of advanced thinking in the government and I don't think we will until maybe a couple of hundred years from now when the rest of the world is far a head of us. Look at the ancient civilizations and the rate of advancements then and compare it to now; we should be far more advanced technologically speaking and socially as well. We have fallen behind thanks to politics either in a government or politics from religion (Vatican in the "Dark Ages") The middle east is a prime example of this. Look at the mighty Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians and now look at them.... What the heck is going on here? Why have we allowed this to happen? Andrew Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:01 PM Junctionfan In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. The founding fathers (pardon the politically incorrect phrase, but that is what they were) did not intend for their to be political parties and professional politicians. The intended that the people choose people the knew and trusted to meet and make the decisions for them. A knowlegeable friend pointed out to me the other day that the US is a "representative republic" (a term I had somehow not heard before). The US is not a "democracy" or even a "representative democracy" as it is often called. The political parties came about as a means for like minded persons to come together to promote their beliefs and policies and to choose and promote the election of canidates with whom they agreed. There is nothing sacred about the "two party" system. It just happens to be what evolved. Very Simplified History: Origionally there was only one party, the Federalist (Wig) Party. The Democratic Republican Party arose to chalenge the Wigs and eventually replaced them. We had a one party system for awhile, then the Republican Party formed to chalenge the Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republicans became the Democratic Party and the two party system we have today was born. There have been and are other parties in the US, but although some came close, none of them have so far gained broad enough support to become major players. If an agenda of a "third party" is gains broad support, one or both of the major parties adopt it, and the "third party" will whither away. For many years both major parties were actually fairly close their stands on most issues. Most of their differences were in detail and large numbers of people could feel comfortable in either party. The is no longer true. The Democrats claim that the Republicans have become too "right wing". I disagree. The Republicans are still a broadly based party. The Democrats are now largley dominited by the "radical left" and a coaliation pressure groups with different agendas that do not really reflect the beliefs of the majority of its registered membership. This is shown by the fact that "special agenda" proposals supported by the Democratic Party are not approved by the voters even in the States they "control". Ronald Reagan, when asked why he changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican said "I didn't leave the party, it left me" Retiring Democratic Senator Zell Miller recenently expressed the same sentiments. The recent Democratic candidate for president tried to hide his real beliefs and in fact in his speeches was inconsistent because he tailored his statements to fit the audiance. There are several other Democrats who would have been a much better choice for the party and would have given the voters a clear choice at the poles. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:32 PM Junctionfan, This continues as off-topic, but maybe it can shed some light. (Colorado defeated the change). Colorado's Crucial Vote America's federal system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities suited to this heterogeneous nation By George F. Will Newsweek Aug. 30 issue - November's most portentous vote is not for president. It is Colorado's vote on abandoning, beginning this year, the winner-take-all allocation of the state's electoral votes. Instead, they would be divided according to each candidate's percentage of the popular vote. This is a pernicious proposal, and not merely because one of its aims is partisan: if Colorado had had this system in 2000, its eight (now nine) electoral votes would have gone to Bush 5-3 instead of 8-0 and the six-vote swing would have elected Gore. The Colorado proposal, which may be a precursor of a nationwide drive to scrap the electoral-vote system, ignores how that system nurtures crucial political virtues. Winner-take-all allocation is a state choice, not a constitutional mandate, but 48 states have made it. Maine and Nebraska allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and award the two votes for the state's senators to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. America's constitutional system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities. It aims for majorities suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities. All 537 persons elected to national offices—the president, vice president, 100 senators and 435 representatives—are chosen by majorities that reflect the nation's federal nature. They are elected by majorities within states or within states' congressional districts. American majorities are not spontaneous; they are built. A two-party system builds moderate majorities by assembling them from coalitions of minorities. In multiparty systems, parties proliferate, each representing intense minorities. Then a group of parties strives to govern through (often unstable) coalitions improvised after the election. A two-party system is buttressed by an electoral system that handicaps minor parties by electing a single person from each jurisdiction, chosen by majority or plurality. In presidential elections, states are the jurisdictions. So in 