Discussion:
adding tolls to existing interstates
(too old to reply)
richard
2007-10-25 13:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In my personal humble opinion, I feel that no state should even be
allowed to consider adding tolls to a road that was constructed using
taxpayer's dollars.

Us taxpayers literally paid for the road's existance then the state
wants to come along year's later to make us pay even more for using
it? Bullshit!

On an interstate highway, the maintenance of the road is partially
funded by US Federal funds. Therefor, the state can not install toll
booths. If they do, then the state should purchase the highway from
the feds. $10k a foot?

There oughta be a law against this crap.
Paul Johnson
2007-10-25 14:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by richard
Us taxpayers literally paid for the road's existance then the state
wants to come along year's later to make us pay even more for using
it? Bullshit!
It's called upkeep, roads wear out with traffic. Every time you add
another road, overall traffic volume goes up, and upkeep goes up all
around. Want to take control of upkeep costs on state
infrastructure? Adopt a static population policy and take care of the
roads you have instead of building new ones and adding more lanes.
Post by richard
There oughta be a law against this crap.
Yeah, there kind of already is. I'm surprised the truant officer
didn't explain it to you when you were playing hookey the day they
explained economies of scale in class...
necromancer
2007-10-25 16:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Johnson
It's called upkeep, roads wear out with traffic. Every time you add
another road, overall traffic volume goes up, and upkeep goes up all
around. Want to take control of upkeep costs on state
infrastructure? Adopt a static population policy and take care of the
roads you have instead of building new ones and adding more lanes.
IIRC, gas taxes are one of the primary sources for road funding, unless
that has chnanged somewhere along the line and apparently those taxes
haven't kept up with the increase in traffic and the rising costs of
materials, labor etc... involved in road construction.

Just MNSHO, but a US$0.50 per gallon increase in the gas tax -
preferablly at the state level, but the federal level would suffice -
with the money earmarked specifically for highway
construction/maintenance would have two benefits: 1, better maintained
roads and 2, reduced traffic as people would rethink many of the
unnecessary trips they take in a given day.
--
"I didn't want to hurt them, I only wanted to kill them."
- David Berkowitz
richard
2007-10-25 17:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Oct 25, 11:27 am, necromancer
Post by necromancer
Post by Paul Johnson
It's called upkeep, roads wear out with traffic. Every time you add
another road, overall traffic volume goes up, and upkeep goes up all
around. Want to take control of upkeep costs on state
infrastructure? Adopt a static population policy and take care of the
roads you have instead of building new ones and adding more lanes.
IIRC, gas taxes are one of the primary sources for road funding, unless
that has chnanged somewhere along the line and apparently those taxes
haven't kept up with the increase in traffic and the rising costs of
materials, labor etc... involved in road construction.
Just MNSHO, but a US$0.50 per gallon increase in the gas tax -
preferablly at the state level, but the federal level would suffice -
with the money earmarked specifically for highway
construction/maintenance would have two benefits: 1, better maintained
roads and 2, reduced traffic as people would rethink many of the
unnecessary trips they take in a given day.
--
"I didn't want to hurt them, I only wanted to kill them."
- David Berkowitz
So the paper theory goes anyway. The only thing a toll road does is
makes certain people at the top level of the chain richer.

Chicago raised it's rates for trucks from $1.25 to $4.00 a pop. At the
previous rate, just with cars paying tolls alone, the system was
reaping in 1.5 million dollars PER DAY! It costs $6 million a day to
maintain those roads? Bullshit.
The good thing is now, the chicago "open road tolling" system
basically means, "hey sucker! pay the toll if you want to.".
I just drive right on through and don't pay them a damn dime.

Maintenance is one thing. If that's what the tolls are for and should
not be posted high just to make the owners of the system filthy rich.
Toll the users purely for maintenance and nothing more. But ya know
that ain't gonna happen.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-10-25 18:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by richard
On Oct 25, 11:27 am, necromancer
Post by necromancer
Post by Paul Johnson
It's called upkeep, roads wear out with traffic. Every time you add
another road, overall traffic volume goes up, and upkeep goes up all
around. Want to take control of upkeep costs on state
infrastructure? Adopt a static population policy and take care of the
roads you have instead of building new ones and adding more lanes.
IIRC, gas taxes are one of the primary sources for road funding, unless
that has chnanged somewhere along the line and apparently those taxes
haven't kept up with the increase in traffic and the rising costs of
materials, labor etc... involved in road construction.
Just MNSHO, but a US$0.50 per gallon increase in the gas tax -
preferablly at the state level, but the federal level would suffice -
with the money earmarked specifically for highway
construction/maintenance would have two benefits: 1, better maintained
roads and 2, reduced traffic as people would rethink many of the
unnecessary trips they take in a given day.
--
"I didn't want to hurt them, I only wanted to kill them."
- David Berkowitz
So the paper theory goes anyway. The only thing a toll road does is
makes certain people at the top level of the chain richer.
Chicago raised it's rates for trucks from $1.25 to $4.00 a pop. At the
previous rate, just with cars paying tolls alone, the system was
reaping in 1.5 million dollars PER DAY! It costs $6 million a day to
maintain those roads? Bullshit.
The good thing is now, the chicago "open road tolling" system
basically means, "hey sucker! pay the toll if you want to.".
I just drive right on through and don't pay them a damn dime.
Maintenance is one thing. If that's what the tolls are for and should
not be posted high just to make the owners of the system filthy rich.
Toll the users purely for maintenance and nothing more. But ya know
that ain't gonna happen.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ahh, the idiot know nothing returns to show his abject idiocy and of
course hhe gets no support from anyone in this or any other group.

It should be $1000 for trucks just to enter I-80 and another $1000 to
leave, and the money not needed for maint should be going to transit.
How does that grab you Idiot Richard?

You have absolutely NOTHING to say about anything. No one listens to
you or supports you in any way. All you do is blow prodigeous amounts
of smoke right out of your asshole.
Post by richard
From a Constitutional scholar to a finacial maven, you are nothing but
an abject idiot. But please keep posting, we love seeing your abject
idiocy.

The trucks do the damage and they should pay, and pay heavily.

Randy
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2007-10-25 18:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by richard
Toll the users purely for maintenance and nothing more. But ya know
that ain't gonna happen
If you own a house or a car, you know that as it ages "maintenance"
costs increase. There is the routine maintenance of cutting the law
or changing the oil. But as it ages, there are increased costs of
replacement of worn out components, be it the roof or the
transmission, and these are expensive.

I think you're confusing day-to-day maintenance of highways--basic
cleaning, lighting, pothole repair--with component replacement--deck
replacement, bridge rebuilds, etc. The Interstate road system is old
and worn out and needs top-to-bottom replacement. That's much more
work and money than an inch or two of asphalt.

In addition, due to increased population and driving, roads need more
capacity. Land must be acquired and that is very expensive, even for
something simple like better ramps.

Lastly, roads are built better than they were in the past, with
increased safety features.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-10-25 19:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by richard
Toll the users purely for maintenance and nothing more. But ya know
that ain't gonna happen
He is upset by the idea that the money he pays might be used for
transit or worse to him, the general welfare.

One you get beyond Richard's miniture intellectual capacity, he has no
concept, like a lot of the other MTR denizens as to how society
benefits by inproving the general welfare. I don't think Richard has
anything beyond a 5th grade education, and I know he has difficulty
reading and writing.

And ceratinly like a lot of other MTR denizens, he cannot understand
that it is the elected legislature, absent a constitiutional
prohibition, the determines placing gas tax revenue into the general
fund.

It is not a difficult concept, but given his limited intelluctual
capacity, well you know what I am referring to.


Randy
d***@yahoo.com
2007-10-27 16:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by richard
Toll the users purely for maintenance and nothing more. But ya know
that ain't gonna happen
He is upset by the idea that the money he pays might be used for
transit or worse to him, the general welfare.
One you get beyond Richard's miniture intellectual capacity, he has no
concept, like a lot of the other MTR denizens as to how society
benefits by inproving the general welfare. I don't think Richard has
anything beyond a 5th grade education, and I know he has difficulty
reading and writing.
And ceratinly like a lot of other MTR denizens, he cannot understand
that it is the elected legislature, absent a constitiutional
prohibition, the determines placing gas tax revenue into the general
fund.
It is not a difficult concept, but given his limited intelluctual
capacity, well you know what I am referring to.
Randy
An unmentioned problem is that when toll monies are diverted, that
translates to NO additional capacity, such as in the NYC area.

Do you think that it costs $6 million daily to maintain the Chicago
roads as another poster questioned?

Douglas A. Willinger
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-10-27 17:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by richard
Toll the users purely for maintenance and nothing more. But ya know
that ain't gonna happen
He is upset by the idea that the money he pays might be used for
transit or worse to him, the general welfare.
One you get beyond Richard's miniture intellectual capacity, he has no
concept, like a lot of the other MTR denizens as to how society
benefits by inproving the general welfare. I don't think Richard has
anything beyond a 5th grade education, and I know he has difficulty
reading and writing.
And ceratinly like a lot of other MTR denizens, he cannot understand
that it is the elected legislature, absent a constitiutional
prohibition, the determines placing gas tax revenue into the general
fund.
It is not a difficult concept, but given his limited intelluctual
capacity, well you know what I am referring to.
Randy
An unmentioned problem is that when toll monies are diverted, that
translates to NO additional capacity, such as in the NYC area.
Do you think that it costs $6 million daily to maintain the Chicago
roads as another poster questioned?
Douglas A. Willingerhttp://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -
It probably costs more, and you know it. Now please quit blowing
smoke and come into reality.

There is going to be NO new capacity in NYC, none whatsoever. Not now
and not ever. Except for the new Gowanus. Now I suggest you accept
and that quit posting things you know better because you cannot get
one of your tunnels built.

Except for the tollways, the same is true for Chicago. Again, I know
you do not like that, but that is the way it is.

The Corsstown is dead and it is going to stay that way.

ALL money can and should go for transit in NYC , Chicago, and a lot of
other cities.
5,000,000 a day in NYC Transit, 1.5 million a day in Chicago and
Philly.

There are going to be NO new roads in any of those cities, none, now
or in the future. New roads are way too destructive. Your tunnels
have to come up somewhere as we have discussed before.

It is NOT 1957 any longer. Neighborhoods have a lot of say in what
happens, and they do not want roads, they want transit.

Also gas is NOT 30c a gal, and it will never be again.


Randy
d***@yahoo.com
2007-11-13 22:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by richard
Toll the users purely for maintenance and nothing more. But ya know
that ain't gonna happen
He is upset by the idea that the money he pays might be used for
transit or worse to him, the general welfare.
One you get beyond Richard's miniture intellectual capacity, he has no
concept, like a lot of the other MTR denizens as to how society
benefits by inproving the general welfare. I don't think Richard has
anything beyond a 5th grade education, and I know he has difficulty
reading and writing.
And ceratinly like a lot of other MTR denizens, he cannot understand
that it is the elected legislature, absent a constitiutional
prohibition, the determines placing gas tax revenue into the general
fund.
It is not a difficult concept, but given his limited intelluctual
capacity, well you know what I am referring to.
Randy
An unmentioned problem is that when toll monies are diverted, that
translates to NO additional capacity, such as in the NYC area.
Do you think that it costs $6 million daily to maintain the Chicago
roads as another poster questioned?
Douglas A. Willingerhttp://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/-Hide quoted text -
It probably costs more, and you know it. Now please quit blowing
smoke and come into reality.
There is going to be NO new capacity in NYC, none whatsoever. Not now
and not ever. Except for the new Gowanus. Now I suggest you accept
and that quit posting things you know better because you cannot get
one of your tunnels built.
Except for the tollways, the same is true for Chicago. Again, I know
you do not like that, but that is the way it is.
The Corsstown is dead and it is going to stay that way.
ALL money can and should go for transit in NYC , Chicago, and a lot of
other cities.
5,000,000 a day in NYC Transit, 1.5 million a day in Chicago and
Philly.
There are going to be NO new roads in any of those cities, none, now
or in the future. New roads are way too destructive. Your tunnels
have to come up somewhere as we have discussed before.
The "unknown superior" speaks!
Post by ***@yahoo.com
It is NOT 1957 any longer. Neighborhoods have a lot of say in what
happens, and they do not want roads, they want transit.
Also gas is NOT 30c a gal, and it will never be again.
Randy
How many 95% existing right of way, boxed cut and cover highway
tunnels were built in the 1950s? The Cross Harbor Cross Brooklyn
Tunnel would have portals at I-78 in New Jersey and Linden Boulevard
in Brooklyn.

Has your unknown superior ever given any though to routing or design,
or just wants to be a typical elitist de-populationist sh*t-head?

Douglas A. Willinger
http://www.technorati.com/people/technorati/SCMB/
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-14 18:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@yahoo.com
How many 95% existing right of way, boxed cut and cover highway
tunnels were built in the 1950s? The Cross Harbor Cross Brooklyn
Tunnel would have portals at I-78 in New Jersey and Linden Boulevard
in Brooklyn.
Doug, I hope you are smarter and more knowledgeable then this. The
RR's do not want it, not now not ever, Jersey City and Brooklyn do not
want it, and the Port Authority is NOT going to pay billions for
something like this.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Has your unknown superior ever given any though to routing or design,
or just wants to be a typical elitist de-populationist sh*t-head?
Umm Doug please don't decend into becoming a jerk. I will remind you
that any of your tunnels have to come up to ground at some point. No
city, town, or neighborhood will allow this and you know it.

