Implications of a Republican sweep.....

[Modelcar]

...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....

[Anonymous]

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[^]

[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...

[RudyRockvilleMD]

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.

[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.

[Junctionfan]

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.[:(]

[Anonymous]

Yeah as if it Wasn't Already

[jeffhergert]

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.

[Anonymous]

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]

[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.

[vsmith]

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.

[Junctionfan]

What religion is Bush? I know Kerry is Roman Catholic but was is Bush?

[Anonymous]

To which one of mine would retort to you as " MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES"[bow]

[vsmith]

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"

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

[ajmiller]

I don't think McCain will run again. He had his shot 4 years ago. It'd be like Bob Dole running in 1996

[Anonymous]

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.

[fuzzybroken]

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

[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

[kevarc]

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.

[Junctionfan]

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)

[fuzzybroken]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[kevarc]

I have no doubt about that, but we also have a large impact on them also.

[SALfan]

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.

[jeaton]

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.

[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.

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.

[fuzzybroken]

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