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the popular vote but carried no state and won no electoral votes. Bill Clinton's 43 percent of the popular vote won him 68.8 percent of the electoral votes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson's 41.8 percent of the popular vote produced a strong presidency based on 81.9 percent of the electoral votes. If the proposed Colorado system had been used everywhere in 1992, Clinton would have led with just 236 electoral votes and the House would have selected the president. The House also would have selected in 1948 and 1968. Political scientist Judith Best notes that the electoral-vote system, combined with winner-take-all allocation, creates a "distribution condition." Candidates cannot just pile up popular votes in the most populous states. They must win many states, because legitimacy, and the capacity to govern this extensive republic, involves more than crude arithmetic. The federal principle, Best argues, prevents the most dangerous kinds of factions—racial, religious, economic—"from uniting their votes across state lines. It confines them within little republics and forces them to compromise early and often with their fellow state citizens." The 2000 election, the sixth in which the popular-vote margin between the winner and runner-up was less than 1 percent, was a reminder that the electoral-vote system quarantines electoral disputes. Imagine a close election—2000, or the 1960 election, in which Kennedy's margin over Nixon was just 118,574—under direct popular election. With all votes poured into a single national bucket, there would be powerful incentives to challenge the results in many thousands of the nation's 170,000 precincts. The outcome could remain murky for months, leaving whoever wins crippled by attenuated legitimacy. America has direct popular election of presidents, but has it within the states. As Best says, the states are not mere administrative agencies for a unitary government; they are components of a compound—a federal—republic. And today's electoral-vote system is not an 18th-century anachronism. It has evolved, shaping and being shaped by a large development the Constitution's Framers did not foresee—the two-party system. Under the Colorado proposal, almost all of that state's elections would result in 5-4 splits of its electoral votes. The one-vote prize would hardly be worth a Colorado stop by any candidate. Still, the proposal appeals to single-minded—hence simple-minded—majoritarians. And to some Kerry partisans who should be careful what they wish for. Suppose Kerry wins Colorado (in 2000 Bush won with 50.8 percent; Kerry's campaign says their man is leading today). And suppose winner-take-all is ended. Kerry will harvest five instead of nine electoral votes. He could lose the presidency by seven electoral votes (Gore lost by five), less than the eight-vote swing that Colorado's new system would produce. That would be poetic justice, the best kind. © 2004 Newsweek, Inc. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:29 PM I just get tired of the bull that is associated with politics in general. Would it be nice if who ever gets in power, they actually drop the partisan crap and get to work? In the process, wouldn't it be great if the politicians would do what they say they doing? Are you really satisfied with the politicans? I know I sound like a synic but why shouldn't I be? I can't think of to many instances where I would have said to myself "Now that's a good thing he or she did". I have heard the stories of how Congress intentionally set up Amtrak to fail; this is exceptable why? What kind of message does this send to future generations; that it's O.k to design a system that employs thousands of people and uses up billions of your tax money but don't worry because I will design it in such a way that the great investment of your money will mean nothing and now I can get rid of those thousands of workers and put them on welfare or unemployement using up even more of your money? Then they would profess that Amtrak fall is for the best of the country. No......it's the best for the railroads (ie) campaign contributors. How can people except a blatent misuse of money like that not to mention, you are going to cause unemployement and increase gridlock on the roads. I don't think people have really thought about the long-term consequences of their actions. It is like the myth that the Kyoto protocol in principal is a stupid idea. Who told you this, the oil companies, coal powered generating companies? What is the real motivation behind their so called good advice and concerns? What is the point of trying to stop global warming?-watch the movie Day after Tomarrow-that is the answer; saving our civilzation isn't less important than making just a bit more money I would hope. The point is, politicians are not doing their job whatever form of "democracy / republic" the government is doing because they are not doing it to better the people. Do you the people want your money to fail (Amtrak). If you were shareholders in some company, would you want the business to fail? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:49 PM Here's a few thoughts: 1. Unions. Republicans will continue to take action to erode the power of organized labor. Look for additional appointments to NMB and various other Federal Agencies including FRA, RRB and STB to be generally conservative. Also, look for major changes on the SUpreme Court and the balance of the Federal Bench to affect labor. 2. Amtrak. Although there are people including the administration that would like to terminate Amtrak, don't look at much of the Gil Carmichael Amtrak Board's recommendations to be implemented anytime soon. Plenty of strong Republican Senators and Congressmen value their Amtrak service, especially in the South. 