I have told you before and I will tell you again, you best shot is the
waterbound alternative for the new Gownaus.

Anything else and you are blowing smoke.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-13 22:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
It probably costs more, and you know it. Now please quit blowing
smoke and come into reality.
For you to say 'probably' means YOU aren't even 100% certain about it. Now
quit blowing smoke and admit you don't know everything.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-14 18:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
It probably costs more, and you know it. Now please quit blowing
smoke and come into reality.
For you to say 'probably' means YOU aren't even 100% certain about it. Now
quit blowing smoke and admit you don't know everything.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Okey dokey, thanks for your input. If Chicago DOT maintains 600 miles
of streets, that would be $10,000 a day/mile in maint costs.

I don't consider that outrageous considering it is a heavily
trafficked urban environment.

But if you had your idiocy, you would cut the tax and let the streets
crumble into dust.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-14 21:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But if you had your idiocy, you would cut the tax and let the streets
crumble into dust.
Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such preference
or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled bilge.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-14 21:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But if you had your idiocy, you would cut the tax and let the streets
crumble into dust.
Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such preference
or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled bilge.
Well, the gist I get from you is taxes are way too high, expenses for
operating the road system are not very high, so your belief as I
understand it is cut taxes.

Am I missing something?

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-14 21:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But if you had your idiocy, you would cut the tax and let the streets
crumble into dust.
Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such preference
or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled bilge.
Well, the gist I get from you is taxes are way too high, expenses for
operating the road system are not very high, so your belief as I
understand it is cut taxes.
Am I missing something?
I repeat - Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such
preference or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled
bilge.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-16 19:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But if you had your idiocy, you would cut the tax and let the streets
crumble into dust.
Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such preference
or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled bilge.
Well, the gist I get from you is taxes are way too high, expenses for
operating the road system are not very high, so your belief as I
understand it is cut taxes.
Am I missing something?
I repeat - Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such
preference or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled
bilge.
So, I completely misunderstood your implications.

You believe in the same things I do, instituting a transportation
mileage based tax which makes the heaviest users the trucks, pay for a
sustainable economically and environmentally usable transportation
system which ends the subsidies of the airlines and replaces short
airline hops with rail.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-17 01:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But if you had your idiocy, you would cut the tax and let the streets
crumble into dust.
Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such preference
or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled bilge.
Well, the gist I get from you is taxes are way too high, expenses for
operating the road system are not very high, so your belief as I
understand it is cut taxes.
Am I missing something?
I repeat - Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such
preference or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled
bilge.
So, I completely misunderstood your implications.
You believe in the same things I do, instituting a transportation
mileage based tax which makes the heaviest users the trucks, pay for a
sustainable economically and environmentally usable transportation
system which ends the subsidies of the airlines and replaces short
airline hops with rail.
I believe a mileage based tax system has to be considered as a part of the
solution while keeping in mind that many of the trucking lines are of a
marginal profitability now so any increased taxes will merely be passed on
to consumers, which will have all kinds of unintended and unaffected effects
on the economy. Yes, I know your favorite Wal Mart is profitable, but most
trucking companyies are not Wal-Mart.

As far as the planes and trains idea I would need to do a little studying on
it. The reality is many of the short hop air routes have already been
eliminated or reduced. But many smaller air markets are attempting to get
back some level of basic air service because the commerce in their
communities are having troubles being profitable in the 21st century without
it. These are smaller cities which often have only one or two major
employers. Without that air service the companies are hurt and closure is a
possibility. Small town America has already taken enough hits to their work
force with jobs being sent oversees. The last thing those communities need
is their own government screwing them in to the ground.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-17 02:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Luxury Yacht" <***@mangrove.com> wrote in message news:oQr%i.64$***@newsfe05.lga...
and unaffected effects

I meant to say unexpected effects
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-17 18:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But if you had your idiocy, you would cut the tax and let the streets
crumble into dust.
Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such preference
or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled bilge.
Well, the gist I get from you is taxes are way too high, expenses for
operating the road system are not very high, so your belief as I
understand it is cut taxes.
Am I missing something?
I repeat - Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such
preference or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled
bilge.
So, I completely misunderstood your implications.
You believe in the same things I do, instituting a transportation
mileage based tax which makes the heaviest users the trucks, pay for a
sustainable economically and environmentally usable transportation
system which ends the subsidies of the airlines and replaces short
airline hops with rail.
I believe a mileage based tax system has to be considered as a part of the
solution while keeping in mind that many of the trucking lines are of a
marginal profitability now so any increased taxes will merely be passed on
to consumers, which will have all kinds of unintended and unaffected effects
on the economy. Yes, I know your favorite Wal Mart is profitable, but most
trucking companyies are not Wal-Mart.
As far as the planes and trains idea I would need to do a little studying on
it. The reality is many of the short hop air routes have already been
eliminated or reduced. But many smaller air markets are attempting to get
back some level of basic air service because the commerce in their
communities are having troubles being profitable in the 21st century without
it. These are smaller cities which often have only one or two major
employers. Without that air service the companies are hurt and closure is a
possibility. Small town America has already taken enough hits to their work
force with jobs being sent oversees. The last thing those communities need
is their own government screwing them in to the ground.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Something we can discuss without sniping at each other. Happy day.

The problem is not marginally profitable trucking companies, but too
low freight rates. Freight rates that are not reality, but a heavy
subsidy for shippers.

I know there are fuel price add-ons, but the basic freight rates
should reflect current conditions, not some fantasy as it was 30 years
ago. Also a decent profit for the trucking companies and decent pay
for drivers.

I am sure you know that one of the ways W-M makes its profit is by
squeezing its suppliers. They live on low freight rates. Also I
believe it is still true that most freight moves on company trucks.

If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.

Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.

We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.

Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.

Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.

And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-21 01:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But if you had your idiocy, you would cut the tax and let the streets
crumble into dust.
Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such preference
or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled bilge.
Well, the gist I get from you is taxes are way too high, expenses for
operating the road system are not very high, so your belief as I
understand it is cut taxes.
Am I missing something?
I repeat - Cite a post where I made any such statement, expressed any such
preference or admit you're spewing propaganda to support your hate filled
bilge.
So, I completely misunderstood your implications.
You believe in the same things I do, instituting a transportation
mileage based tax which makes the heaviest users the trucks, pay for a
sustainable economically and environmentally usable transportation
system which ends the subsidies of the airlines and replaces short
airline hops with rail.
I believe a mileage based tax system has to be considered as a part of the
solution while keeping in mind that many of the trucking lines are of a
marginal profitability now so any increased taxes will merely be passed on
to consumers, which will have all kinds of unintended and unaffected effects
on the economy. Yes, I know your favorite Wal Mart is profitable, but most
trucking companyies are not Wal-Mart.
As far as the planes and trains idea I would need to do a little studying on
it. The reality is many of the short hop air routes have already been
eliminated or reduced. But many smaller air markets are attempting to get
back some level of basic air service because the commerce in their
communities are having troubles being profitable in the 21st century without
it. These are smaller cities which often have only one or two major
employers. Without that air service the companies are hurt and closure is a
possibility. Small town America has already taken enough hits to their work
force with jobs being sent oversees. The last thing those communities need
is their own government screwing them in to the ground.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Something we can discuss without sniping at each other. Happy day.
The problem is not marginally profitable trucking companies, but too
low freight rates. Freight rates that are not reality, but a heavy
subsidy for shippers.
I know there are fuel price add-ons, but the basic freight rates
should reflect current conditions, not some fantasy as it was 30 years
ago. Also a decent profit for the trucking companies and decent pay
for drivers.
I am sure you know that one of the ways W-M makes its profit is by
squeezing its suppliers. They live on low freight rates. Also I
believe it is still true that most freight moves on company trucks.
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to come
from?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles. Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-21 17:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.

But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.

Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles. Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.

I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.

Also with a viable pssgr rail system, we could put a sizable dent in
flights 500-1000 miles. Let the airlines do what they do best, long
haul flights.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-23 20:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't? Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm

And since have a lot more sources of information and more panels of experts
that you do how is it you feel your position is more informed than teirs?
Let the airlines do what they do best, long
Post by ***@yahoo.com
haul flights.
What are you basing that assessment on?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-23 20:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't? Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.
That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.

I guess huge delays due to a collapsing air traffic control system
just are bad luck, nothing else.

And there is no problem with too many planes in too small an air
space.
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm
And since have a lot more sources of information and more panels of experts
that you do how is it you feel your position is more informed than teirs?
Uhh, huh. Panels of experts, and you believe everything they say.
Not with standing they want to sell someone something. Billions of
ATC equipment, or aircraft. Critical thinking now comes into play.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Let the airlines do what they do best, long
Post by ***@yahoo.com
haul flights.
What are you basing that assessment on?
It is better to have hundreds and hundreds of small planes clogging up
airports like EWR, LAG, JFK, ATL, ORD, and so on. And we will never
ever have bad weather again. The experts at USDOT and the FAA have
decreed it.

But I am nothing, and they are experts. My first question always is
what are you trying to sell. Second question is who is paying you.

Randy
Adam Prince
2007-11-23 21:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't? Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.
That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.
Wait Randy...so you are saying the FAA needs better management?
Sounds like you do agree with me that transportation agencies need
reforms.

THat certainly seems to contradict you saying that DOT's do not need
any reforms or better management whatsoever.

Care to explain the differences in your opinions?
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-23 22:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't? Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.
That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.
Wait Randy...so you are saying the FAA needs better management?
Sounds like you do agree with me that transportation agencies need
reforms.
THat certainly seems to contradict you saying that DOT's do not need
any reforms or better management whatsoever.
Care to explain the differences in your opinions?-
If any state DOT or toll road agency were as horribly managed as the
FAA with its running from disaster to disaster, multiple collapses of
the air traffic control system, horrible and multiple contracting
blunders,

Do you get it yet????


Randy
Adam Prince
2007-11-27 05:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to
come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between
Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't? Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.
That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.
Wait Randy...so you are saying the FAA needs better management?
Sounds like you do agree with me that transportation agencies need
reforms.
THat certainly seems to contradict you saying that DOT's do not need
any reforms or better management whatsoever.
Care to explain the differences in your opinions?-
If any state DOT or toll road agency were as horribly managed as the
FAA with its running from disaster to disaster, multiple collapses of
the air traffic control system, horrible and multiple contracting
blunders,
Sounds like a number of DOT's to me.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do you get it yet????
Yup you are in agreement. DOT's like the FAA needs better management.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Randy
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-27 17:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to
come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between
Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't? Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.
That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.
Wait Randy...so you are saying the FAA needs better management?
Sounds like you do agree with me that transportation agencies need
reforms.
THat certainly seems to contradict you saying that DOT's do not need
any reforms or better management whatsoever.
Care to explain the differences in your opinions?-
If any state DOT or toll road agency were as horribly managed as the
FAA with its running from disaster to disaster, multiple collapses of
the air traffic control system, horrible and multiple contracting
blunders,
Sounds like a number of DOT's to me.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do you get it yet????
Yup you are in agreement. DOT's like the FAA needs better management.
To compare the FAA with any state DOT is a fallacy and you know it.
Like the rest of the federal govt except for the corrupt, criminal,
and useless military, they are operating on starvation budgets and
this is what you get.

Until we get rid of this idiot Pres and the corrupt idiots he put in
charge, and the idiot Christians like at the Consumer Product Safety
Comm, and the political operatives he put at the Dept of Justice.

But I guess to you the idiot Pres and the idiot VP can do no wrong.
Certainly that is true for our resident idiot Christian.
Thank God GWB is Pres. What a curse that is.

See how I get my shots in, thanks again for the opportunity.

Randy
Adam Prince
2007-11-27 18:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going to
come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between
Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't? Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.
That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.
Wait Randy...so you are saying the FAA needs better management?
Sounds like you do agree with me that transportation agencies need
reforms.
THat certainly seems to contradict you saying that DOT's do not need
any reforms or better management whatsoever.
Care to explain the differences in your opinions?-
If any state DOT or toll road agency were as horribly managed as the
FAA with its running from disaster to disaster, multiple collapses of
the air traffic control system, horrible and multiple contracting
blunders,
Sounds like a number of DOT's to me.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do you get it yet????
Yup you are in agreement. DOT's like the FAA needs better management.
To compare the FAA with any state DOT is a fallacy and you know it.
Like the rest of the federal govt except for the corrupt, criminal,
and useless military, they are operating on starvation budgets and
this is what you get.
So you are saying throw more money at the FAA...first you said it
needs to be run better...and it's a joke. Now you are saying, it only
needs more money to run better?

Care to explain in detail why you think one way or the other or both?

<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
See how I get my shots in, thanks again for the opportunity.
But what are you gaining by these shots? It doesn't add to the
discussion; it only shows a vile hatred to a number of people. What
are your 'shots' that you are so proud of getting in gaining? I'm not
bothered by them.

What do throwing these poorly based and worded "pot shots" add to the
discussion? This is the arena of ideas...not Randy's forum of his own
personal axes to grind.

It's a shame Randy. You continue to miss the points of agreement we
have and between yourself and your so called 'antagonists' and you
also continue not to provide the details to support your position.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-27 18:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Prince
So you are saying throw more money at the FAA...first you said it
needs to be run better...and it's a joke. Now you are saying, it only
needs more money to run better?
Care to explain in detail why you think one way or the other or both?
What do you suppose will happen to the creaky malfunctioning FAA
computer system if it keeps breaking down as it has so many time
previously?

