Re: anyone know any good truck driver newsgroups?

Zeke wrote:
"gringo" <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yVdbg.48828$Kn4.27455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am happy for you. I too am satisfied with quality used. My Lumina
has 259,000 on it. My in-laws (who depend on Becky and I for much of
their living expenses) trade in every two years for a new pickup. Yeah,
I know: but I cannot tell my wife, no we will not put food on their
table or buy their medicines.

Subsidising your in-laws new pickup every 2 years isn't very smart. You are
familiar with the term "enabler" are you not. But that is your choice. I
have learned how to say "NO" to bad behavior.


Didn't claim it was smart. I will not, however, allow my inlaws to die suffering from lack of proper medicine or nutrition. Besides, if I did, like you, harden my heart to the world around me, those two would in fact soon pass away, and guess who'd have to heal my wife's grief, who'd have to pay for the burials and settle their outstanding bills. They are only inlaws, that I don't particularly respect. But what if they were MY parents? "Phuck" you, Dad, now DIE? If you are so insensitive, I do not envy you-- in fact, I pity you.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but at 43 I already have in IRA's and 401K's
over $600,000. Using the rule of seven's, if I contribute no more and
it
doubles every 7 years... do you get the idea? I started doing this when
I
was 21 years old Gringo. Time is on my side.

So, in 22 years, saving $50k per year, you would have accumulated a mere
$110,000, excluding interest. And I dare say that you didn't begin
earning this much until at least a few years ago. To arrive at $600,000
in savings in 22 years, you'd have to have been putting away
considerably more than your entire earnings. George Dubya would kill
you for a 600% return on investment after only 20 years. Either your
wife earns several times your earnings and saves most of it, or you are
shooting me a line. I am not biting.


I'm suprised by you. You claim to have passed the CPA exam, yet you do not
understand anything about long term investing. I'm not putting this kind of
money into a simple savings account. I started investing in mutual funds in
the S&P 500 index in 1983. I've got a military officer to thank for that
when he drug our entire platoon to a Gasthaus in Germany to listen to a
financial planner. Only a couple of us took up with the plan, but I'm sure
glad I did. After getting out of the service I spent some time learning
more about long term investing. That is when I discovered no-load mutual
funds.
Why do you not figure into my savings things like market appreciation?
Dividends? Tax deferred growth? I had one fund in 1999-2000 that gained
96.9% in one year. I made a shitload of money that year. Check out the
Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund if you doubt me.


Six hundred percent growth? On no-risk bonds, etc? BS.

Since my Associates degree in accounting didn't qualify me to sit for the formal CPA exam, I do not hold a CPA certificate; I did, however, as explained, complete and pass the exam on my first attempt with an 81 (most applicants fail the exam the first two times they attempt it). I worked in the field for many years; I have been CFO of a Texas corporation auto dealership; I operated my own bookkeeping and tax service for six years. I was very good at it-- but I despised the work, it bored the hell out of me. I closed my ledgers and left the field in 1976. I still do my own taxes, but I wouldn't dream of taking on anyone else's.

I still, however, understand that your claimed 600% rate of return is ridiculously inflated. And, remember, that 600% is based on your having saved every individual dime of your earnings for 22 years--and you definitely were not earning $50k 22 years ago. This, of course, is in addition to your claiming to have lived fairly high on the hog all your life. Oh, with the exception of depriving your child of the small pleasure of cable (at $20 or less per month). Sorry, Charlie-- you still don't qualify for Star Kissed. I am not biting this fat worm you are wagging. As to the wife's substantial earnings: if you have used even a nickel of it for living expenses and/or investments, then this alone negates your entire argument; that anyone can become a millionaire in a few years on even a trucker's earnings. So, either way, you lose this argument.



I listen to Bob Brinker on the radio on weekends when I'm driving. I've
learned tons about investing just listening to his show. Another guy I
listen to is Dave Ramsey. He taught me ordinary concepts about money that
the experts seem to have forgotten. He convinced me to stop buying new cars
every couple of years. He is the one that taught me that paying cash for
everything without incurring debt is the way to build wealth. If I can't
pay cash for it, I cannot afford it! How freaking simple is that concept?
The only exception is the home mortgage. You really need to check him out if
you ever want to get out of your self imposed mediocraty.

Wow. He taught you this astounding success plan fairly recently, I take it. He's been on-air for only fifteen years--syndicated for a much shorter period, and one can safely assume that during most of that time you could not listen to him, him being in Boston and you in the Northwest.

