BNSF prostrates itself [bow] before the feet of it's Chinese Overlords.

[Anonymous]

Lotus. Go to your room! You're grounded! No Train simulator, no coloring books, no assault rifles (yeah right). Don't come out until you can speak from experience. You say 85% of the pop doesn't think.....hell that's you. You only speak what you have been programmed. When you are off of restrictions you are ordered to chase girls and become a normal boy. You are dismissed.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Rush is a lying moron.

I know I am not supposed to talk back to me elders. But, have you ever listened to him? Until you do you have no experience as to what he says, listen to him for just a hour and tell me that again. Note I said listen to him, don’t listen to what democraps tell you about, or what you are sure he says. I only speak what I have been programmed, who may I ask is programming me into writing Train Trivia questions; Rush sure he talks about trains, not?

James, right-wing radical, steak munchin, AR-15 shootin, St. Lois Hawken ownin, Constitution reading, Marine to be, American. And proud of it.

[Junctionfan]

Your attitude-you would have the U.S plunge into a major war with China. Is that really a good idea-use some intelligence based on research. The U.S as mighty as they are, can not without serious losses, engage in a conventional war with a mighty country like China. China isn't the middle east or some of the other countries; you fight with them, you are in a MAJOR fight.

War is supposed to be avoided if possible-hence diplomacy. Try a more diplomatic approach Lotus; non-violent attacks can be more effective than violent ones in a lot of cases. Welcome to 21st century thinking.

[Anonymous]

I knew if we got Andrew and Lotus Blossom on the same thread we'd have fireworks...LOL...

Pass the popcorn back here willya?

LC

[Anonymous]

So, it's only conservatives who have an attitude problem, eh JF? The lefties *NEVER* exhibit a hostile attitude on these forums, do they.

Back to the topic at hand:

Juxtapose BNSF's capacity improvements for it's import intermodal corridor with CP's Mt. MacDonanld project last decade. The CP project was intended to improve the westward flow of export goods by rail, e.g. coal, grain, et al, and it has. It seems the Canadian railroad hierarchy has more of a clue than the US railroad hierarchy.

[Anonymous]

I am not for fighting China, I just don't think we should be making them our allies. Why should we send our leaders over their like they are some great freind. Regan managed to deafeat the soviets without firing a shot, yes you are right. The Arnie joke was a joke, I don't want to see World War 4 any more than anybody else.

[espeefoamer]

I listen to Rush all the time. I think he is really cool.I agree with him most of the time.
Remember: Under Communism,Man exploits man. Under Capitalism,it's the other way around.( Quote from an old copy of Mad Magazine).

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

I'll make this simple so that even the lefties can understand:

Import intermodal < revenue adequacy

captive domestic production > revenue adequacy

I find it funny that a so called "conservative" doesn't understand the concept of a company making money, even after using the term "revenue" after the less than and more than signs.

The key word is "Revenue" as in "the company making money" (wow, you'd almost think we had an economic system that encourages such a thing). Like it or not, the powers that be in DC have pushed us into the trade with China, and the freight will have to be moved (IIRC that's what the BNSF does). Do you honestly think that them turning down the business will suddenly make your world all rosy again? A small business reality: another transportation company will take the business of moving the freight. If the money is there to pay the transportation bill, it will be moved. BNSF sounds like they're going after the business first.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Hey Benham, Rush is a lying moron. If you don't want shots to be taken at you, don't shoot at others ie Liberals. You may go back to your Conservative hole.....I'm done.

You lefty types can't aim and can only shoot blanks, so there's no need to fear such potshots.

BTW, when has Rush Limbaugh ever lied? You may not like his POV, and if you want to call him a moron that is your subjective opinion, but to call someone a liar you need objective proof, otherwise you turn out to be the moron.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

I knew if we got Andrew and Lotus Blossom on the same thread we'd have fireworks...LOL...

Pass the popcorn back here willya?

LC

Sorry guys, just had to throw another log on the fire.

We ARE popping the corn over an open fire, right?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

I'll make this simple so that even the lefties can understand:

Import intermodal < revenue adequacy

captive domestic production > revenue adequacy

I find it funny that a so called "conservative" doesn't understand the concept of a company making money, even after using the term "revenue" after the less than and more than signs.