And there are a lot of extremely disgruntled air traffic comtrollers.

So don't give them any more money, I don't care as I have not flown in
years.
Post by Adam Prince
<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
See how I get my shots in, thanks again for the opportunity.
But what are you gaining by these shots? It doesn't add to the
discussion; it only shows a vile hatred to a number of people. What
are your 'shots' that you are so proud of getting in gaining? I'm not
bothered by them.
What do throwing these poorly based and worded "pot shots" add to the
discussion? This is the arena of ideas...not Randy's forum of his own
personal axes to grind.
I have given up caring about anyone save a very few people on this
list. Someone WILL read it and that is all I care about.

And it is an unmoderated forum, you don't control it like you do NER
or SER.
Post by Adam Prince
It's a shame Randy. You continue to miss the points of agreement we
have and between yourself and your so called 'antagonists' and you
also continue not to provide the details to support your position.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Like I said, when do they start construction on I-26 through
Asheville???

Randy
Adam Prince
2007-11-27 18:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam Prince
So you are saying throw more money at the FAA...first you said it
needs to be run better...and it's a joke. Now you are saying, it only
needs more money to run better?
Care to explain in detail why you think one way or the other or both?
What do you suppose will happen to the creaky malfunctioning FAA
computer system if it keeps breaking down as it has so many time
previously?
And there are a lot of extremely disgruntled air traffic comtrollers.
So don't give them any more money, I don't care as I have not flown in
years.
Post by Adam Prince
<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
See how I get my shots in, thanks again for the opportunity.
But what are you gaining by these shots? It doesn't add to the
discussion; it only shows a vile hatred to a number of people. What
are your 'shots' that you are so proud of getting in gaining? I'm not
bothered by them.
What do throwing these poorly based and worded "pot shots" add to the
discussion? This is the arena of ideas...not Randy's forum of his own
personal axes to grind.
I have given up caring about anyone save a very few people on this
list. Someone WILL read it and that is all I care about.
But what about how that makes you look? I mean it makes you look like
an uneducated bitter angry sloppy person.

It most certainly doesn't help your point...you come across as someone
who can't make an effective point and has to lower yourself to poor
and ineffective insults. You obviously are unaware and ignorant of
many points of agreement or respectful points of disagreement I or
others have with you. You tell us to leave emotion out of a
discussion but say that you are an emotional person and let your
emotions get to you on things like this at times. Why should you be
held to a different standard?

In short, it's very easy to tell when you can't continue a discussion.

Reminds me of an old saying, "When you are drowning in a mud puddle,
throwing mud at other people doesn't get you out of it."
Post by ***@yahoo.com
And it is an unmoderated forum, you don't control it like you do NER
or SER.
Right. But I have a question for you. Does the first amendment
exclude anyone from accountability?
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-27 19:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam Prince
So you are saying throw more money at the FAA...first you said it
needs to be run better...and it's a joke. Now you are saying, it only
needs more money to run better?
Care to explain in detail why you think one way or the other or both?
What do you suppose will happen to the creaky malfunctioning FAA
computer system if it keeps breaking down as it has so many time
previously?
And there are a lot of extremely disgruntled air traffic comtrollers.
So don't give them any more money, I don't care as I have not flown in
years.
Post by Adam Prince
<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
See how I get my shots in, thanks again for the opportunity.
But what are you gaining by these shots? It doesn't add to the
discussion; it only shows a vile hatred to a number of people. What
are your 'shots' that you are so proud of getting in gaining? I'm not
bothered by them.
What do throwing these poorly based and worded "pot shots" add to the
discussion? This is the arena of ideas...not Randy's forum of his own
personal axes to grind.
I have given up caring about anyone save a very few people on this
list. Someone WILL read it and that is all I care about.
But what about how that makes you look? I mean it makes you look like
an uneducated bitter angry sloppy person.
It most certainly doesn't help your point...you come across as someone
who can't make an effective point and has to lower yourself to poor
and ineffective insults. You obviously are unaware and ignorant of
many points of agreement or respectful points of disagreement I or
others have with you. You tell us to leave emotion out of a
discussion but say that you are an emotional person and let your
emotions get to you on things like this at times. Why should you be
held to a different standard?
In short, it's very easy to tell when you can't continue a discussion.
Reminds me of an old saying, "When you are drowning in a mud puddle,
throwing mud at other people doesn't get you out of it."
Post by ***@yahoo.com
And it is an unmoderated forum, you don't control it like you do NER
or SER.
Right. But I have a question for you. Does the first amendment
exclude anyone from accountability?
Nope, not even lying paid shills.

I notice you always complain about DOT's mismanagement, like that is
the worst thing in the world, but you never say a word about the
corrupt, criminal, and useless military. Like it is ok for you to
consider it irrelevent.

And did you ever say why you did not enlist? They could use someone
like you with your supurb mgmt skills. You could still go in, I
believe you are young enough. Just wondering.

Ahh, but you will say it is irrelevent.

I will tell you again, with very few exceptions, I really don't care
how most anybody on this list feels about me. Again, as I said
someone WILL read if even if you do not have the guts to repond and
continue to call it irrelevant.

Randy
Adam Prince
2007-11-27 19:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam Prince
So you are saying throw more money at the FAA...first you said it
needs to be run better...and it's a joke. Now you are saying, it only
needs more money to run better?
Care to explain in detail why you think one way or the other or both?
What do you suppose will happen to the creaky malfunctioning FAA
computer system if it keeps breaking down as it has so many time
previously?
And there are a lot of extremely disgruntled air traffic comtrollers.
So don't give them any more money, I don't care as I have not flown in
years.
Post by Adam Prince
<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
See how I get my shots in, thanks again for the opportunity.
But what are you gaining by these shots? It doesn't add to the
discussion; it only shows a vile hatred to a number of people. What
are your 'shots' that you are so proud of getting in gaining? I'm not
bothered by them.
What do throwing these poorly based and worded "pot shots" add to the
discussion? This is the arena of ideas...not Randy's forum of his own
personal axes to grind.
I have given up caring about anyone save a very few people on this
list. Someone WILL read it and that is all I care about.
But what about how that makes you look? I mean it makes you look like
an uneducated bitter angry sloppy person.
It most certainly doesn't help your point...you come across as someone
who can't make an effective point and has to lower yourself to poor
and ineffective insults. You obviously are unaware and ignorant of
many points of agreement or respectful points of disagreement I or
others have with you. You tell us to leave emotion out of a
discussion but say that you are an emotional person and let your
emotions get to you on things like this at times. Why should you be
held to a different standard?
In short, it's very easy to tell when you can't continue a discussion.
Reminds me of an old saying, "When you are drowning in a mud puddle,
throwing mud at other people doesn't get you out of it."
Post by ***@yahoo.com
And it is an unmoderated forum, you don't control it like you do NER
or SER.
Right. But I have a question for you. Does the first amendment
exclude anyone from accountability?
Nope, not even lying paid shills.
I notice you always complain about DOT's mismanagement, like that is
the worst thing in the world, but you never say a word about the
corrupt, criminal, and useless military. Like it is ok for you to
consider it irrelevent.
And did you ever say why you did not enlist? They could use someone
like you with your supurb mgmt skills. You could still go in, I
believe you are young enough. Just wondering.
Ahh, but you will say it is irrelevent.
I will tell you again, with very few exceptions, I really don't care
how most anybody on this list feels about me. Again, as I said
someone WILL read if even if you do not have the guts to repond and
continue to call it irrelevant.
Randy, your rant has what to do with the topic at hand. Quit
diverting. Re-read what I have to say. And give up on the off-topic
non-sequitrs that are a poor attempt to derail a conversation.

It's pretty pathetic.
Adam Prince
2007-11-27 19:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I will tell you again, with very few exceptions, I really don't care
how most anybody on this list feels about me.
Oh one last thing on this.

That's a total reversal isn't it Randy. I mean you have gone to what
two road meets, you've asked myself and others to drive you around
NYC. You've tried and maybe have met others in this community on your
DOT trips. And you've even asked people to store and house your sign
drawings at their expense. In addition to asking people to put your
sign drawings online at their expense.

It seems like you do in fact care what people think of you.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-28 16:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Prince
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I will tell you again, with very few exceptions, I really don't care
how most anybody on this list feels about me.
Oh one last thing on this.
That's a total reversal isn't it Randy. I mean you have gone to what
two road meets, you've asked myself and others to drive you around
NYC. You've tried and maybe have met others in this community on your
DOT trips. And you've even asked people to store and house your sign
drawings at their expense. In addition to asking people to put your
sign drawings online at their expense.
It seems like you do in fact care what people think of you.
Where the Hell do you come up with this stuff???

Given gas prices, I though maybe a joint effort might be a good idea.
As I always do, I am managing by myself nicely.

Marc made a suggestion a while back about getting my signing plans to
the Newberry Library. He at least came up with an idea, what the Hell
have you come up with other then your fucking arrogant twittyness.

Store and house my sign drawings???? Again where the Hell do you come
up with that???
You have NO idea how massive they are. They are huge. Yepper that
is the only word for it HUGE. They are so huge I had them at the
Lancaster meet you fucking arrogant twit.

They are so huge you fucking arrogant twit that they are in TWO
plastic letter size containers.

In addition to being a fucking arrogant twit you are a gutless
hypocrite.

Supporting the criminal corrupt useless military but too fucking
gutless to enlist. I am sure in your gutless hypocracy you have a
million excuses, but you remain a gutless hypocrite.

Just because I make mention that I have my signing plans in a storage
room in Pen Argyle, PA, you think I am looking for some kind of
financial support? That is the height of your arrogant twittiness.

Did you major in arrogant twittiness??? How about gutless
hypocracy??? They must have taught you well. And remember you
said you did everything on your own, no one helped you.

Certainly not the govt, you cannot depend on govt, naaah you did it
all on your own. Kevin in his usual fine style dispelled that
fabrication very handily.

I used to have respect for the Dear Comrade, but that is quickly
disappearing. How he can have any repsect for your arrogant
twittiness and worse your gutless hypocracy is beyond me.

Have a real nice day there Adam. Anything else you want to throw at
me, go right ahead.

I went to all of the state DOT's east of the Miss R this past year.
And you know, I did it without your's or anyone's financial help.
Geeeze, how do I manage????

I drew the signs on the Big Dig and the Ted Williams Tunnel. Again I
managed that quite nicely.

And you know something else you fucking arrogant twit. There is an
upcoming huge sign project on the Cross Bronx Expwy. The plans are
$75. I am going to get them, again without any help from you or
anyone else.

Oh, something else, that huge signing project in PennDOT Dist 5, on
80, 33, and 81. I have those signing plans. I had those at the
Lancaster Meet. You know what you fucking arrogant twit, those cost
me $80 and they are in my storage room in PA.

Come on there Adam throw something else at me. Make yourself happy.

Randy
Adam Prince
2007-11-28 18:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Nov 28, 11:50 am, "***@yahoo.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip today's delusional rant from Randy>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Come on there Adam throw something else at me. Make yourself happy.
Sure, I have one question for you and one only.

What's your favorite stringed instrument?
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-28 18:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Prince
<snip today's delusional rant from Randy>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Come on there Adam throw something else at me. Make yourself happy.
Sure, I have one question for you and one only.
What's your favorite stringed instrument?
You throw shit at me, and my response is a delusional rant.

I have only one thing for you, you arrogant twit go fuck yourself.

Just in case you missed it I will say it again, go fuck yourself.

You are nothing but a pimple on my big fat arse.

Randy
Adam Prince
2007-11-28 19:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Prince
<snip today's delusional rant from Randy>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Come on there Adam throw something else at me. Make yourself happy.
Sure, I have one question for you and one only.
What's your favorite stringed instrument?
<snip>

Again, what's your favorite stringed instrument?
EAST COAST HIVE MIND
2007-11-29 04:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I used to have  respect for the Dear Comrade, but that is quickly
disappearing.  How he can have any repsect for your arrogant
twittiness and worse your gutless hypocracy is beyond me.
Oh well. I am truly heartbroken. Maybe I don't want or need that sort
of 'respect' in the first place, and I'll thank you to mind your own
business and not worry who I chose to befriend.

Adam and I don't agree on everything, and I am quite frank in my opinions
and observations to him and everyone else I deal with. He's talked about
this thread to me, and I've revealed my relative lack of interest in these
sort of pissing contest on numerous occasions, as well as telling him that
he's trolling you.

Once I state my opinion on something, however, that's it. Whatever the
person does after that is their nevermind, not mine. I don't expect people
to follow what I say, I only ask for the courtesy of respect for my point
of view and my right to hold same. I don't have a problem with people
having a different view than I do-it's their right. Just because they may
think differently than I do does not mean we can't talk or have a
productive relationship.

I went round and round with Rich Peihl, the man you rudely address as
an 'Idiot Christian' about religion. We don't agree, but it was a civil
debate. We finally resolved to 'agree to disagree', and that was that. By
being civil, and not hurling insults at each other, I managed to gain a
friend and Rich sent some western US pictures on, and I had something new
and different to post on my site. So basically, the situation ended up
benefitting us both.

Now I represent differently than most people. I maintain a set of views and
an appearance that are not considered acceptable by most. Yet, I manage to
get by in a job that has me out in the public all day long, without
compromising belief or appearance. Mind you, I cop to a fair share of aggro
for it, it's a price I pay. But eventually the aggro turns into respect, or
at the very least, tolerance, because I'm not disrespectful or insulting to
anyone. People even sometime ask what I'm all about, and if I'm not too
busy, I explain myself. They still may not agree, but at least they respect
me. That's all I ever ask.