Hey, where the *** do you get off, telling me that I am living in mediocraty? That you now spout the Gospel According to Bob does not mean that one word of your story is anything more than the gilded pewter of a right wing rich-boy wannabe.

You gonna keep throwing personal slurs at me? what, can't you tolerate being accused of excited exaggerations without transmogrifying into RoughTrader?

BTW, I listen to him, and Bruce Williams as well. I don't take the fuckers as god, however. Dave Ramsey I think is largely full of ***.



New York city is a liberal haven, yet they have the highest local and
state
taxes in the US. Even the middle class has to pay, pay, pay Gringo.
Don't
forget the hidden taxes that everyone has to pay: property tax, vehicle
registration tax, sales tax, gas tax, cigarette tax (another tax on
stupidity), etc, etc, etc. I guess the middle class doesn't have to pay
any
of those taxes.
And are you aware that the standard of living there is much higher than
it is in say, Ala with its lower taxes?


The standard of living may be higher, but their quality of life certainly
isn't.

Hey, depends on which side of the tracks you live. You, you're upper crust-almost-a-millionaire level, right? You'd be living in a high rise, and me, in my mediocrity, would be living in a rat infested slum? You need to get over yourself. You, too, are nothing more than a working stiff, no better and no worse than 95% of other lower middle class working stiffs.

And, BTW, why did you even mention NYC? what, pray tell, did it have to do with our discussion of your exaggerations? Another effort to slither around the claims you've made?

Every one of Bush's tax cuts have had to be paid for somewhere. To
partially pay for them, he has cut social spending, highway spending,
etc--and states, local governments have had to take up the slack;
therefore, local taxes increased while bush's wealthy enjoy big tax cuts.

Do you understand the simple fact that the US economy is growing? Tax cuts
pay for themselves by generating more economic activity.

Fallacy of Reaganomics. Flooding the economy with $6 trillion in deficit spending fueled ronnie's "miracle."

Congress has outspent its own income in 45 of the last 50 years, thereby running up deficits by over $5 trillion. But $4 trillion of those deficits were created in just the last 20 years. And then President Bush's budget submission this last February projected $3 trillion more of deficits in the next 6 years.

That clearly isn't something Republicans want everyone to know about. So it disguises what it is doing. How? In three simple steps: (1) it takes out all the (really "off-budget") excess money coming into the Social Security retirement fund, that is supposed to be saved for future retirees' checks, (2) considers it as "income" for Congress and uses it all to pay Congress's own bills, and then (3) subtracts that "income" from Congress's own losses and reports only the total to the public as "the" budget.

But people might actually get alarmed if they knew that Bush and Repugnant Congress itself really spent about $1.42 for every $1.00 of its own income tax revenue in both fiscal 2003 and 2004, setting all-time percentage and dollar deficit records. So President Bush has assured us that "deficit reduction" will cut "the" deficit in half by 2009. Was he joking, or does he believe that we are all as stupid as his few remaining supporters.

The total budget deficit for 2004 had been projected to be $521 billion, far and away the highest ever. But in fact the actual 2004 deficit came in at "only" $412 billion, thus still setting a new national record.

Now guess what the starting point for measuring "deficit reduction" was picked to be? You're right: the never-realized $521 billion budget of 2004! In other words, the deficit is to be reduced from a level that it never (thankfully) even reached. Slick, huh?

And the goal is to cut that $521 billion in half, meaning that the goal is to cut $261 billion out of the total deficit annually by 2009.

The Social Security surplus was $155 billion in 2004 and is projected to be $230 billion in 2009. All that revenue is supposed to be "saved" to pay the future retirement checks of the baby boomers. Taking that additional $75 billion a year out of the retirement fund and spending it is the second big way that "the" total reported deficit will be "reduced". The more Congress can take out of the retirement fund and spend, the better their reported deficit looks.

So if we keep Social Security out of the totals, Congress's real plan is to "cut" its own deficit by only the remaining $77 billion. That is only about 4% of the expected total that Congress anticipates spending in 2009.

As a result, President Bush's recent budget submission projects that, when "deficit reduction" is completed, Congress itself will really have in the year 2009 an ("on-budget") deficit of $463 billion. That is still spending of about $1.24 for every $1.00 of income tax revenue. And meanwhile government spending is forecast to go up by $600 billion per year, or 45%, in just the five years from 2004 to 2009.