3. Class 1s. Larger railroads will benefit from tighter Republican control of Presidency, House and Senate. 4. Short Lines. Having been noticed and contributed to Republican causes, short lines can be expected to continue pushing to advance their agenda through the ASLRRA and independently particularly efforts to overcome the 286,000 lbs challenge of infrastructure upgrade funding. LC Reply Edit joesap1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Tulsa, OK 140 posts Posted by joesap1 on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:13 PM I hope this doesn't degenerate into President bashing...I was listening to the Prairie Home Companion on the raidio tonight and ole whatshisface said, " Out of the election came some pretty good jokes." Then, there were a long series of jokes told, all anti-Bush. Such as, " What is the difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq? George Bush had a way out of the war in Viet Nam." Ha! Ha! Anyway, despite the Democrats acting like they love the poor, the minority's, and the unions, the fact is that they are like all politicians in that they use what they can to get elected. Therefore, it is only those who paid them big bucks that will get legislation that is slanted their way. So, as has been written previously- just more of the same. Some joksters will favor the railroad, so will not. To quote Will Rogers again: "When I make a joke it does hurt nobody, when congress makes a joke, it's a law." Joe Sapwater Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Sunday, November 7, 2004 1:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:16 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Our men and women in uniform not only need more than they get, they deserve more. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,053 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 7, 2004 4:22 AM Begin the terrorist to Begin the Statesman: Please know for certain that at the time of the Begin authorized bombing, (1) The Hotel was British Military Hq for Jerusalem and the only civilians present, including some Jews, were working for the British Military. (2) None of the terrorist groups active in Israel's War of Independence targeted any civiliians, only military targets, just as George Washington did. (3) The commander got a call from the Israeli underground advising him to evacuate the Hotel. His reply was "I don't take orders from Jews." That is why there were casualties. But I agree about Arabs in general, and I have some "Palestinian" friends. The conflict is really very artificial and British occupations, colonialism, have a great history of doing the opposite of making peace between the people they are ruling. Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakestan are a another example. Whabee Islam was something new, a desert tribe of maurauders have distorted what was a very tolerant religion. While the "moderates" are concerned about the terror that their educational system created and is now against their use of foreign experts and relations with the USA, some have continued to fund extremist schools and mosques in the USA itself. But there are some very fine Saudis, and hopefully their views will come to the fore shortly. But meanwhile, is a USA National Transportation Defense Bill necessary? Investigating how can the USA function if overseas oil supplies are cut off for any reason? Should the extra rail equipment and buses (hopfully hybrid) be stockpiled for such an emergency? How about a fleet of troop sleepers built to the outline of the new LIRR double deckers that DO fit through the Penn Sta. Tunnels and I would guess the Baltimore tunnels also, that can serve troops in time of emergency but also have curtians and removable panels to serve as "Sleepercoach II" for Amtrak? Economy sleepers have a long USA history and fit a market that is not addressed by Amtrak's current equipment. Should the slockpiled freight equipment be Roadrailers? What about containers that can be used not only on the highway and on rail but also in cargo planes? How much of the funding should come from the general revenue, from the Defense Budget, and from the Highway Trust Fund? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 8, 2004 1:39 PM [#offtopic][#offtopic][#offtopic]MR OR MS. MODERATOR: May it please the forum, I believe that this subject is about[xx(] (dead). May we plese move on, As an asside many of these topics would be good ones in their own right and would do well in individual threads. [tup] Reply Edit 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Where have the fiscal conservatives gone? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 6:05 PM Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:00 PM There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. My father grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to serve family farmers coming to town by horse. My mother grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to maintain a few miles of the Katy RR and provide water and coal for steam locomotives. Before the Interstate highway system the old US highways went through the center of small towns along the way. Travelers from the city and small town shopkeepers depended on one another and knew each other. Now family farmers are disappearing, railroads need fewer people and city dwellers can bypass small town on the Interstate, in the air, and over the Internet. As a child I felt at home in small towns and on farms and my parents talked the same way in the city or the country. Now I look at the Red counties on the map and realize I never go there except occasionally speeding through on the Interstate. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. Bush has created an image of someone who doesn’t need the global economy but the jobs and stores and family farms will continue to disappear from Bush country. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Here, Here. Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. The maps which show the breakdown by county have very little Blue. California for instance 2/3 red. Many of the Red areas are not as backward as the elitists in the blue areas would like to believe. Many of the Blue areas are rotting at their core with a growing underclass kept down by the by the ill concieved policys and programs the elitists pu***o "help" them. There is a major disagreement on how to slove the problems. I am a "Red" voter. I am for freedom. I am for education. I am for helping people escape poverty. The policies pushed by the "blue" politicitions have not worked. Lyndon Johnson started a "war on poverty". Poverty is winning. Its time to change our tactics. I look at our schools. I see a few top students doing thing far beyond the level of the best students in my day, but I see far more who can not even read or do basic arithmatic at the level required for graduation 40 years ago. If it were not for an influx of well educated forigners, many business would have great trouble operating, the hospitials in my area would be gravely understaffed, especially with doctors. Many of the engineers I deal with are foreign born (although they usually received part of their education here) . Actually the split in the country by area is not as great as it looks. The State maps and statistics on the CNN site give a better picture http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ While their are exceptions both on the Red side and the Blue side, most of the country is fairly evenly split and as voting on other offices and issues show a vote for president is not necessairly a blanket endorcement of their perceived agenda. As far as Amtrak and other passenger rail services go, the people will express there will through their elected representatives at the local, state and federal level. Who is President does not really make a difference. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:27 PM ...If we could see a map of colors depicting exactly how we all voted we'd see generous amounts of both red and blue....The center of our country would not be all red but would have a portion of blue mixed with all the red....Same with both coasts and upper Great Lakes area..... As for expressing our will re: Amtrak through our representives...Sure that is the system, but the President can work his will somewhat on the system long before we have a chance to change anything through changes in our representives. Most people will agree in todays world the "programs" of the blue area are not a cure all but back in the 30's we may have dropped a bit lower if we wouldn't have had some of them to soften the blows all around us. Quentin Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:32 PM Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? 100, 2 per state Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:50 PM junctionfan, the united states senate has two senators representing each of our fifty states, ie, one hundred senators in all. may i ask why you would have made such an offensive comment about the american political scene if you have not at least a basic understanding of the subject. "Same cow patties, same pile. I just hope that the American majority know what they are doing. I hope they are careful and don't drown in the mounting pile of cow patties........" why is it always the job of americans to make the effort to understand and respect the needs and cultures of other nations? does it ever run both ways? Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:50 PM I don't like how politics in general work in Canada and the U.S. Politicians in general do a lousy job in office, don't keep their promises and never give straight answers. What kind of baffles me is that the U.S only votes for Democrats or Republican. They don't really give other parties a chance. In Canada, we have 5 groups in parliment. Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Independant. Soon we will likely see the Green Party gain some seats too. It just seems to me if you are not happy about either party (Republican or Democratic), maybe the American people should choose a different party. Me personally, I don't like the Liberals because they work themselves into political wedgees from sitting on the fence about almost every issue; the Conservatives are just a bunch of sherrifs of Nottingham stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I voted N.D.P. Of course the party didn't get in but the number of votes and seats in the house is growing. Andrew Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:56 PM Junctionfan....Interesting comments. "Never give straight answers"....Wonder if that will ever change...I doubt it as long as they're politicians. Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM i' m sorry you're unhappy with canada. i have visited your country and fine it a fine place with many decent people trying to do the best that they can.... a lot like the united states. Reply Edit jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM Amtrak will finally be "contracted out" and the Bush fallacy will be proven false! Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:53 PM Canada and United States are fine countries to live in. The problem is that the government isn't doing their jobs. It bugs me to no end to see great potential sullied by a bunch of insignificant do nothings who are suppose to represent the people's needs; not just themselves. They are suppose to do the job of care-taker/janitor of the country. All they do is play political games for political points and at the end of the term, try to get back in again, raise their salaries while the working class don't get anything and sit on their butts, ranting and raving like a bunch of foney bleeding heart liberals, pretending they actually give a damn. That is not the way I run my house so what makes thease "experts" think that they can run a country like that? Thease repugnent jerks are ruining our countries with their political games and their procastinating. I have little faith in the political system because they keep doing the same stupid things over and over again. I think thease universities and other ivy-league schools must preach and teach the traditions of ineffective governing so they do a "good job" once they get into office. After they smear each other in their campaigns, if there is a change, is it really? Don't you find that the platforms may be different and the candidates might be different but the actions and results are the same? I know democracy isn't perfect but come on; it's suppose to work a little bit better than what it is right now isn't it? Sorry folks for the ranting but I just can't stand our politicians. They don't really have any vision other than the one they are told to have either from the brain-washing from their universities, their party heads or their spin-doctor/ political advisors. I don't see much advancement as a society or any sign of advanced thinking in the government and I don't think we will until maybe a couple of hundred years from now when the rest of the world is far a head of us. Look at the ancient civilizations and the rate of advancements then and compare it to now; we should be far more advanced technologically speaking and socially as well. We have fallen behind thanks to politics either in a government or politics from religion (Vatican in the "Dark Ages") The middle east is a prime example of this. Look at the mighty Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians and now look at them.... What the heck is going on here? Why have we allowed this to happen? Andrew Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:01 PM Junctionfan In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. The founding fathers (pardon the politically incorrect phrase, but that is what they were) did not intend for their to be political parties and professional politicians. The intended that the people choose people the knew and trusted to meet and make the decisions for them. A knowlegeable friend pointed out to me the other day that the US is a "representative republic" (a term I had somehow not heard before). The US is not a "democracy" or even a "representative democracy" as it is often called. The political parties came about as a means for like minded persons to come together to promote their beliefs and policies and to choose and promote the election of canidates with whom they agreed. There is nothing sacred about the "two party" system. It just happens to be what evolved. Very Simplified History: Origionally there was only one party, the Federalist (Wig) Party. The Democratic Republican Party arose to chalenge the Wigs and eventually replaced them. We had a one party system for awhile, then the Republican Party formed to chalenge the Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republicans became the Democratic Party and the two party system we have today was born. There have been and are other parties in the US, but although some came close, none of them have so far gained broad enough support to become major players. If an agenda of a "third party" is gains broad support, one or both of the major parties adopt it, and the "third party" will whither away. For many years both major parties were actually fairly close their stands on most issues. Most of their differences were in detail and large numbers of people could feel comfortable in either party. The is no longer true. The Democrats claim that the Republicans have become too "right wing". I disagree. The Republicans are still a broadly based party. The Democrats are now largley dominited by the "radical left" and a coaliation pressure groups with different agendas that do not really reflect the beliefs of the majority of its registered membership. This is shown by the fact that "special agenda" proposals supported by the Democratic Party are not approved by the voters even in the States they "control". Ronald Reagan, when asked why he changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican said "I didn't leave the party, it left me" Retiring Democratic Senator Zell Miller recenently expressed the same sentiments. The recent Democratic candidate for president tried to hide his real beliefs and in fact in his speeches was inconsistent because he tailored his statements to fit the audiance. There are several other Democrats who would have been a much better choice for the party and would have given the voters a clear choice at the poles. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:32 PM Junctionfan, This continues as off-topic, but maybe it can shed some light. (Colorado defeated the change). Colorado's Crucial Vote America's federal system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities suited to this heterogeneous nation By George F. Will Newsweek Aug. 30 issue - November's most portentous vote is not for president. It is Colorado's vote on abandoning, beginning this year, the winner-take-all allocation of the state's electoral votes. Instead, they would be divided according to each candidate's percentage of the popular vote. This is a pernicious proposal, and not merely because one of its aims is partisan: if Colorado had had this system in 2000, its eight (now nine) electoral votes would have gone to Bush 5-3 instead of 8-0 and the six-vote swing would have elected Gore. The Colorado proposal, which may be a precursor of a nationwide drive to scrap the electoral-vote system, ignores how that system nurtures crucial political virtues. Winner-take-all allocation is a state choice, not a constitutional mandate, but 48 states have made it. Maine and