I've talked to Adam about this little pissing match of yours, and I've told
him my view on it, to paraphrase Truman Capote, is thus: 'That's not
debate, that's shouting'. It's an empty exercise. A lot of what passes
as 'debate' these days is of a like nature. It doesn't reinforce the
concept of an exchange of ideas, it merely serves to reinforce polarising
certain parties to a set of ideas that they are amenable to while
describing anyone with a different set of ideas as an 'enemy'. There's a
lot of smoke and heat, but when it's all said and done, nothing's
accomplished, and we're all worse off.

One thing that actually does bug me is yr yattering about 'the stupid
miliary'. I was a member of said organisation for 11 years. Does that make
me 'stupid'? The 'stupid military' is not who's making damaging policy
decisions(at least not in the ranks), and they are obliged by law to follow
the orders they are given, unless they are so egregious that they can be
justified as illegal. Of course, if you actually *knew* anything about the
military, I wouldn't have to tell you that. The military in this country is
in no wise related to transport funding or administration. Bringing it up
in this sort of debate is just tossing in a red herring, and it makes you
look that much more foolish.

Of course, I've noticed you tossing in the old 'liberal' talking point 'If
you like the military so much, why don't you join it'? What's this? Are you
wishing the same fate that has befallen some of our other veterans on Adam?
Would you like to see him come home dead, or short a limb, or racked with
the mental anguish of PTSD? If so, that's pretty cheap. If you knew any war
veterans, you might rethink that position. I know a few, and I can tell you
stories. I wouldn't wish their misery on anyone, no matter how much I
disagree with/dislike them.

I don't expect you to read this and understand it. Like TimBrown and any
number of 'progs' and 'liberals' I know, you're stuck in amber; and as such
are no better than the 'conservatives' you so revile. Fine. Whatever. Just
take this thought home: if you don't have anything positive to add to a
debate, if you can't respond to someone without hurling insults at them,
then you're better off not bothering in the first place.
--
Comrade Otto Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
The Quality Goes In Before The Name Goes On!
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-29 18:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I used to have respect for the Dear Comrade, but that is quickly
disappearing. How he can have any repsect for your arrogant
twittiness and worse your gutless hypocracy is beyond me.
Oh well. I am truly heartbroken. Maybe I don't want or need that sort
of 'respect' in the first place, and I'll thank you to mind your own
business and not worry who I chose to befriend.
Adam and I don't agree on everything, and I am quite frank in my opinions
and observations to him and everyone else I deal with. He's talked about
this thread to me, and I've revealed my relative lack of interest in these
sort of pissing contest on numerous occasions, as well as telling him that
he's trolling you.
Once I state my opinion on something, however, that's it. Whatever the
person does after that is their nevermind, not mine. I don't expect people
to follow what I say, I only ask for the courtesy of respect for my point
of view and my right to hold same. I don't have a problem with people
having a different view than I do-it's their right. Just because they may
think differently than I do does not mean we can't talk or have a
productive relationship.
I went round and round with Rich Peihl, the man you rudely address as
an 'Idiot Christian' about religion. We don't agree, but it was a civil
debate. We finally resolved to 'agree to disagree', and that was that. By
being civil, and not hurling insults at each other, I managed to gain a
friend and Rich sent some western US pictures on, and I had something new
and different to post on my site. So basically, the situation ended up
benefitting us both.
Now I represent differently than most people. I maintain a set of views and
an appearance that are not considered acceptable by most. Yet, I manage to
get by in a job that has me out in the public all day long, without
compromising belief or appearance. Mind you, I cop to a fair share of aggro
for it, it's a price I pay. But eventually the aggro turns into respect, or
at the very least, tolerance, because I'm not disrespectful or insulting to
anyone. People even sometime ask what I'm all about, and if I'm not too
busy, I explain myself. They still may not agree, but at least they respect
me. That's all I ever ask.
I've talked to Adam about this little pissing match of yours, and I've told
him my view on it, to paraphrase Truman Capote, is thus: 'That's not
debate, that's shouting'. It's an empty exercise. A lot of what passes
as 'debate' these days is of a like nature. It doesn't reinforce the
concept of an exchange of ideas, it merely serves to reinforce polarising
certain parties to a set of ideas that they are amenable to while
describing anyone with a different set of ideas as an 'enemy'. There's a
lot of smoke and heat, but when it's all said and done, nothing's
accomplished, and we're all worse off.
One thing that actually does bug me is yr yattering about 'the stupid
miliary'. I was a member of said organisation for 11 years. Does that make
me 'stupid'? The 'stupid military' is not who's making damaging policy
decisions(at least not in the ranks), and they are obliged by law to follow
the orders they are given, unless they are so egregious that they can be
justified as illegal. Of course, if you actually *knew* anything about the
military, I wouldn't have to tell you that. The military in this country is
in no wise related to transport funding or administration. Bringing it up
in this sort of debate is just tossing in a red herring, and it makes you
look that much more foolish.
Dear Comrade you know better then that. You yourself provided the
stats a while back about the huge sucking sound coming from Iraq.

Plus the huge borrowing from the Chinese and Arabs are making them so
much richer, enabling them to build huge mega projects where money is
no object. What is that doing to US const budgets? Plus what is that
doing to the demand for oil. And Adam thinks it won't go up to
$150/$200 a barrel.

Amd you know full well the military gets trillons thrown at it no
questions asked, transportation is poor mouthed.

Why don't we raise taxes to end this stupid borrowing?

Oh, I forgot, war without sacrifice.

I am sure you know during WW2, that last war we sacrificed for, there
were excess profits taxes on companies.

Why not an excess profits tax on the oil companies? Huh, why not?
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Of course, I've noticed you tossing in the old 'liberal' talking point 'If
you like the military so much, why don't you join it'? What's this? Are you
wishing the same fate that has befallen some of our other veterans on Adam?
Would you like to see him come home dead, or short a limb, or racked with
the mental anguish of PTSD? If so, that's pretty cheap. If you knew any war
veterans, you might rethink that position. I know a few, and I can tell you
stories. I wouldn't wish their misery on anyone, no matter how much I
disagree with/dislike them.
I don't expect you to read this and understand it. Like TimBrown and any
number of 'progs' and 'liberals' I know, you're stuck in amber; and as such
Please expand on that one.
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
are no better than the 'conservatives' you so revile. Fine. Whatever. Just
take this thought home: if you don't have anything positive to add to a
debate, if you can't respond to someone without hurling insults at them,
then you're better off not bothering in the first place.
--
Comrade Otto Yamamotohttp://mryamamoto.50megs.com
The Quality Goes In Before The Name Goes On!
You are very wrong about me not reading it. I most certainly did.
Also I do appreciate your points.

I know you were a part of the military. You joined for your own
reasons. People do join for patriotic as well as economic reasons.

If you have read what I posted about the military, you know my vitriol
is reserved for the commissioned officers, not the grunts. Maybe
there is a reason desertions are up and getting worse.

What about the scandal at the VA and Walter Reed. How about this new
one where they ask for the return of enlistment bonuses. I am pretty
sure that came from the high brass.

When I talk about the criminality of the Commissioned Officers I also
include the civilians at the Pentagon. They are the one's reponsible
for this mess.

Why didn't at the very least someone stand up to Bush at the very
beginning and say we don't have enough manpower and not nearly enough
armor.

One of the high Generals, maybe it was Colin Powell said "this is
something you turn in your stars over".

Plenty of military have stated there disgust with everything from Viet
Nam to this stupidity, you know that. Including physically protesting
as John Kerry did.

Remember fragging offciers during V-N?


I truly believe 99% of the commissioned officers, all they care about
is their retirement benefits and pensions. Also making sure they get
a nice high paying job at a defense contractor so they can double or
triple their pensions.

In the meantime Adam stays safe at home. That to me is gutless
hypocracy.

See, I can have an interesting disc with you.

And btw than for telling Adam he is trolling me.

Randy
Andrew Tompkins
2007-11-30 00:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
One thing that actually does bug me is yr yattering about 'the stupid
miliary'. I was a member of said organisation for 11 years. Does that make
me 'stupid'? The 'stupid military' is not who's making damaging policy
decisions(at least not in the ranks), and they are obliged by law to follow
the orders they are given, unless they are so egregious that they can be
justified as illegal. Of course, if you actually *knew* anything about the
military, I wouldn't have to tell you that. The military in this country is
in no wise related to transport funding or administration. Bringing it up
in this sort of debate is just tossing in a red herring, and it makes you
look that much more foolish.
Dear Comrade you know better then that. You yourself provided the
stats a while back about the huge sucking sound coming from Iraq.
Plus the huge borrowing from the Chinese and Arabs are making them so
much richer, enabling them to build huge mega projects where money is
no object. What is that doing to US const budgets? Plus what is that
doing to the demand for oil. And Adam thinks it won't go up to
$150/$200 a barrel.
Amd you know full well the military gets trillons thrown at it no
questions asked, transportation is poor mouthed.
Why don't we raise taxes to end this stupid borrowing?
Oh, I forgot, war without sacrifice.
I am sure you know during WW2, that last war we sacrificed for, there
were excess profits taxes on companies.
Why not an excess profits tax on the oil companies? Huh, why not?
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Of course, I've noticed you tossing in the old 'liberal' talking point 'If
you like the military so much, why don't you join it'? What's this? Are you
wishing the same fate that has befallen some of our other veterans on Adam?
Would you like to see him come home dead, or short a limb, or racked with
the mental anguish of PTSD? If so, that's pretty cheap. If you knew any war
veterans, you might rethink that position. I know a few, and I can tell you
stories. I wouldn't wish their misery on anyone, no matter how much I
disagree with/dislike them.
I don't expect you to read this and understand it. Like TimBrown and any
number of 'progs' and 'liberals' I know, you're stuck in amber; and as such
Please expand on that one.
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
are no better than the 'conservatives' you so revile. Fine. Whatever. Just
take this thought home: if you don't have anything positive to add to a
debate, if you can't respond to someone without hurling insults at them,
then you're better off not bothering in the first place.
You are very wrong about me not reading it. I most certainly did.
Also I do appreciate your points.
I know you were a part of the military. You joined for your own
reasons. People do join for patriotic as well as economic reasons.
If you have read what I posted about the military, you know my vitriol
is reserved for the commissioned officers, not the grunts. Maybe
there is a reason desertions are up and getting worse.
Then the direction your contempt includes me (and probably a few others
here). Even though neither I nor 99.99% of the officer corps comes
anywhere close to making high level policy decisions. At any level of
command, operational orders and policies are set in accordance with its
part of those of the next higher level of command. Your contempt should
only include those that introduce perturbations in this order stream
leading to problems, not to the entire officer corp.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What about the scandal at the VA and Walter Reed. How about this new
one where they ask for the return of enlistment bonuses. I am pretty
sure that came from the high brass.
When I talk about the criminality of the Commissioned Officers I also
include the civilians at the Pentagon. They are the one's reponsible
for this mess.
Why didn't at the very least someone stand up to Bush at the very
beginning and say we don't have enough manpower and not nearly enough
armor.
They did. Every high-level military person that spoke up against
Rumsfeld was handed there walking papers soon after. This continued
until Rumsfeld found someone who would go along with him. The result we
see today in Iraq.