The key word is "Revenue" as in "the company making money" (wow, you'd almost think we had an economic system that encourages such a thing). Like it or not, the powers that be in DC have pushed us into the trade with China, and the freight will have to be moved (IIRC that's what the BNSF does). Do you honestly think that them turning down the business will suddenly make your world all rosy again? A small business reality: another transportation company will take the business of moving the freight. If the money is there to pay the transportation bill, it will be moved. BNSF sounds like they're going after the business first.

Tom,

Do you even have a clue as to the reference to "revenue adequacy"?

And who said anything about BNSF turning down business? Certainly in past threads I have provided evidence of such.

No, what we're talking about here is the fact that the lowest ratios of revenues to variable costs occur in the import intermodal business. They are barely covering their variable costs with this import "business", which means under STB definitions import intermodal actually loses money for the railroads. That's probably why they have to use revenues from captive grain and coal shippers to further expand this money losing import intermodal business. We all know that they could never use the *revenues* from import intermodal to pay for the capacity expansions of these corridors.

Also, it might shock you to learn that we are not engaged in "trade" with China, so much as we are engaged in a permanent act of trade deficit expansion with China. That doesn't mean China wouldn't gladly accept our grain exports if it was the most price competitive, but because of US rail captivity the price of US grain overseas is higher than the prices of Canadian and Australian wheat. Canada addresses rail captivity by subsidizing grain exports, Australia has an open access rail system so grain exports get a competitive rail rate to port, while we in the US get the shaft from the STB with their steadfast refusal to implement the vague dust-covered competition caveats of the Staggers Act.

I don't mind Chinese imports being gifted by competitive rail rates, as long as our domestic producers get the same gift. If the railroads are going to give it away, they should give it away to their fellow Americans, not a neo-communist regime.

[jeaton]

Well... certainly half the truth is better than none.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

So, it's only conservatives who have an attitude problem, eh JF? The lefties *NEVER* exhibit a hostile attitude on these forums, do they.

Back to the topic at hand:

Juxtapose BNSF's capacity improvements for it's import intermodal corridor with CP's Mt. MacDonanld project last decade. The CP project was intended to improve the westward flow of export goods by rail, e.g. coal, grain, et al, and it has. It seems the Canadian railroad hierarchy has more of a clue than the US railroad hierarchy.

Don't get me wrong. I am proud to be leftist socialist but my politics has no bearing on the U.S way of government and general political structure of today. The U.S is a rather capitalist society so you can't blame a railroad in the U.S for staying in the realm of allowed capitalist practices. Like I said, the blame is the government and the change needs to be with the government and the people who vote for those pinheads.

As far as Canada goes. Our government is much more relaxed and we aren't as big on capitalism as you are. That is why the railroads are the way they are; because the society of Canada will not allow the railroads the same privalages as the U.S because we are Canada just like you won't be like Canada because you are the U.S.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

I'll make this simple so that even the lefties can understand:

Import intermodal < revenue adequacy

captive domestic production > revenue adequacy

I find it funny that a so called "conservative" doesn't understand the concept of a company making money, even after using the term "revenue" after the less than and more than signs.

The key word is "Revenue" as in "the company making money" (wow, you'd almost think we had an economic system that encourages such a thing). Like it or not, the powers that be in DC have pushed us into the trade with China, and the freight will have to be moved (IIRC that's what the BNSF does). Do you honestly think that them turning down the business will suddenly make your world all rosy again? A small business reality: another transportation company will take the business of moving the freight. If the money is there to pay the transportation bill, it will be moved. BNSF sounds like they're going after the business first.

Tom,

Do you even have a clue as to the reference to "revenue adequacy"?

And who said anything about BNSF turning down business? Certainly in past threads I have provided evidence of such.

No, what we're talking about here is the fact that the lowest ratios of revenues to variable costs occur in the import intermodal business. They are barely covering their variable costs with this import "business", which means under STB definitions import intermodal actually loses money for the railroads. That's probably why they have to use revenues from captive grain and coal shippers to further expand this money losing import intermodal business. We all know that they could never use the *revenues* from import intermodal to pay for the capacity expansions of these corridors.

Also, it might shock you to learn that we are not engaged in "trade" with China, so much as we are engaged in a permanent act of trade deficit expansion with China. That doesn't mean China wouldn't gladly accept our grain exports if it was the most price competitive, but because of US rail captivity the price of US grain overseas is higher than the prices of Canadian and Australian wheat. Canada addresses rail captivity by subsidizing grain exports, Australia has an open access rail system so grain exports get a competitive rail rate to port, while we in the US get the shaft from the STB with their steadfast refusal to implement the vague dust-covered competition caveats of the Staggers Act.