Of course in the five years through 2009, almost $1 trillion will be in effect embezzled from the retirement fund and spent to cover the government's perpetual appetite. So by the year 2009 Congress will be able to cover up its own actual annual $463 billion deficit by subtracting the $230 billion taken from Social Security, and telling us that "the" (net) deficit will thereby be "only" $233 billion that year.

If those in Washington wonder why inflation is coming on, why everyone is alarmed about the prospects for retirement income, and why the dollar is headed further down the tubes in the foreign currency markets, they should realize that the rest of the world does know what is going on, even if Congress doesn't.

You cannot spend your way out of a financial black hole. Governments cannot; you cannot-- which you apparently understand. Too bad your Conservative political heroes don't.

It isn't a zero
sum gain thing. The pie doesn't stay the same size Gringo. Case in point:
I used to live in another state right on the border with Oregon. Oregon has
no sales tax. Where do you think everyone went to do their shopping? There
was tons of economic activity right there across the state line.
The same thing happens with the treasury. After taxes are cut, money taken
in drops for a short period, but then it increases above previous levels due
to increased economic activity. "Paying for Tax Cuts" is a fear tactic used
by the liberals to convince people that do not understand basic economics
that the sky is falling. The issue is Congress cannot stop spending more
than they take in.

Read the former explanation of bush/repugnut budgeting, and weep.

Tax cuts to the wealthy, they'll reinvest the savings, right? You know anything about capital gains tax? Until Bush began screwing with it, the capital gains tax *penalized* big business and big investors for taking a huge capital gains profit and putting it in their pocket. The tax did not even apply *if the capital gains were reinvested within (it was once, don't know about recently) five full years!* Now, the capital gains can be spent on a new yacht or trips to Vail, which do very little to stimulate the creation of new jobs. This is just one of the big lies of Reaganomic tax breaks for the rich.

One of the most egregious provisions of the Bush stimulus plan is the retroactive repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT). The corporate AMT was signed into law by President Reagan to close loopholes that allowed many corporations with billions in profits to avoid paying income taxes.

Repealing the *corporate* AMT will channel $25 billion in immediate tax rebates to profitable companies like Ford (which will receive $2.4 billion), IBM ($1.4 billion), and Enron ($254 million). The corporate tax rebates are more than twice as large as the $13.7 billion in rebates provided to individuals in the House leadership plan.

Even conservative columnist and CNN host Robert Novak called the corporate AMT repeal a "corporate grant that is not the proper direction for tax or economic policy."

The House leadership plan also included $20 billion in tax cuts for the overseas operations of financial services companies. In effect, big corporations are being *rewarded for not investing in the U.S.!* How can that help provide jobs at home?

The House Republican leaders' stimulus plan includes billions in permanent capital gains tax reductions that are wreaking havoc with the federal budget, but will provide no immediate economic stimulus. In fact, it could actually damage the economy by encouraging a sell-off of stocks and other appreciated assets. A capital gains tax cut will provide no assistance to 80 percent of Americans. Rather, it will disproportionately benefit those making more than $384,000, which are the same individuals who received the bulk of the benefits from the tax cut approved earlier this year.

Just as importantly, changes in federal tax laws will cost state treasuries $5 billion a year at a time when many states, including *Oregon,* are facing drastic cuts to important programs. Which will have to be made up by higher local taxes. Can't you understand that?


All government budgets assume a 6% increase from the
year prior. That is the problem-the government keeps growing to feed your
entitlement culture.


Entitlement culture. All right, you're asking for it, so I'll detail a few of the corporate welfare programs.

Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft’s tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.

General Electric, America’s most profitable corporation, reported $50.8 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid only 11.5 percent of that in federal income taxes. That low tax rate reflected almost $12 billion in corporate tax welfare for GE.

Ford enjoyed $9.1 billion in corporate tax welfare over the past five years. It reported $18.6 billion in U.S. profits over the past two years, but paid a tax rate of only 5.7 percent.

Worldcom paid no taxes at all in two of the last three years, despite reported U.S. profits of $15.2 billion. Worldcom’s total tax rate over the three years was only 1.6%. Corporate tax welfare slashed Worldcom’s tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past five years.

IBM reported $5.7 billion in U.S. profits in 2000, but paid only 3.4 percent of that in federal income taxes. In 1997, IBM reported $3.1 billion in U.S. profits, and instead of paying taxes, got an outright tax rebate. Over the past five years, IBM enjoyed a total of $4.7 billion in corporate tax welfare.