Those flag officers were company officers in the Vietnam War and learned
many lessons in that war. Those lessons were applied and, over 25
years, the military was essentially rebuilt into the hammer that was
used in Kuwait. When Iraq and Afghanistan came around, Rumsfeld didn't
agree that the new military was the solution and fired those that
insisted that it was.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
One of the high Generals, maybe it was Colin Powell said "this is
something you turn in your stars over".
Plenty of military have stated there disgust with everything from Viet
Nam to this stupidity, you know that. Including physically protesting
as John Kerry did.
Remember fragging offciers during V-N?
I truly believe 99% of the commissioned officers, all they care about
is their retirement benefits and pensions. Also making sure they get
a nice high paying job at a defense contractor so they can double or
triple their pensions.
Then you would be wrong. Nobody joins the military for the pay, and
retirement is a percentage of pay. And getting many of your retirement
benefits is akin to pulling teeth. While I was in, we had problems
keeping pilots because, at the end of any incurred commitment, they
would leave and go to the airlines because they payed better (and you
didn't have to put up with the military BS).
Post by ***@yahoo.com
In the meantime Adam stays safe at home. That to me is gutless
hypocracy.
See, I can have an interesting disc with you.
And btw than for telling Adam he is trolling me.
--
--Andrew Tompkins
Capt. USAF (IRR)
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-30 16:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
One thing that actually does bug me is yr yattering about 'the stupid
miliary'. I was a member of said organisation for 11 years. Does that make
me 'stupid'? The 'stupid military' is not who's making damaging policy
decisions(at least not in the ranks), and they are obliged by law to follow
the orders they are given, unless they are so egregious that they can be
justified as illegal. Of course, if you actually *knew* anything about the
military, I wouldn't have to tell you that. The military in this country is
in no wise related to transport funding or administration. Bringing it up
in this sort of debate is just tossing in a red herring, and it makes you
look that much more foolish.
Dear Comrade you know better then that. You yourself provided the
stats a while back about the huge sucking sound coming from Iraq.
Plus the huge borrowing from the Chinese and Arabs are making them so
much richer, enabling them to build huge mega projects where money is
no object. What is that doing to US const budgets? Plus what is that
doing to the demand for oil. And Adam thinks it won't go up to
$150/$200 a barrel.
Amd you know full well the military gets trillons thrown at it no
questions asked, transportation is poor mouthed.
Why don't we raise taxes to end this stupid borrowing?
Oh, I forgot, war without sacrifice.
I am sure you know during WW2, that last war we sacrificed for, there
were excess profits taxes on companies.
Why not an excess profits tax on the oil companies? Huh, why not?
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Of course, I've noticed you tossing in the old 'liberal' talking point 'If
you like the military so much, why don't you join it'? What's this? Are you
wishing the same fate that has befallen some of our other veterans on Adam?
Would you like to see him come home dead, or short a limb, or racked with
the mental anguish of PTSD? If so, that's pretty cheap. If you knew any war
veterans, you might rethink that position. I know a few, and I can tell you
stories. I wouldn't wish their misery on anyone, no matter how much I
disagree with/dislike them.
I don't expect you to read this and understand it. Like TimBrown and any
number of 'progs' and 'liberals' I know, you're stuck in amber; and as such
Please expand on that one.
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
are no better than the 'conservatives' you so revile. Fine. Whatever. Just
take this thought home: if you don't have anything positive to add to a
debate, if you can't respond to someone without hurling insults at them,
then you're better off not bothering in the first place.
You are very wrong about me not reading it. I most certainly did.
Also I do appreciate your points.
I know you were a part of the military. You joined for your own
reasons. People do join for patriotic as well as economic reasons.
If you have read what I posted about the military, you know my vitriol
is reserved for the commissioned officers, not the grunts. Maybe
there is a reason desertions are up and getting worse.
Then the direction your contempt includes me (and probably a few others
here). Even though neither I nor 99.99% of the officer corps comes
anywhere close to making high level policy decisions. At any level of
command, operational orders and policies are set in accordance with its
part of those of the next higher level of command. Your contempt should
only include those that introduce perturbations in this order stream
leading to problems, not to the entire officer corp.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What about the scandal at the VA and Walter Reed. How about this new
one where they ask for the return of enlistment bonuses. I am pretty
sure that came from the high brass.
When I talk about the criminality of the Commissioned Officers I also
include the civilians at the Pentagon. They are the one's reponsible
for this mess.
Why didn't at the very least someone stand up to Bush at the very
beginning and say we don't have enough manpower and not nearly enough
armor.
They did. Every high-level military person that spoke up against
Rumsfeld was handed there walking papers soon after. This continued
until Rumsfeld found someone who would go along with him. The result we
see today in Iraq.
Those flag officers were company officers in the Vietnam War and learned
many lessons in that war. Those lessons were applied and, over 25
years, the military was essentially rebuilt into the hammer that was
used in Kuwait. When Iraq and Afghanistan came around, Rumsfeld didn't
agree that the new military was the solution and fired those that
insisted that it was.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
One of the high Generals, maybe it was Colin Powell said "this is
something you turn in your stars over".
Plenty of military have stated there disgust with everything from Viet
Nam to this stupidity, you know that. Including physically protesting
as John Kerry did.
Remember fragging offciers during V-N?
I truly believe 99% of the commissioned officers, all they care about
is their retirement benefits and pensions. Also making sure they get
a nice high paying job at a defense contractor so they can double or
triple their pensions.
Then you would be wrong. Nobody joins the military for the pay, and
retirement is a percentage of pay. And getting many of your retirement
benefits is akin to pulling teeth. While I was in, we had problems
keeping pilots because, at the end of any incurred commitment, they
would leave and go to the airlines because they payed better (and you
didn't have to put up with the military BS).
BS in the military, no, no way, tell me it ain't so.

Again, I have my doubts about anyone that supports the military, no
questions asked.
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
In the meantime Adam stays safe at home. That to me is gutless
hypocracy.
See, I can have an interesting disc with you.
And btw than for telling Adam he is trolling me.
--
--Andrew Tompkins
Capt. USAF (IRR)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Then why did you go in????

Why are desertions way up?????

They are eating up trillions and they continue to have a blank check.
I have my doubts about anyone that supports the military, no questions
asked. Furthermore I have my doubts about anyone that supports them,
but does not have the guts to go in.


But that is America in the 21st c.




Just one for instance. The officers in charge of Walter Reed should
have been court martialed, why were they not???

I think the death penalty would have been appropriate. Or at the bare
minimum life in prison with heavy torture.


Commissioned officers are making a lot of money currently. Granted
they didn't always, but they do now. A colonel now makes about $70,000
a year. His retirement is based on that. Not bad, huh.

Randy
Andrew Tompkins
2007-12-01 00:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
One thing that actually does bug me is yr yattering about 'the stupid
miliary'. I was a member of said organisation for 11 years. Does that make
me 'stupid'? The 'stupid military' is not who's making damaging policy
decisions(at least not in the ranks), and they are obliged by law to follow
the orders they are given, unless they are so egregious that they can be
justified as illegal. Of course, if you actually *knew* anything about the
military, I wouldn't have to tell you that. The military in this country is
in no wise related to transport funding or administration. Bringing it up
in this sort of debate is just tossing in a red herring, and it makes you
look that much more foolish.
Dear Comrade you know better then that. You yourself provided the
stats a while back about the huge sucking sound coming from Iraq.
Plus the huge borrowing from the Chinese and Arabs are making them so
much richer, enabling them to build huge mega projects where money is
no object. What is that doing to US const budgets? Plus what is that
doing to the demand for oil. And Adam thinks it won't go up to
$150/$200 a barrel.
Amd you know full well the military gets trillons thrown at it no
questions asked, transportation is poor mouthed.
Why don't we raise taxes to end this stupid borrowing?
Oh, I forgot, war without sacrifice.
I am sure you know during WW2, that last war we sacrificed for, there
were excess profits taxes on companies.
Why not an excess profits tax on the oil companies? Huh, why not?
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Of course, I've noticed you tossing in the old 'liberal' talking point 'If
you like the military so much, why don't you join it'? What's this? Are you
wishing the same fate that has befallen some of our other veterans on Adam?
Would you like to see him come home dead, or short a limb, or racked with
the mental anguish of PTSD? If so, that's pretty cheap. If you knew any war
veterans, you might rethink that position. I know a few, and I can tell you
stories. I wouldn't wish their misery on anyone, no matter how much I
disagree with/dislike them.
I don't expect you to read this and understand it. Like TimBrown and any
number of 'progs' and 'liberals' I know, you're stuck in amber; and as such
Please expand on that one.
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
are no better than the 'conservatives' you so revile. Fine. Whatever. Just
take this thought home: if you don't have anything positive to add to a
debate, if you can't respond to someone without hurling insults at them,
then you're better off not bothering in the first place.
You are very wrong about me not reading it. I most certainly did.
Also I do appreciate your points.
I know you were a part of the military. You joined for your own
reasons. People do join for patriotic as well as economic reasons.
If you have read what I posted about the military, you know my vitriol
is reserved for the commissioned officers, not the grunts. Maybe
there is a reason desertions are up and getting worse.
Then the direction your contempt includes me (and probably a few others
here). Even though neither I nor 99.99% of the officer corps comes
anywhere close to making high level policy decisions. At any level of
command, operational orders and policies are set in accordance with its
part of those of the next higher level of command. Your contempt should
only include those that introduce perturbations in this order stream
leading to problems, not to the entire officer corp.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What about the scandal at the VA and Walter Reed. How about this new
one where they ask for the return of enlistment bonuses. I am pretty
sure that came from the high brass.
When I talk about the criminality of the Commissioned Officers I also
include the civilians at the Pentagon. They are the one's reponsible
for this mess.
Why didn't at the very least someone stand up to Bush at the very
beginning and say we don't have enough manpower and not nearly enough
armor.
They did. Every high-level military person that spoke up against
Rumsfeld was handed there walking papers soon after. This continued
until Rumsfeld found someone who would go along with him. The result we
see today in Iraq.
Those flag officers were company officers in the Vietnam War and learned
many lessons in that war. Those lessons were applied and, over 25
years, the military was essentially rebuilt into the hammer that was
used in Kuwait. When Iraq and Afghanistan came around, Rumsfeld didn't
agree that the new military was the solution and fired those that
insisted that it was.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
One of the high Generals, maybe it was Colin Powell said "this is
something you turn in your stars over".
Plenty of military have stated there disgust with everything from Viet
Nam to this stupidity, you know that. Including physically protesting
as John Kerry did.
Remember fragging offciers during V-N?
I truly believe 99% of the commissioned officers, all they care about
is their retirement benefits and pensions. Also making sure they get
a nice high paying job at a defense contractor so they can double or
triple their pensions.
Then you would be wrong. Nobody joins the military for the pay, and
retirement is a percentage of pay. And getting many of your retirement
benefits is akin to pulling teeth. While I was in, we had problems
keeping pilots because, at the end of any incurred commitment, they
would leave and go to the airlines because they payed better (and you
didn't have to put up with the military BS).
BS in the military, no, no way, tell me it ain't so.
For those of us that joined for reasons other than career aspirations,
the 'military BS' (not 'BS in the military') is the junk you have to put
up with (OTS, sitting alert 1 week out of every 3, being called in at
0400 for an ORI surge, etc.) to do the things that you signed up for
(flying your brains out).
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Again, I have my doubts about anyone that supports the military, no
questions asked.
Have you done your time? If not, your doubts don't have any legs to
stand on.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
In the meantime Adam stays safe at home. That to me is gutless
hypocracy.
See, I can have an interesting disc with you.
And btw than for telling Adam he is trolling me.
--
--Andrew Tompkins
Capt. USAF (IRR)
Then why did you go in????
To fly airplanes. And to gain the experience that everyone else was
asking for (a military line almost always helps a resume).
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Why are desertions way up?????
I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask the deserters. I don't purport to
speak for them. I won't accept that you do either.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
They are eating up trillions and they continue to have a blank check.
I have my doubts about anyone that supports the military, no questions
asked. Furthermore I have my doubts about anyone that supports them,
but does not have the guts to go in.
Just because I support the military doesn't mean that I support the war
in Iraq which is costing us so much.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Just one for instance. The officers in charge of Walter Reed should
have been court martialed, why were they not???
It costs more money to put on a court martial and incarcerate people.
Those officers accepted a dishonorable discharge as administrative
punishment rather than taking a hopeless case to a judicial situation.
Its called plea bargaining.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I think the death penalty would have been appropriate. Or at the bare
minimum life in prison with heavy torture.
In this country, punishment is appropriate for the actual charge, not
what the local radical thinks it should be.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Commissioned officers are making a lot of money currently. Granted
they didn't always, but they do now. A colonel now makes about $70,000
a year. His retirement is based on that. Not bad, huh.
You haven't checked the current pay charts lately, have you? Either
that or you don't know how long it usually takes to make Colonel (O-6).
A Colonel today rarely has less than 16 yrs of service and makes
$90,000 with that number of years of service and usually has a Wing
Command or a high level staff position at higher headquarters. Someone
with similar responsibilities in a civilian job would be making well
over $125,000.



My first full year (1986) as an officer I made $15,000.

5 years later (1991), as a Capt. with 7 yrs of service, I made $31,700
(including flight incentive pay) and had stashed away $80,000 over that
time.

5 years later (1996), as a level 2 (out of 5) 0 years of service
software engineer, I made $42,000 (I would have made $46,000 with 12 yrs
of service in the military as a Major with a mid-level staff job).

5 years later (2001), still a level 2 SW Eng with 5 yrs of service, I
made $65,000 (I would have made $72,000 with 17 yrs of service in the
military as a Colonel with a mid-level command) and had stashed away
$120,000 in a place where the rent was twice as high as where I was
stationed in the military.