I don't mind Chinese imports being gifted by competitive rail rates, as long as our domestic producers get the same gift. If the railroads are going to give it away, they should give it away to their fellow Americans, not a neo-communist regime.

So you're trying to say the revenue isn't adequate for BNSF to provide this service? How is that different than saying they are losing money to provide this service? They won't stay in business long doing that. What exactly are they "giving away?" Current revenues and assets are always used to expand services, not just in railroading but in any business, regardless of whether you think the rates are fair to the shippers.

So what exactly ARE you saying BNSF should do about this business, if not turn it down? Sit back and let a competitor take it?

Bulk services, ie moving large quantites of freight from point A (the west coast docks in this case) to point B (intermodal transloading facilities) is the cheapest service they provide due to the minimal handling and yarding, and as such should demand the lowest price to provide the service. Add dock handling and loading, plus transfer facility unloading and trucking, you get the total price of the transporation service. If BNSF is contracting to provide the whole ship-to-loading-dock service, their bid will include these services. They didn't get as big and remain fluid and solvent (unlike another western railroad we all know and love) by providing transportation services at a loss.

Again, this "engagement of trade" or "permanent act of trade deficit expansion" is not a policy that was set up by the BNSF or any other railroad in this country. It was set up by the weenies in DC, starting with Nixon and finalized by Dubya and his boys. For a company to make a profit off of what you seem to think is a bad government decision is the American way, just like the Halliburton Companies did.

You think they ought to provide transportation services to "captive domestic shippers" at the same cut rates which you think would be equivlent to what they're charging to move the Chinese intermodal traffic? That has got to be the most Liberal thing I think I've EVER heard you say.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: I am proud to be leftist socialist

If only Tom and Jeaton, and vsmith would be so honest.

James, 'tater munching, coke guzzlng, flag wavin, American. And proud of it.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: I am proud to be leftist socialist

If only Tom and Jeaton, and vsmith would be so honest.

James, 'tater munching, coke guzzlng, flag wavin, American. And proud of it.

You haven't figured out that I'm a Liberal Conservative?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: ...starting with Nixon and finalized by Dubya and his boys.

Just what did they do?

[?]Tom, what the hell is a Liberal Conservative?[?] Liberals are on one side conservatives are on the other.

James, A Liberty lovin, SUV drivin, American. And proud of it.

[Anonymous]

Lotus, yes I have listened to ex-druggie Rush. He is a ***! I am a "Democrat," you accidentally misspelled the word. About train trivia....you know squat about railroading. You are proficient at reading and regurgitating.....that's all. Now go back to your room before I spank your little butt and make you cry.

[selector]

QUOTE:
As far as Canada goes. Our government is much more relaxed and we aren't as big on capitalism as you are. That is why the railroads are the way they are; because the society of Canada will not allow the railroads the same privalages as the U.S because we are Canada just like you won't be like Canada because you are the U.S.

Of course our government is relaxed. With one of the highest marginal income tax rates in the industrial world, and GST too boot, they can afford to lay back and spend, spend, spend...just like what we have recently been promised. And remember, not so long ago the government ran direct, subsidized competition against CPR and Canadian Airlines. It still does it with medicare and with the CBC..mothercorp.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: ...starting with Nixon and finalized by Dubya and his boys.

Just what did they do?

[?]Tom, what the hell is a Liberal Conservative?[?] Liberals are on one side conservatives are on the other.

James, A Liberty lovin, SUV drivin, American. And proud of it.

Tricky Dicky was the first US President to visit Communist China, getting the "foot in the door" to open trade talks. The current high level of trade has come about in the last few years, as in the reign of Dubya.

I was kind of hoping you'd see the irony in the contradiction of terms. I'm Liberal in some things and Conservative in others, meaning, I don't believe there is such a thing as a pure Conservative or a pure Liberal. Futuremodal ALMOST had me convinced I was wrong until his last post with that Liberal opinion.

[Anonymous]

Tom,

So other than visit China we have "done" nothing. Maybe if we could get the governement out of the way and let the free market work things would work.


Ah, so your one of those moderates, a middle of the roader. Well you know the old saying the only thing you find in the middle of the roads are white lines, and road kill.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Lotus, yes I have listened to ex-druggie Rush. He is a ***! I am a "Democrat," you accidentally misspelled the word. About train trivia....you know squat about railroading. You are proficient at reading and regurgitating.....that's all. Now go back to your room before I spank your little butt and make you cry.