General Motors paid no taxes at all in three of the last five years, despite $12.5 billion in reported U.S. profits. GM’s tax rate for the past three years was negative 1.3 percent. Its corporate tax welfare totaled $3.6 billion over the past five years.

Enron paid no income taxes at all in four of the past five years, despite $1.8 billion in reported U.S. profits. Enron’s total taxes over the five years were a negative $381 million. Its corporate tax welfare totaled $1.0 billion.

El Paso Energy reported $1.6 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid less than nothing in federal income taxes, getting tax rebates of $254 million. El Paso’s tax rate over the five years was negative 15.5 percent. Its corporate welfare totaled $827 million.

Colgate-Palmolive paid no taxes at all in three of the past five years, despite $1.6 billion in reported U.S. profits. Colgate’s total tax rate over the five years was negative 1.3 percent, due to $595 million in corporate tax welfare.

Navistar, on $1.4 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, paid only $28 million in federal income taxes, a tax rate of only 2 percent. Navistar’s corporate tax welfare totaled $451 million.

Additionally, you should visit this site http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/CutCorpWelfare_Nader.html

And this one:
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/articles.cfm?ID=1053

In case you can't be bothered, I'll give you these few examples.

:US Forestry Service paying for logging roads into Federal lands, then selling the lumber at below market--often below the actual cost of growing the trees-- to corporations that enjoy huge profits from the sales. COST TO TAXPAYERS: $175 MILLION ANNUALLY

: US Bureau of Land Management leasing grazing lands at a *net loss* to huge corporate ranches.

:Mining concessions, at a loss to government and a huge profit for the corporations. Cost to Taxpayers: $200 million annually

:The Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service estimates that oil companies underpay by an estimated $66 million annually for oil extracted from public lands. Oil companies participate in an elaborate pricing scam to undervalue the oil -- sometimes by as much as $2 per barrel from the actual market price -- to avoid paying the full royalties due. Attempts to end this scam and institute a fair, market-based valuation program have been repeatedly thwarted in Congress. Cost to Taxpayers: $66 million annually.

: Last year, Wal-Mart made $20,000 profit every minute of every day for a total of $10.3 billion dollars on the year. Yet the recently enacted Highway Bill pushed by Bush included a gift to Walmart of $37 million for widening Walmart's private access road in Bentonville AR

And yet you're whining about school lunch programs; providing health care at emergency rooms for people who can't afford to visit a doctor's office at a clip of $140 per. You'd also have to include the largest
entitlement program of all in your complaint: Social Security.
Social Security, which provides a meager living for roughly 70% of all of America's seniors.

You'd do away with all social programs, huh? And then what? we leave the starving, the dying, to rot on the streets--but then you'd have to dig into your pocket to dispose of the disease ridden corpses if you refuse the usage of tax monies to do away with the meat. You are cold, brother.

No, you're just closed-minded, like the remaining 29% of Bush supporters. YOU have it made, and "phuck" everyone else. See, like Andy Granatelli's ads used to say: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."

####Something else that you need to consider about your own secure future. Bud, Bush is fixing to reap the whirlwind. With his mindless attack on the rest of the world, Iran is about to set up an oil sale index based on Euros, not the mighty dollar. This, you can bet your ass(ets) will lead quickly to conversion of a trillion or so of dollars into Euros around the world. Where will Bush get the ass(ets) to cover the shortfall and prevent a demand by China and other creditors for an immediate repayment of the roughly $6 trillion we owe them? What will this do to the value of your dearly beloved ass(ets)? The $600k may soon be worth, oh, about $6 and some change. Think it can't happen?###


Yes, of course the middle class pays all the taxes the wealthy do. But
are you aware that corporations, even wealthy individuals are often
given tax free status to encourage them to build in their locale? No
poor mother was ever given a tax break by a repugnant conservative.


I don't see the problem with giving Corporations tax incentives to build in
a certain area.

Check my list of corporate welfare.

UMMMM. You just will not open your mind, will you.
No thanks. That is another one of those left wing catch phrases they
use to
try and berate those who don't think as they do.

You are not thinking at all. Your mind is made up.

That is the problems with you liberals, just because we don't agree with
your failed policies does not mean we are not thinking. I guess that we
were just raised differently. My parents taught me self reliance, good work
ethics, big government is the enemy of a free people, and faith in God. Yes
Gringo, my mind is made up; I refuse to become a victim like you.