Nebraska allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and award the two votes for the state's senators to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. America's constitutional system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities. It aims for majorities suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities. All 537 persons elected to national offices—the president, vice president, 100 senators and 435 representatives—are chosen by majorities that reflect the nation's federal nature. They are elected by majorities within states or within states' congressional districts. American majorities are not spontaneous; they are built. A two-party system builds moderate majorities by assembling them from coalitions of minorities. In multiparty systems, parties proliferate, each representing intense minorities. Then a group of parties strives to govern through (often unstable) coalitions improvised after the election. A two-party system is buttressed by an electoral system that handicaps minor parties by electing a single person from each jurisdiction, chosen by majority or plurality. In presidential elections, states are the jurisdictions. So in 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the popular vote but carried no state and won no electoral votes. Bill Clinton's 43 percent of the popular vote won him 68.8 percent of the electoral votes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson's 41.8 percent of the popular vote produced a strong presidency based on 81.9 percent of the electoral votes. If the proposed Colorado system had been used everywhere in 1992, Clinton would have led with just 236 electoral votes and the House would have selected the president. The House also would have selected in 1948 and 1968. Political scientist Judith Best notes that the electoral-vote system, combined with winner-take-all allocation, creates a "distribution condition." Candidates cannot just pile up popular votes in the most populous states. They must win many states, because legitimacy, and the capacity to govern this extensive republic, involves more than crude arithmetic. The federal principle, Best argues, prevents the most dangerous kinds of factions—racial, religious, economic—"from uniting their votes across state lines. It confines them within little republics and forces them to compromise early and often with their fellow state citizens." The 2000 election, the sixth in which the popular-vote margin between the winner and runner-up was less than 1 percent, was a reminder that the electoral-vote system quarantines electoral disputes. Imagine a close election—2000, or the 1960 election, in which Kennedy's margin over Nixon was just 118,574—under direct popular election. With all votes poured into a single national bucket, there would be powerful incentives to challenge the results in many thousands of the nation's 170,000 precincts. The outcome could remain murky for months, leaving whoever wins crippled by attenuated legitimacy. America has direct popular election of presidents, but has it within the states. As Best says, the states are not mere administrative agencies for a unitary government; they are components of a compound—a federal—republic. And today's electoral-vote system is not an 18th-century anachronism. It has evolved, shaping and being shaped by a large development the Constitution's Framers did not foresee—the two-party system. Under the Colorado proposal, almost all of that state's elections would result in 5-4 splits of its electoral votes. The one-vote prize would hardly be worth a Colorado stop by any candidate. Still, the proposal appeals to single-minded—hence simple-minded—majoritarians. And to some Kerry partisans who should be careful what they wish for. Suppose Kerry wins Colorado (in 2000 Bush won with 50.8 percent; Kerry's campaign says their man is leading today). And suppose winner-take-all is ended. Kerry will harvest five instead of nine electoral votes. He could lose the presidency by seven electoral votes (Gore lost by five), less than the eight-vote swing that Colorado's new system would produce. That would be poetic justice, the best kind. © 2004 Newsweek, Inc. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:29 PM I just get tired of the bull that is associated with politics in general. Would it be nice if who ever gets in power, they actually drop the partisan crap and get to work? In the process, wouldn't it be great if the politicians would do what they say they doing? Are you really satisfied with the politicans? I know I sound like a synic but why shouldn't I be? I can't think of to many instances where I would have said to myself "Now that's a good thing he or she did". I have heard the stories of how Congress intentionally set up Amtrak to fail; this is exceptable why? What kind of message does this send to future generations; that it's O.k to design a system that employs thousands of people and uses up billions of your tax money but don't worry because I will design it in such a way that the great investment of your money will mean nothing and now I can get rid of those thousands of workers and put them on welfare or unemployement using up even more of your money? Then they would profess that Amtrak fall is for the best of the country. No......it's the best for the railroads (ie) campaign contributors. How can people except a blatent misuse of money like that not to mention, you are going to cause unemployement and increase gridlock on the roads. I don't think people have really thought about the long-term consequences of their actions. It is like the myth that the Kyoto protocol in principal is a stupid idea. Who told you this, the oil companies, coal powered generating companies? What is the real motivation behind their so called good advice and concerns? What is the point of trying to stop global warming?