Now Ken, let's try to stay on subject.

You're starting to take the fun out of this.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Tom,

So other than visit China we have "done" nothing. Maybe if we could get the governement out of the way and let the free market work things would work.


Ah, so your one of those moderates, a middle of the roader. Well you know the old saying the only thing you find in the middle of the roads are white lines, and road kill.

No, a Moderate never takes sides. I thought my last 100 or so comments would have proven that point. Of course there are times I enjoy playing "Devil's Advocate."

When a head of state visits another country, it's not like you or me going on a sightseeing vacation. There is, at the very least, diplomatic reasons behind the visit.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Lotus, yes I have listened to ex-druggie Rush. He is a ***! I am a "Democrat," you accidentally misspelled the word. About train trivia....you know squat about railroading. You are proficient at reading and regurgitating.....that's all.

So, smarty, what did Rush say when you listened that was a lie?

QUOTE: Now go back to your room before I spank your little butt and make you cry.

Go ahead make my day!

Well, do ya feel lucky?
Well do ya, punk.

James, a real American, and proud of it.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Lotus, yes I have listened to ex-druggie Rush. He is a ***! I am a "Democrat," you accidentally misspelled the word. About train trivia....you know squat about railroading. You are proficient at reading and regurgitating.....that's all.

So, smarty, what did Rush say when you listened that was a lie?

QUOTE: Now go back to your room before I spank your little butt and make you cry.

Go ahead make my day!

Well, do ya feel lucky?
Well do ya, punk.

James, a real American, and proud of it.

Wrong picture James, but right actor. The quote is from "Dirty Harry" a more current LA Cop.

[Anonymous]

I know that, but that one is much more impressive, just look at those revolvers.

[photogeek88]

I would think you would support the idea of helping employees here in AMERICA, Lotus098...seeing as you're all keen on patriotism. The last time I checked, the American Dream was not, "screw everyone else, as long as you're fine." I'm seventeen, and a Union member of Local 881 UFCW. It might not be a great idea for a part-time student only making $7.20, with $7 a week going to the union. But I know for certain that some seventeen year old making tennis shoes in China isn't going to be able to save enough money to go to a first rate university, like I am. Nor is he going to transfer to another branch of that factory in the town where his university is, be able to work part time while in school, and stay in the union to keep some basic health benefits while he tries to support himself away from his family. 'Oh, those commies in China will pay for his health benefits and education' I hear you thinking. Well, let me tell you, China is a pretty sore excuse for Communism. I know it might be a little off topic, but hopefully it will give you something to think about. If you don't like the government spending money, maybe you shouldn't support companies that drain our national treasury because they don't pay their employees enough to get off of food stamps.

What happened to "help your fellow man?"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by photogeek88

I would think you would support the idea of helping employees here in AMERICA, Lotus098...seeing as you're all keen on patriotism. The last time I checked, the American Dream was not, "screw everyone else, as long as you're fine." I'm seventeen, and a Union member of Local 881 UFCW. It might not be a great idea for a part-time student only making $7.20, with $7 a week going to the union. But I know for certain that some seventeen year old making tennis shoes in China isn't going to be able to save enough money to go to a first rate university, like I am. Nor is he going to transfer to another branch of that factory in the town where his university is, be able to work part time while in school, and stay in the union to keep some basic health benefits while he tries to support himself away from his family. 'Oh, those commies in China will pay for his health benefits and education' I hear you thinking. Well, let me tell you, China is a pretty sore excuse for Communism. I know it might be a little off topic, but hopefully it will give you something to think about. If you don't like the government spending money, maybe you shouldn't support companies that drain our national treasury because they don't pay their employees enough to get off of food stamps.

What happened to "help your fellow man?"

Now I won't agrue about China, but what do you propose to do?
Now exactly where do you get your idea "they don't pay their employees enough to get off of food stamps" who are we talking about? You know people can always quite thier jobs.

James, following the American dream of freedom and indepence from governement.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

I know that, but that one is much more impressive, just look at those revolvers.

But Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum was certainly impressive.

[photogeek88]

Keep jobs in America! The Chinese aren't going to get any stronger if we don't stop feeding the fire! Outlaw trade with China, and when they put up a fight, nuke 'em!

That should be reasonable in your eyes.