Don't do it. Do not. I repeat. Do not one more time throw an insult at me, ***. Prove that you are a better man than that. Or we'll sling *** at one another if you prefer. Your choice.

You evidently are just too self absorbed to pay attention to anything you read that differs from your preconceived mindset. I received a far better upbringing than the likes of your smug ass(ets). I was taught compassion for the child in the next seat, who was expected to sit at the table with a glass of water and watch others eat lunch. I was taught that you helped those who were attempting to help themselves. I was taught that Hoover pushed the nation into a major depression by the same tactics Reagan and Bush have used; that Roosevelt pulled the nation from the depression via the use of a huge governmental helping hand. I taught myself that capitalism is a good thing, but capitalism uncontrolled is a greedy bear that devours its own young. tHAT Government's job is protect We The People from the excesses of Capitalistic Greed--which it did quite successfully before Reagan began America's destruction.

You are the victim. Of your own smug attitude. Of your belief that you are so "phucking" superior to the lowly that YOU will never ever need a government helping hand for anything. Got news for you, bucko. You are the recipient of government social welfare programs on a daily basis. What, you think your company actually pays the full cost of all the government services it uses? Yes, you probably do. YOU are the victim of your superiority complex.


One week past my 21st birthday, I bought a liquor store in El Paso, TX.
I took the seller's word of honor on some things, and he screwed me
over. When I called him on it, he looked me in the eye and said, "But
my *word* doesn't mean ANYTHING--anything goes in business." If that is
what it takes to become wealthy, you can have it. You see, MY word will
always mean something. I broke the ***'s jaw: it cost me a $500
fine and 5 days in lockup (so small, I suspect, because the judge was
also an honorable man).

So you did two stupid things. Did you learn anything from that?

Absolutely. I learned, for one thing, that "ethics" and "business" are not compatible terms. I learned that I would rather be a man of my word than accumulate a dollar of your great ass(ets).


Hey, dude, I am far above average in every way. My IQ is 134. A former
competitive (fairly successful, btw) bodybuilder, at 57 I am in better
shape than most men your age. I am largely self-educated, yet I have
taken and passed a CPA exam given to me by a CPA ex-boss.

Is that why you cannot grasp how long term investing works?

That is why I am not ignorant enough to fall for your storyline.
It's an exaggeration that has run away with you--and you refuse to let it go. Now, how much money did you say your wife poured into your investments for the past 22 years?



You should really like that my daughter enjoys watching "the 700 Club".

No offense, but I think she is foolishly wasting her time with a
hypocrite.

The same could be said about you for listening to Air Amerika. I listen to
the idiot Al Franken just to remind myself just how stupid liberals are.
The lying meat flap Rhandi Rhodes is equally off kilter.

Bother checking out some of the things she mentions. Provide me with one lie she has ever told, and I promise you that I will stop listening to her. I on the other hand can easily provide you with 10,000 and 1 lies told by O'really, limbaugh, hannity, ingraham, bush, rumsfeld, cheney-- you know, all the people you believe to be gifts of god to mankind! Take my dare?


Flat tax, that way everyone pays their share!
Fair share would leave the same amount of money in everyone's pocket.
But you greedy bastards would whine about that. so the best that could
be hoped for is that the more benefit received off the sweat of
society's balls must pay a bigger share of the cost of keeping the
laborer fed and clothed.


Are you saying that every person that works in the US be paid the exact same
wage? Everyone would have the exact same living expenses? You truly are
blind to reality.

Don't be ridiculous. Obviously to even a bush brain still in its shell, I was being sarcastic in that first part of the paragraph. The paragraph went on to say that FAIR SHARE would be that the wealthy--as they once did--once again be forced to pay a share of total tax burden equivalent to the greater profit they receive off the sweat of other men's balls. The only labor Georgie ever performed was when he and other frat boys broke into his neighbor's house to steal their Christmas tree.

You're claiming $600k right now, on earnings of $50k for, what 5 years,
and considerably less than that over the past 22 years? I
remain...unconvinced of your veracity. I don't think you set out to
lie, I think you've just talked yourself into a silver lined box that
your income level won't fit.


I averaged about $42K a year all through the 90's driving a truck. Yes I
found a job that pays better and I work less. So sue me.

In 1991 my wife and I jointly earned $93,000 driving truck. you now earn 53k driving--wow that is exceptional--NOT. Don't feel so phucking smug about your accomplishments.

I'm still
suprised that you don't understand simple long term investing. Sure my wife
makes a good income as well, but it is lower than mine. We could live on
one of our incomes alone because we are not loaded up to the gills with debt
like "normal" Americans are.