-watch the movie Day after Tomarrow-that is the answer; saving our civilzation isn't less important than making just a bit more money I would hope. The point is, politicians are not doing their job whatever form of "democracy / republic" the government is doing because they are not doing it to better the people. Do you the people want your money to fail (Amtrak). If you were shareholders in some company, would you want the business to fail? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:49 PM Here's a few thoughts: 1. Unions. Republicans will continue to take action to erode the power of organized labor. Look for additional appointments to NMB and various other Federal Agencies including FRA, RRB and STB to be generally conservative. Also, look for major changes on the SUpreme Court and the balance of the Federal Bench to affect labor. 2. Amtrak. Although there are people including the administration that would like to terminate Amtrak, don't look at much of the Gil Carmichael Amtrak Board's recommendations to be implemented anytime soon. Plenty of strong Republican Senators and Congressmen value their Amtrak service, especially in the South. 3. Class 1s. Larger railroads will benefit from tighter Republican control of Presidency, House and Senate. 4. Short Lines. Having been noticed and contributed to Republican causes, short lines can be expected to continue pushing to advance their agenda through the ASLRRA and independently particularly efforts to overcome the 286,000 lbs challenge of infrastructure upgrade funding. LC Reply Edit joesap1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Tulsa, OK 140 posts Posted by joesap1 on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:13 PM I hope this doesn't degenerate into President bashing...I was listening to the Prairie Home Companion on the raidio tonight and ole whatshisface said, " Out of the election came some pretty good jokes." Then, there were a long series of jokes told, all anti-Bush. Such as, " What is the difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq? George Bush had a way out of the war in Viet Nam." Ha! Ha! Anyway, despite the Democrats acting like they love the poor, the minority's, and the unions, the fact is that they are like all politicians in that they use what they can to get elected. Therefore, it is only those who paid them big bucks that will get legislation that is slanted their way. So, as has been written previously- just more of the same. Some joksters will favor the railroad, so will not. To quote Will Rogers again: "When I make a joke it does hurt nobody, when congress makes a joke, it's a law." Joe Sapwater Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Sunday, November 7, 2004 1:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:16 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Our men and women in uniform not only need more than they get, they deserve more. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,053 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 7, 2004 4:22 AM Begin the terrorist to Begin the Statesman: Please know for certain that at the time of the Begin authorized bombing, (1) The Hotel was British Military Hq for Jerusalem and the only civilians present, including some Jews, were working for the British Military. (2) None of the terrorist groups active in Israel's War of Independence targeted any civiliians, only military targets, just as George Washington did. (3) The commander got a call from the Israeli underground advising him to evacuate the Hotel. His reply was "I don't take orders from Jews." That is why there were casualties. But I agree about Arabs in general, and I have some "Palestinian" friends. The conflict is really very artificial and British occupations, colonialism, have a great history of doing the opposite of making peace between the people they are ruling. Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakestan are a another example. Whabee Islam was something new, a desert tribe of maurauders have distorted what was a very tolerant religion. While the "moderates" are concerned about the terror that their educational system created and is now against their use of foreign experts and relations with the USA, some have continued to fund extremist schools and mosques in the USA itself. But there are some very fine Saudis, and hopefully their views will come to the fore shortly. But meanwhile, is a USA National Transportation Defense Bill necessary? Investigating how can the USA function if overseas oil supplies are cut off for any reason? Should the extra rail equipment and buses (hopfully hybrid) be stockpiled for such an emergency? How about a fleet of troop sleepers built to the outline of the new LIRR double deckers that DO fit through the Penn Sta. Tunnels and I would guess the Baltimore tunnels also, that can serve troops in time of emergency but also have curtians and removable panels to serve as "Sleepercoach II" for Amtrak? Economy sleepers have a long USA history and fit a market that is not addressed by Amtrak's current equipment. Should the slockpiled freight equipment be Roadrailers? What about containers that can be used not only on the highway and on rail but also in cargo planes? How much of the funding should come from the general revenue, from the Defense Budget, and from the Highway Trust Fund? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 8, 2004 1:39 PM [#offtopic][#offtopic][#offtopic]MR OR MS. MODERATOR: May it please the forum, I believe that this subject is about[xx(] (dead). May we plese move on, As an asside many of these topics would be good ones in their own right and would do well in individual threads. [tup] Reply Edit 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg]
QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there?
QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.