Like I previously said, people don't join the military for the money.
--
--Andy
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-12-03 15:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
One thing that actually does bug me is yr yattering about 'the stupid
miliary'. I was a member of said organisation for 11 years. Does that make
me 'stupid'? The 'stupid military' is not who's making damaging policy
decisions(at least not in the ranks), and they are obliged by law to follow
the orders they are given, unless they are so egregious that they can be
justified as illegal. Of course, if you actually *knew* anything about the
military, I wouldn't have to tell you that. The military in this country is
in no wise related to transport funding or administration. Bringing it up
in this sort of debate is just tossing in a red herring, and it makes you
look that much more foolish.
Dear Comrade you know better then that. You yourself provided the
stats a while back about the huge sucking sound coming from Iraq.
Plus the huge borrowing from the Chinese and Arabs are making them so
much richer, enabling them to build huge mega projects where money is
no object. What is that doing to US const budgets? Plus what is that
doing to the demand for oil. And Adam thinks it won't go up to
$150/$200 a barrel.
Amd you know full well the military gets trillons thrown at it no
questions asked, transportation is poor mouthed.
Why don't we raise taxes to end this stupid borrowing?
Oh, I forgot, war without sacrifice.
I am sure you know during WW2, that last war we sacrificed for, there
were excess profits taxes on companies.
Why not an excess profits tax on the oil companies? Huh, why not?
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Of course, I've noticed you tossing in the old 'liberal' talking point 'If
you like the military so much, why don't you join it'? What's this? Are you
wishing the same fate that has befallen some of our other veterans on Adam?
Would you like to see him come home dead, or short a limb, or racked with
the mental anguish of PTSD? If so, that's pretty cheap. If you knew any war
veterans, you might rethink that position. I know a few, and I can tell you
stories. I wouldn't wish their misery on anyone, no matter how much I
disagree with/dislike them.
I don't expect you to read this and understand it. Like TimBrown and any
number of 'progs' and 'liberals' I know, you're stuck in amber; and as such
Please expand on that one.
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
are no better than the 'conservatives' you so revile. Fine. Whatever. Just
take this thought home: if you don't have anything positive to add to a
debate, if you can't respond to someone without hurling insults at them,
then you're better off not bothering in the first place.
You are very wrong about me not reading it. I most certainly did.
Also I do appreciate your points.
I know you were a part of the military. You joined for your own
reasons. People do join for patriotic as well as economic reasons.
If you have read what I posted about the military, you know my vitriol
is reserved for the commissioned officers, not the grunts. Maybe
there is a reason desertions are up and getting worse.
Then the direction your contempt includes me (and probably a few others
here). Even though neither I nor 99.99% of the officer corps comes
anywhere close to making high level policy decisions. At any level of
command, operational orders and policies are set in accordance with its
part of those of the next higher level of command. Your contempt should
only include those that introduce perturbations in this order stream
leading to problems, not to the entire officer corp.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What about the scandal at the VA and Walter Reed. How about this new
one where they ask for the return of enlistment bonuses. I am pretty
sure that came from the high brass.
When I talk about the criminality of the Commissioned Officers I also
include the civilians at the Pentagon. They are the one's reponsible
for this mess.
Why didn't at the very least someone stand up to Bush at the very
beginning and say we don't have enough manpower and not nearly enough
armor.
They did. Every high-level military person that spoke up against
Rumsfeld was handed there walking papers soon after. This continued
until Rumsfeld found someone who would go along with him. The result we
see today in Iraq.
Those flag officers were company officers in the Vietnam War and learned
many lessons in that war. Those lessons were applied and, over 25
years, the military was essentially rebuilt into the hammer that was
used in Kuwait. When Iraq and Afghanistan came around, Rumsfeld didn't
agree that the new military was the solution and fired those that
insisted that it was.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
One of the high Generals, maybe it was Colin Powell said "this is
something you turn in your stars over".
Plenty of military have stated there disgust with everything from Viet
Nam to this stupidity, you know that. Including physically protesting
as John Kerry did.
Remember fragging offciers during V-N?
I truly believe 99% of the commissioned officers, all they care about
is their retirement benefits and pensions. Also making sure they get
a nice high paying job at a defense contractor so they can double or
triple their pensions.
Then you would be wrong. Nobody joins the military for the pay, and
retirement is a percentage of pay. And getting many of your retirement
benefits is akin to pulling teeth. While I was in, we had problems
keeping pilots because, at the end of any incurred commitment, they
would leave and go to the airlines because they payed better (and you
didn't have to put up with the military BS).
BS in the military, no, no way, tell me it ain't so.
For those of us that joined for reasons other than career aspirations,
the 'military BS' (not 'BS in the military') is the junk you have to put
up with (OTS, sitting alert 1 week out of every 3, being called in at
0400 for an ORI surge, etc.) to do the things that you signed up for
(flying your brains out).
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Again, I have my doubts about anyone that supports the military, no
questions asked.
Have you done your time? If not, your doubts don't have any legs to
stand on.
They would not want me, and I certainly do not want them.
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
In the meantime Adam stays safe at home. That to me is gutless
hypocracy.
See, I can have an interesting disc with you.
And btw than for telling Adam he is trolling me.
--
--Andrew Tompkins
Capt. USAF (IRR)
Then why did you go in????
To fly airplanes. And to gain the experience that everyone else was
asking for (a military line almost always helps a resume).
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Why are desertions way up?????
I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask the deserters. I don't purport to
speak for them. I won't accept that you do either.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
They are eating up trillions and they continue to have a blank check.
I have my doubts about anyone that supports the military, no questions
asked. Furthermore I have my doubts about anyone that supports them,
but does not have the guts to go in.
Just because I support the military doesn't mean that I support the war
in Iraq which is costing us so much.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Just one for instance. The officers in charge of Walter Reed should
have been court martialed, why were they not???
It costs more money to put on a court martial and incarcerate people.
Those officers accepted a dishonorable discharge as administrative
punishment rather than taking a hopeless case to a judicial situation.
Its called plea bargaining.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I think the death penalty would have been appropriate. Or at the bare
minimum life in prison with heavy torture.
In this country, punishment is appropriate for the actual charge, not
what the local radical thinks it should be.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Commissioned officers are making a lot of money currently. Granted
they didn't always, but they do now. A colonel now makes about $70,000
a year. His retirement is based on that. Not bad, huh.
You haven't checked the current pay charts lately, have you? Either
that or you don't know how long it usually takes to make Colonel (O-6).
A Colonel today rarely has less than 16 yrs of service and makes
$90,000 with that number of years of service and usually has a Wing
Command or a high level staff position at higher headquarters. Someone
with similar responsibilities in a civilian job would be making well
over $125,000.
Right, but as I told the Comrade, how many of those civilian jobs also
provide housing, 100% medical, and all of the other military benefits.

Plus, retirement and the ability to double and triple dip either with
other govt jobs or cushy positions with defense contractors.
Post by Andrew Tompkins
My first full year (1986) as an officer I made $15,000.
You went in before the big pay boosts.
Post by Andrew Tompkins
5 years later (1991), as a Capt. with 7 yrs of service, I made $31,700
(including flight incentive pay) and had stashed away $80,000 over that
time.
5 years later (1996), as a level 2 (out of 5) 0 years of service
software engineer, I made $42,000 (I would have made $46,000 with 12 yrs
of service in the military as a Major with a mid-level staff job).
5 years later (2001), still a level 2 SW Eng with 5 yrs of service, I
made $65,000 (I would have made $72,000 with 17 yrs of service in the
military as a Colonel with a mid-level command) and had stashed away
$120,000 in a place where the rent was twice as high as where I was
stationed in the military.
Like I previously said, people don't join the military for the money.
Now they don't join for any reason.

Randy
Andrew Tompkins
2007-12-04 00:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
One thing that actually does bug me is yr yattering about 'the stupid
miliary'. I was a member of said organisation for 11 years. Does that make
me 'stupid'? The 'stupid military' is not who's making damaging policy
decisions(at least not in the ranks), and they are obliged by law to follow
the orders they are given, unless they are so egregious that they can be
justified as illegal. Of course, if you actually *knew* anything about the
military, I wouldn't have to tell you that. The military in this country is
in no wise related to transport funding or administration. Bringing it up
in this sort of debate is just tossing in a red herring, and it makes you
look that much more foolish.
Dear Comrade you know better then that. You yourself provided the
stats a while back about the huge sucking sound coming from Iraq.
Plus the huge borrowing from the Chinese and Arabs are making them so
much richer, enabling them to build huge mega projects where money is
no object. What is that doing to US const budgets? Plus what is that
doing to the demand for oil. And Adam thinks it won't go up to
$150/$200 a barrel.
Amd you know full well the military gets trillons thrown at it no
questions asked, transportation is poor mouthed.
Why don't we raise taxes to end this stupid borrowing?
Oh, I forgot, war without sacrifice.
I am sure you know during WW2, that last war we sacrificed for, there
were excess profits taxes on companies.
Why not an excess profits tax on the oil companies? Huh, why not?
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Of course, I've noticed you tossing in the old 'liberal' talking point 'If
you like the military so much, why don't you join it'? What's this? Are you
wishing the same fate that has befallen some of our other veterans on Adam?
Would you like to see him come home dead, or short a limb, or racked with
the mental anguish of PTSD? If so, that's pretty cheap. If you knew any war
veterans, you might rethink that position. I know a few, and I can tell you
stories. I wouldn't wish their misery on anyone, no matter how much I
disagree with/dislike them.
I don't expect you to read this and understand it. Like TimBrown and any
number of 'progs' and 'liberals' I know, you're stuck in amber; and as such
Please expand on that one.
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
are no better than the 'conservatives' you so revile. Fine. Whatever. Just
take this thought home: if you don't have anything positive to add to a
debate, if you can't respond to someone without hurling insults at them,
then you're better off not bothering in the first place.
You are very wrong about me not reading it. I most certainly did.
Also I do appreciate your points.
I know you were a part of the military. You joined for your own
reasons. People do join for patriotic as well as economic reasons.
If you have read what I posted about the military, you know my vitriol
is reserved for the commissioned officers, not the grunts. Maybe
there is a reason desertions are up and getting worse.
Then the direction your contempt includes me (and probably a few others
here). Even though neither I nor 99.99% of the officer corps comes
anywhere close to making high level policy decisions. At any level of
command, operational orders and policies are set in accordance with its
part of those of the next higher level of command. Your contempt should
only include those that introduce perturbations in this order stream
leading to problems, not to the entire officer corp.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What about the scandal at the VA and Walter Reed. How about this new
one where they ask for the return of enlistment bonuses. I am pretty
sure that came from the high brass.
When I talk about the criminality of the Commissioned Officers I also
include the civilians at the Pentagon. They are the one's reponsible
for this mess.
Why didn't at the very least someone stand up to Bush at the very
beginning and say we don't have enough manpower and not nearly enough
armor.
They did. Every high-level military person that spoke up against
Rumsfeld was handed there walking papers soon after. This continued
until Rumsfeld found someone who would go along with him. The result we
see today in Iraq.
Those flag officers were company officers in the Vietnam War and learned
many lessons in that war. Those lessons were applied and, over 25
years, the military was essentially rebuilt into the hammer that was
used in Kuwait. When Iraq and Afghanistan came around, Rumsfeld didn't
agree that the new military was the solution and fired those that
insisted that it was.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
One of the high Generals, maybe it was Colin Powell said "this is
something you turn in your stars over".
Plenty of military have stated there disgust with everything from Viet
Nam to this stupidity, you know that. Including physically protesting
as John Kerry did.
Remember fragging offciers during V-N?
I truly believe 99% of the commissioned officers, all they care about
is their retirement benefits and pensions. Also making sure they get
a nice high paying job at a defense contractor so they can double or
triple their pensions.
Then you would be wrong. Nobody joins the military for the pay, and
retirement is a percentage of pay. And getting many of your retirement
benefits is akin to pulling teeth. While I was in, we had problems
keeping pilots because, at the end of any incurred commitment, they
would leave and go to the airlines because they payed better (and you
didn't have to put up with the military BS).
Again, I have my doubts about anyone that supports the military, no
questions asked.
Have you done your time? If not, your doubts don't have any legs to
stand on.
They would not want me, and I certainly do not want them.
There are very few reasons that the military would not take you. In
your case, the primary one would probably be age (too old?). Which
doesn't remove the fact that you can already have served your time
previously. If you can't get through Basic, that's your problem, not
their's.

As for your opinion, that is already well known here.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Commissioned officers are making a lot of money currently. Granted
they didn't always, but they do now. A colonel now makes about $70,000
a year. His retirement is based on that. Not bad, huh.
You haven't checked the current pay charts lately, have you? Either
that or you don't know how long it usually takes to make Colonel (O-6).
A Colonel today rarely has less than 16 yrs of service and makes
$90,000 with that number of years of service and usually has a Wing
Command or a high level staff position at higher headquarters. Someone
with similar responsibilities in a civilian job would be making well
over $125,000.
Right, but as I told the Comrade, how many of those civilian jobs also
provide housing, 100% medical, and all of the other military benefits.
The housing allowance is based on pay grade, where you are stationed,
marital status and whether you are living on or off base. On base
housing isn't anything to write home about and I never heard the end of
the grumbling about the hoops people had to jump through to stay in it.
For off base housing, the amount given usually payed for a 1-bedroom
apartment for singles, 2-bedroom for married couples. It certainly
wouldn't cover the mortgage payment.

As medical goes, up until a couple years ago, most large companies
covered insurance premiums. The insurance covered everything except
copays, deductible, and the 20% part of the 20-80 section up to a
certain value of out-of-pocket expenses.

You'll have to be more specific about 'other military benefits' if you
want me to comment on them.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Plus, retirement and the ability to double and triple dip either with
other govt jobs or cushy positions with defense contractors.
You seem to be hung up on this retirement thing. Those few large
companies that don't have a retirement plan do have a 401K that they
make equal contributions to up to a certain percentage of pay. If you
don't choose to make your contributions, that's your problem, not their's.