Bull***. Your economics do not add up. She earns less than $53k. You could therefore live off yours alone. Buying a nice home, two autos. Dining out nicely. savings amounting to $600k in 22 years. Stop yanking that chain. My weenie is getting sore.

My wife and I are buying a decent home--and down here, it is much cheaper than in nevada, believe me. We have no auto payments. We have no outstanding bills. Our 401k is modest by your standards. And I am willing to bet that between my wife's sideline business, my writing income and both our driving income (roughly 240,000 miles per year), that our income level exceeds yours by several thousand. And yet...I still do not claim to be superior to your silly hyper-smug ass.


Right... If you believe liberalism is merely asking for a level playing
field you are sorely misinformed. And I do listen to Air Amerika
several
hours a week. You sound just like they do.
That is a compliment. too bad you haven't learned a "phucking" thing
from them or me. Evidently you counter whatever minutes you spend with
the wise folks at AA with the same number of hours listening to
Limburger and OReally and Laura Isaham. A Level playing field is all is
wanted.


I gave up listening to Limbaugh about 4 or 5 years ago. He turned out to be
too liberal for my liking.

Silly boy.


Just because Gringo said it does not make it factual or true. Get over
yourself.

Just because you refuse to study politics enough to understand the
subject doesn't make what I'm trying to teach you any less true.


Don't you understand that what you are trying to teach me is based on lies
and deceit? Show me one Communist/socialist nation that has survived the
ages and thrived... just one will do and try and be honest with yourself in
doing so.

Israel. China--they are at present beating the *** out of your vaunted American-style capitalism. Denmark. Sweden. Only China is communistic. But all the others mentioned are social democracies, which deem their government's job as the protection and welfare of all their peoples.

Hell, even Cuba and tiny Macao have better health care than we do--and it is 100% free for their citizens. A 10-minute operation on my sinuses two weeks ago cost my insurer $18,000 in doctor fees alone. Each weekly visit since when he runs a tube up to suck out mucus and blood costs insurance another $1,500.

I am not anti-driver. I am a driver. Don't fault me because I won't
fall
for all the stupid things that a lot of drivers do.
You are anti driver if you (1) blame the driver if he hires on with a
bad fleet (2) gets a fine for bad equipment that doesn't belong to him
(3) side with those you demand that speed limits be lowered for trucks
because YOU do not wish to drive the normal speed limit (ad infinitum)
You have posted ads being in favor of lane restrictions and split speed
limits, stating, I believe you said, that truckers should not ever drive
faster than 55-60. That ,my friend, makes you anti-driver.


Yes Gringo, I believe there is some degree of personal responsibility
involved when picking an employer. And yes, if the driver would do a proper
inspection of the truck and make an effort to get the truck repaired and
refuse to drive an unsafe truck, that would not be an issue.

I have never demanded that states lower speed limits for trucks. However I
have said that if drivers do not obey those truck speed limits than they are
at fault. I mean, DUH, they put up big signs saying what the speed limits
are. If they are too stupid to obey them, they get what they deserve. I
drive the speed limit in whatever state I'm in unless conditions warrant
slower speeds or I have some time to kill. Our employer has asked us to
slow down in Nevada to conserve fuel with higher prices. No Gringo, you are
way out of line here. I've never said that trucks should on go 55-60.


Well then excuse me. It must have been gashauler who made all those anti driver sentiments.

Now, in closing this posting, I realize that I have probably gotten a little hot and biting with you a couple of times. Your insulting remarks about me or my lifestyle do tend to piss me off. So, yes, I snapped in return. Still, I do admit that you have been for the most part respectful throughout this thread. I appreciate it and have tried to reciprocate.

I've enjoyed the discussion and look forward to continuing it if you have more to say-- but, damnit, do bother to read what I have written with more than one eyes opened, then maybe chase down the links I've provided.

All the right is not on my side. For certain all the right is not on the Right side. An admission? I would not want a 100% Liberal government any more than I'd want what Bush and his stolen elections have given us. Either side, they get full control get greedy and demand it all one way. Never works.

As a champion bodybuilder I once knew said, in effect: 'A fully, 100% masculine man would be a mean ***--he needs a feminine side to soften his spirit and keep him from becoming a bully. But a 100% feminine woman would be such a jellyroll no one would want to be around the crying bitch--she needs a masculine side to give her strength.'







--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
.

Loading