As for other government jobs or cushy positions with defense
contractors, those positions are open to anyone with the required
qualifications and experience and such people qualify for that second or
third retirement plan.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
My first full year (1986) as an officer I made $15,000.
You went in before the big pay boosts.
Why do you think I gave you a 15 yr timeline showing that my civilian
pay was close to military pay with an extra 12 yrs of service? Using
the rank that I would have had at the given time, had I stayed in, and
the current military pay charts at that time.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Andrew Tompkins
5 years later (1991), as a Capt. with 7 yrs of service, I made $31,700
(including flight incentive pay) and had stashed away $80,000 over that
time.
5 years later (1996), as a level 2 (out of 5) 0 years of service
software engineer, I made $42,000 (I would have made $46,000 with 12 yrs
of service in the military as a Major with a mid-level staff job).
5 years later (2001), still a level 2 SW Eng with 5 yrs of service, I
made $65,000 (I would have made $72,000 with 17 yrs of service in the
military as a Colonel with a mid-level command) and had stashed away
$120,000 in a place where the rent was twice as high as where I was
stationed in the military.
Like I previously said, people don't join the military for the money.
Now they don't join for any reason.
Everything I see says that the military is close to making quotas every
month (sometimes a little under, sometimes a little over).
--
--Andy
EAST COAST HIVE MIND
2007-12-01 00:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Commissioned officers are making a lot of money currently.  Granted
they didn't always, but they do now. A colonel now makes about $70,000
a year.  His retirement is based on that.  Not bad, huh.
What's so great about that? In a lot of metro areas $70k doesn't go that far
unless you're single or something.
--
Comrade Otto Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
The Quality Goes In Before The Name Goes On!
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-12-03 15:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Commissioned officers are making a lot of money currently. Granted
they didn't always, but they do now. A colonel now makes about $70,000
a year. His retirement is based on that. Not bad, huh.
What's so great about that? In a lot of metro areas $70k doesn't go that far
unless you're single or something.
--
Comrade Otto Yamamotohttp://mryamamoto.50megs.com
The Quality Goes In Before The Name Goes On!
Now you know better then that. Most of the military are stationed in
places like TX and GA, not NYC or Boston or SF.

Furthermore ALL of their expenses are paid for inc housing, medical,
etc.

How many jobs pay that 100%?

Federal civil positions that are located in expensive metro areas have
trouble being filled because of low pay.

Military pay went way up because of the all volunteer military. Now
beacuse of Iraq, they are having problems recruiting, go figure.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-27 22:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What do you suppose will happen to the creaky malfunctioning FAA
computer system if it keeps breaking down as it has so many time
previously?
And there are a lot of extremely disgruntled air traffic comtrollers.
I can see trying to have any kind of intelligent discussion with you is
pointless as you change positions like most people change underwear. You
said earlier the Federal government shouldn't subsidize airlines through air
traffic control and here you say they should.

I can't disagree with that kind of logic bcause there is none.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-28 16:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What do you suppose will happen to the creaky malfunctioning FAA
computer system if it keeps breaking down as it has so many time
previously?
And there are a lot of extremely disgruntled air traffic comtrollers.
I can see trying to have any kind of intelligent discussion with you is
pointless as you change positions like most people change underwear. You
said earlier the Federal government shouldn't subsidize airlines through air
traffic control and here you say they should.
I can't disagree with that kind of logic bcause there is none.
Where do I say they should????
I don't believe the should, but they do to the tune of billions.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-28 19:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What do you suppose will happen to the creaky malfunctioning FAA
computer system if it keeps breaking down as it has so many time
previously?
And there are a lot of extremely disgruntled air traffic comtrollers.
I can see trying to have any kind of intelligent discussion with you is
pointless as you change positions like most people change underwear. You
said earlier the Federal government shouldn't subsidize airlines through air
traffic control and here you say they should.
I can't disagree with that kind of logic bcause there is none.
Where do I say they should????
Should what? Please define the pronoun 'they' in the previous sentence.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I don't believe the should, but they do to the tune of billions.
Randy
Your posts are becoming incoherent. I'm not even sure what you are talking
about any more. Too many undefined pronouns, ambiguous terms.

Take a deep breath, please, before responding again. I might be able to
better understand what you are trying to say.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-28 19:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
What do you suppose will happen to the creaky malfunctioning FAA
computer system if it keeps breaking down as it has so many time
previously?
And there are a lot of extremely disgruntled air traffic comtrollers.
I can see trying to have any kind of intelligent discussion with you is
pointless as you change positions like most people change underwear. You
said earlier the Federal government shouldn't subsidize airlines through air
traffic control and here you say they should.
I can't disagree with that kind of logic bcause there is none.
Where do I say they should????
Should what? Please define the pronoun 'they' in the previous sentence.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I don't believe the should, but they do to the tune of billions.
Randy
Your posts are becoming incoherent. I'm not even sure what you are talking
about any more. Too many undefined pronouns, ambiguous terms.
Take a deep breath, please, before responding again. I might be able to
better understand what you are trying to say.
I though you might be capable of putting two and two together, but I
guess I assumed too much.

"federal govt" your words, your usage, "they" my usage ref. to your
usage.

I guess you are not as smart as I thought you were. Sorry for the
incorrect assumption.

Maybe you are playing games again?????

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-29 01:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Where do I say they should????
You said it right here in this thread :
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/fdb52fae6007bf41
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Should what? Please define the pronoun 'they' in the previous sentence.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I don't believe the should, but they do to the tune of billions.
Randy
Your posts are becoming incoherent. I'm not even sure what you are talking
about any more. Too many undefined pronouns, ambiguous terms.
Take a deep breath, please, before responding again. I might be able to
better understand what you are trying to say.
I though you might be capable of putting two and two together, but I
guess I assumed too much.
Cute. You write incoherent sentences that are full of abiguity that would
pass in a sixth grade writing class and I'm the one with the problem. The
best defense is a good offense?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
"federal govt" your words, your usage, "they" my usage ref. to your
usage.
I guess you are not as smart as I thought you were. Sorry for the
incorrect assumption.
Maybe you are playing games again?????
Here we go again. Cite where I have played any games. You're the one that
keeps contradicting yourself, then denying it, they meddying the waters so
no one can follow your logic, then calling people stupid because they can't
follow your convoluted craziness.

Are you sure you are plugged in to the same reality as the rest of us?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-29 01:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Where do I say they should????
You said it right here in this thread :
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/fdb52fae6007bf41
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Should what? Please define the pronoun 'they' in the previous sentence.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I don't believe the should, but they do to the tune of billions.
Randy
Your posts are becoming incoherent. I'm not even sure what you are talking
about any more. Too many undefined pronouns, ambiguous terms.
Take a deep breath, please, before responding again. I might be able to
better understand what you are trying to say.
I though you might be capable of putting two and two together, but I
guess I assumed too much.
Cute. You write incoherent sentences that are full of abiguity that would
pass in a sixth grade writing class and I'm the one with the problem. The
best defense is a good offense?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
"federal govt" your words, your usage, "they" my usage ref. to your
usage.
I guess you are not as smart as I thought you were. Sorry for the
incorrect assumption.
Maybe you are playing games again?????
Here we go again. Cite where I have played any games. You're the one that
keeps contradicting yourself, then denying it, they meddying the waters so
no one can follow your logic, then calling people stupid because they can't
follow your convoluted craziness.

Are you sure you are plugged in to the same reality as the rest of us?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-23 21:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going
to
come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't?
Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.
That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.
I guess huge delays due to a collapsing air traffic control system
just are bad luck, nothing else.
And there is no problem with too many planes in too small an air
space.
And that collapsing air traffic system is a symptom of the same problem as
the collapsing highway system. The government has too many things to spend
money on and not enough money is reaching them.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm
And since have a lot more sources of information and more panels of experts
that you do how is it you feel your position is more informed than teirs?
Uhh, huh. Panels of experts, and you believe everything they say.
Not with standing they want to sell someone something. Billions of
ATC equipment, or aircraft. Critical thinking now comes into play.
Contrary to what you may think not everyone has an agenda that is driven by
pet projects and keeping their ox from getting gored. The airlines would
probably be happier if they never had to buy another piece of equipment, and
could get their flights to run on time and not pay penalties for late
arrivals. They want to make money, not pay fines.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Let the airlines do what they do best, long
Post by ***@yahoo.com
haul flights.
What are you basing that assessment on?
It is better to have hundreds and hundreds of small planes clogging up
airports like EWR, LAG, JFK, ATL, ORD, and so on. And we will never
ever have bad weather again. The experts at USDOT and the FAA have
decreed it.
There will never be a need to fly a 747 into a middle sized market like a
Sacramento or a Buffalo. Economically and passenger load wise it doesn't
make sense. But those cities deserve serice, just the same. There is enough
demand to maintain a viable commercial service. So then the logical
conclusion to your comment would be that we need to build MORE airports in
NYC and Los Angeles so that people in the smaller markets can get to a major
facility and then transfer to the marports like EWR or JFK or LAX. Then
you'd have to build the structure to be able to transfer the passengers.
Where is the money supposed to come from to build all that?

And you failed to answer what you base your 'airlines do long runs best'
comment on. Congestion at airports is not from the length of the flights.
Rather it's a problem with the number of planes. And since airports are run
by government agencies rather than the airlines there's no correlation how
well and airline handles a flight and the flight's length.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But I am nothing, and they are experts. My first question always is
what are you trying to sell. Second question is who is paying you.
Just because someone has a different perspective than you doesn't mean
they're trying to sell anything. Differences of opinion are not allowed?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-23 22:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.
But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going
to
come
from?
Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.
But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.
Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.
We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.
Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.
Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.
And what does the current broken down air traffic control system cost?
Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.
--
I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.
Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.
So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't?
Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.
That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.
I guess huge delays due to a collapsing air traffic control system
just are bad luck, nothing else.
And there is no problem with too many planes in too small an air
space.
And that collapsing air traffic system is a symptom of the same problem as
the collapsing highway system. The government has too many things to spend
money on and not enough money is reaching them.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm
And since have a lot more sources of information and more panels of experts
that you do how is it you feel your position is more informed than teirs?
Uhh, huh. Panels of experts, and you believe everything they say.
Not with standing they want to sell someone something. Billions of
ATC equipment, or aircraft. Critical thinking now comes into play.
Contrary to what you may think not everyone has an agenda that is driven by
pet projects and keeping their ox from getting gored. The airlines would
probably be happier if they never had to buy another piece of equipment, and
could get their flights to run on time and not pay penalties for late
arrivals. They want to make money, not pay fines.
So we should continue to pay billions for a disaster that is the air
traffic control system. How are flights supposed supposed to take off
on time when the airlines sched them for hundreds of take offs at the
same time. The airlines do the scheds, you know that don't you.

With fuel costs, they will NEVER make money.

I think the only two that make money are Southwest and Jet Blue. All
of the others are losers. I just heard Delta and United are talking
merger to try to save them both.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Let the airlines do what they do best, long
Post by ***@yahoo.com
haul flights.
What are you basing that assessment on?
It is better to have hundreds and hundreds of small planes clogging up
airports like EWR, LAG, JFK, ATL, ORD, and so on. And we will never
ever have bad weather again. The experts at USDOT and the FAA have
decreed it.
There will never be a need to fly a 747 into a middle sized market like a
Sacramento or a Buffalo. Economically and passenger load wise it doesn't
make sense. But those cities deserve serice, just the same. There is enough
demand to maintain a viable commercial service.
If that is true why is US Air and the rest of them losing billions,
have to be propped up by the govt? Even with small planes? Or do you
believe that air service to these places should be subsidised?


And where did this about 747 service come from?



So then the logical
Post by Luxury Yacht
conclusion to your comment would be that we need to build MORE airports in
NYC and Los Angeles so that people in the smaller markets can get to a major
facility and then transfer to the marports like EWR or JFK or LAX. Then
you'd have to build the structure to be able to transfer the passengers.
Where is the money supposed to come from to build all that?
Nope, cut the number of flights and start with a viable subsidised
rail system that does not require billions for air traffic control, is
pretty much immune to weather, and let the airlines fly sched that go
thousands of miles in large planes, not hundreds of miles in hundreds
of small planes that clog up airspace.

And lets not forget the idiocy and huge expense of the TSA.

The big jetliners are designed for super efficient long haul service.
That is where the airlines excel, not short hops that should be
operated by rail that can move hundreds of people very efficiently.
Post by Luxury Yacht
And you failed to answer what you base your 'airlines do long runs best'
comment on. Congestion at airports is not from the length of the flights.
Rather it's a problem with the number of planes. And since airports are run
by government agencies rather than the airlines there's no correlation how
well and airline handles a flight and the flight's length.
The number of planes, that is what has to be reduced and the sooner
the better. The govt agencies do not determine the scheds.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But I am nothing, and they are experts. My first question always is
what are you trying to sell. Second question is who is paying you.
Just because someone has a different perspective than you doesn't mean
they're trying to sell anything. Differences of opinion are not allowed?
These experts are being paid by someone, they are shills, it is NOT a
difference of opinion.





Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-23 22:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I think the only two that make money are Southwest and Jet Blue.
<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
The big jetliners are designed for super efficient long haul service.
That is where the airlines excel, not short hops that should be
operated by rail that can move hundreds of people very efficiently.
Since Southwest is primarily a short hop airline you have just shot your own
arguement in the foot.

Since Jet Blue is primarily a long haul airline means that profitibility is
not contingent on route length.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-23 23:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I think the only two that make money are Southwest and Jet Blue.
<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
The big jetliners are designed for super efficient long haul service.
That is where the airlines excel, not short hops that should be
operated by rail that can move hundreds of people very efficiently.
Since Southwest is primarily a short hop airline you have just shot your own
arguement in the foot.
Naah, they are not primarily short hop. They way they make money is
quick turnaround, and everyone does everything. and lets not forget
no frills.

No hub and spoke for them. They operate out of good weather TX, so
they don't get planes stuck where they don't want them if the weather
gets bad.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Since Jet Blue is primarily a long haul airline means that profitibility is
not contingent on route length.
Nonetheless the big jetliners are designed for super efficient long
haul service. Short hops should be rail.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-24 01:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I think the only two that make money are Southwest and Jet Blue.
<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
The big jetliners are designed for super efficient long haul service.
That is where the airlines excel, not short hops that should be
operated by rail that can move hundreds of people very efficiently.
Since Southwest is primarily a short hop airline you have just shot your own
arguement in the foot.
Naah, they are not primarily short hop. They way they make money is
quick turnaround, and everyone does everything. and lets not forget
no frills.
No hub and spoke for them. They operate out of good weather TX, so
they don't get planes stuck where they don't want them if the weather
gets bad.
Take a look at this Southwest map:
http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html

They don't just fly out of Texas. They have major oeprations in Denver,
Kansas City and St. Louis. While they have some long haul they also have
plenty of short haul as well as hub and spoke routing.

You have incorrect information. I would appreciate you admitting it.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Since Jet Blue is primarily a long haul airline means that profitibility is
not contingent on route length.
Nonetheless the big jetliners are designed for super efficient long
haul service. Short hops should be rail.
There are aircraft designed specifically for shorter flights. Many are
designed to operate at a capacity of 50-80 passengers, some as few as 30
passengers. Just a few are the Embraer, the Canadair and the MD-83.

You have incorrect information. I would appreciate you admitting it.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-26 16:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I think the only two that make money are Southwest and Jet Blue.
<snip>
Post by ***@yahoo.com
The big jetliners are designed for super efficient long haul service.
That is where the airlines excel, not short hops that should be
operated by rail that can move hundreds of people very efficiently.
Since Southwest is primarily a short hop airline you have just shot your own
arguement in the foot.
Naah, they are not primarily short hop. They way they make money is
quick turnaround, and everyone does everything. and lets not forget
no frills.
No hub and spoke for them. They operate out of good weather TX, so
they don't get planes stuck where they don't want them if the weather
gets bad.
Take a look at this Southwest map:http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html
They don't just fly out of Texas. They have major oeprations in Denver,
Kansas City and St. Louis. While they have some long haul they also have
plenty of short haul as well as hub and spoke routing.
You have incorrect information. I would appreciate you admitting it.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Since Jet Blue is primarily a long haul airline means that profitibility is
not contingent on route length.
Nonetheless the big jetliners are designed for super efficient long
haul service. Short hops should be rail.
There are aircraft designed specifically for shorter flights. Many are
designed to operate at a capacity of 50-80 passengers, some as few as 30
passengers. Just a few are the Embraer, the Canadair and the MD-83.
You have incorrect information. I would appreciate you admitting it.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope they are the exception, not the rule. Abd if fuel keeps going
up, SW will be losing money like the rest of them.

Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out. Let
them all go under..

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-29 16:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out. Let
them all go under..
I was not aware that filing for bankruptcy was a government bailout. If it
is thousands of Americans are bailed out by the government every month.

The bailout of the airlines occurred after 9-11.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-29 18:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out. Let
them all go under..
I was not aware that filing for bankruptcy was a government bailout. If it
is thousands of Americans are bailed out by the government every month.
The bailout of the airlines occurred after 9-11.
And you are ignorant of the fact we provided the bankrupt airline with
billions. You know what happens to a bankrupt he can be liquidated.

Do most bankrupts get billions from the govt????

You are doing nohing but playing games.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-29 21:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out. Let
them all go under..
I was not aware that filing for bankruptcy was a government bailout. If it
is thousands of Americans are bailed out by the government every month.
The bailout of the airlines occurred after 9-11.
And you are ignorant of the fact we provided the bankrupt airline with
billions. You know what happens to a bankrupt he can be liquidated.
Are you sure about that???

http://larouchepub.com/other/2002/2932airlines.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ua-d07.shtml
http://www.hasbrouck.org/articles/bankruptcy.html
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do most bankrupts get billions from the govt????
No, and the airlines don't either.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
You are doing nohing but playing games.
Where are you getting your information from? Cite the source.

--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-30 16:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out. Let
them all go under..
I was not aware that filing for bankruptcy was a government bailout. If it
is thousands of Americans are bailed out by the government every month.
The bailout of the airlines occurred after 9-11.
And you are ignorant of the fact we provided the bankrupt airline with
billions. You know what happens to a bankrupt he can be liquidated.
Are you sure about that???
http://larouchepub.com/other/2002/2932airlines.htmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ua-d07.shtmlhttp://www.hasbrouck.org/articles/bankruptcy.html
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do most bankrupts get billions from the govt????
No, and the airlines don't either.
Where the hell have you been for the last 6+ years. I guess you don'r
read the papers. Or you don't believe fuel costs effect the airlines.

Allright fine the airlines never received a penny in govt bailout
money have it your way. I don't give a flying fuck. You just want to
play games so you can go fuck yourself.

You must sit in your luxury yacht oblivious.

Have a real nice day. Just another troll.


Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-12-01 00:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out.
Let
them all go under..
I was not aware that filing for bankruptcy was a government bailout.
If
it
is thousands of Americans are bailed out by the government every month.
The bailout of the airlines occurred after 9-11.
And you are ignorant of the fact we provided the bankrupt airline with
billions. You know what happens to a bankrupt he can be liquidated.
Are you sure about that???
http://larouchepub.com/other/2002/2932airlines.htmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ua-d07.shtmlhttp://www.hasbrouck.org/articles/bankruptcy.html
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do most bankrupts get billions from the govt????
No, and the airlines don't either.
Where the hell have you been for the last 6+ years. I guess you don'r
read the papers. Or you don't believe fuel costs effect the airlines.
Your facts have repeatidly been shown to be wrong. I cited several sources
that support my position. But I'm supposed to take you at your word
because you're so knowledgeable?

Not in a million years.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-12-03 16:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out.
Let
them all go under..
I was not aware that filing for bankruptcy was a government bailout.
If
it
is thousands of Americans are bailed out by the government every month.
The bailout of the airlines occurred after 9-11.
And you are ignorant of the fact we provided the bankrupt airline with
billions. You know what happens to a bankrupt he can be liquidated.
Are you sure about that???
http://larouchepub.com/other/2002/2932airlines.htmlhttp://www.wsws.or...
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do most bankrupts get billions from the govt????
No, and the airlines don't either.
Where the hell have you been for the last 6+ years. I guess you don'r
read the papers. Or you don't believe fuel costs effect the airlines.
Your facts have repeatidly been shown to be wrong. I cited several sources
that support my position. But I'm supposed to take you at your word
because you're so knowledgeable?
Not in a million years.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x.htm

read it and weep

I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-12-03 20:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x.htm
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."

Care to try again?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Luxury Yacht
2007-12-03 20:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x.htm
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."

Care to try again?
Post by ***@yahoo.com
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-12-04 16:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x...
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."
Care to try again?
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Go to USA Today.com editorial/opinion 8-8-2004.

otherwise Google airline bailouts it is listed there.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-12-04 20:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x...
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."
Care to try again?
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Go to USA Today.com editorial/opinion 8-8-2004.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=airline+bailout&x=61&y=12&sortby=REVERSE_CHRON&datetype=6&frommonth=10&fromday=08&fromyear=2004&tomonth=10&today=08&toyear=2004&By=&Title=&Sect=NEWS
Post by ***@yahoo.com
otherwise Google airline bailouts it is listed there.
And every article that came up was about covering the losses related to
9/11, not anything to do with giving money to bankrupt airlines.

Not to mention you never responded to the links I posted that indicated the
government WASN'T just GIVING money to the airlines.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-12-05 18:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x...
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."
Care to try again?
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Go to USA Today.com editorial/opinion 8-8-2004.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=...
Post by ***@yahoo.com
otherwise Google airline bailouts it is listed there.
And every article that came up was about covering the losses related to
9/11, not anything to do with giving money to bankrupt airlines.
Not to mention you never responded to the links I posted that indicated the
government WASN'T just GIVING money to the airlines.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Govt gives money to a lot of entities for a variety of reasons, not
the least of which are very political.

But it remains with two exceptions the airlines are not doing very
well.

And with oil prices staying high their future does not look good.

So I guess by your standards their future is more subsidies and more
bailouts.

Randy
Luxury Yacht
2007-12-05 20:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Govt gives money to a lot of entities for a variety of reasons, not
the least of which are very political.
A comment for which you don't provide valid links to base it on, whereas I
have provided valid links to refute.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
But it remains with two exceptions the airlines are not doing very
well.
And with oil prices staying high their future does not look good.
Both of which are related airline operations, and is not government
subsidized, so are irrelevant to the discussion.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
So I guess by your standards their future is more subsidies and more
bailouts.
1)Straw man and 2) to use the word 'more' implies that there were some
given in the first palce which you have nto shown...except for the
exceptional circumstance of 9/11

Look, I've shot down your arguments, I've shown what you claim to be facts
as inaccurate and untrue. There's no point in discussing it further with
you because you only want to see things based that which has been shown to
be wrong. And you aren't even honest enough to admit it. Which means I
could show you 1,000 pieces of evidence to show you're wrong and you
*-still-* wouldn't admit it.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
g***@hotmail.com
2007-12-06 13:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x...
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."
Care to try again?
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Go to USA Today.com editorial/opinion 8-8-2004.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=...
Post by ***@yahoo.com
otherwise Google airline bailouts it is listed there.
And every article that came up was about covering the losses related to
9/11, not anything to do with giving money to bankrupt airlines.
Not to mention you never responded to the links I posted that indicated the
government WASN'T just GIVING money to the airlines.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Govt gives money to a lot of entities for a variety of reasons, not
the least of which are very political.
But it remains with two exceptions the airlines are not doing very
well.
And with oil prices staying high their future does not look good.
So I guess by your standards their future is more subsidies and more
bailouts.
Randy
I guess he told you off, pimple dick!

You are such a LOSER!!!!!

And a pimple dick little wuss!

LOSER!!!

PIMPLE DICK!!!
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-12-06 17:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@hotmail.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x...
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."
Care to try again?
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Go to USA Today.com editorial/opinion 8-8-2004.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=...
Post by ***@yahoo.com
otherwise Google airline bailouts it is listed there.
And every article that came up was about covering the losses related to
9/11, not anything to do with giving money to bankrupt airlines.
Not to mention you never responded to the links I posted that indicated the
government WASN'T just GIVING money to the airlines.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Govt gives money to a lot of entities for a variety of reasons, not
the least of which are very political.
But it remains with two exceptions the airlines are not doing very
well.
And with oil prices staying high their future does not look good.
So I guess by your standards their future is more subsidies and more
bailouts.
Randy
I guess he told you off, pimple dick!
You are such a LOSER!!!!!
And a pimple dick little wuss!
LOSER!!!
PIMPLE DICK!!!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh, you hurt me so badly, only in your pimple size aids/STD infected
mind.
Not to mention extreme immaturity. Like I said before, all you can
think about is your big dick. Plenty of guys go to jail for that.

What, are you under indictment. Facing a minimum mandatory. This is
your last harrah.

Randy
g***@hotmail.com
2007-12-06 19:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by g***@hotmail.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x...
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."
Care to try again?
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Go to USA Today.com editorial/opinion 8-8-2004.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=...
Post by ***@yahoo.com
otherwise Google airline bailouts it is listed there.
And every article that came up was about covering the losses related to
9/11, not anything to do with giving money to bankrupt airlines.
Not to mention you never responded to the links I posted that indicated the
government WASN'T just GIVING money to the airlines.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Govt gives money to a lot of entities for a variety of reasons, not
the least of which are very political.
But it remains with two exceptions the airlines are not doing very
well.
And with oil prices staying high their future does not look good.
So I guess by your standards their future is more subsidies and more
bailouts.
Randy
I guess he told you off, pimple dick!
You are such a LOSER!!!!!
And a pimple dick little wuss!
LOSER!!!
PIMPLE DICK!!!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh, you hurt me so badly, only in your pimple size aids/STD infected
mind.
Not to mention extreme immaturity. Like I said before, all you can
think about is your big dick. Plenty of guys go to jail for that.
What, are you under indictment. Facing a minimum mandatory. This is
your last harrah.
Randy
You're a pimple dicked loser!
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-12-06 20:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by g***@hotmail.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-our-view_x...
read it and weep
"The requested document was not found."
Care to try again?
I am beginning to believe you might be making out on those bailouts,
and maybe you want more.
Do your legs ever get tired of jumping to conclusions?
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Go to USA Today.com editorial/opinion 8-8-2004.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=...
Post by ***@yahoo.com
otherwise Google airline bailouts it is listed there.
And every article that came up was about covering the losses related to
9/11, not anything to do with giving money to bankrupt airlines.
Not to mention you never responded to the links I posted that indicated the
government WASN'T just GIVING money to the airlines.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Govt gives money to a lot of entities for a variety of reasons, not
the least of which are very political.
But it remains with two exceptions the airlines are not doing very
well.
And with oil prices staying high their future does not look good.
So I guess by your standards their future is more subsidies and more
bailouts.
Randy
I guess he told you off, pimple dick!
You are such a LOSER!!!!!
And a pimple dick little wuss!
LOSER!!!
PIMPLE DICK!!!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh, you hurt me so badly, only in your pimple size aids/STD infected
mind.
Not to mention extreme immaturity. Like I said before, all you can
think about is your big dick. Plenty of guys go to jail for that.
What, are you under indictment. Facing a minimum mandatory. This is
your last harrah.
Randy
You're a pimple dicked loser!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And you are a winner????? I doubt that. How many sexual assults have
you committed with that huge dick???

Randy
JG
2007-11-30 23:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out. Let
them all go under..
I was not aware that filing for bankruptcy was a government bailout. If it
is thousands of Americans are bailed out by the government every month.
The bailout of the airlines occurred after 9-11.
And you are ignorant of the fact we provided the bankrupt airline with
billions. You know what happens to a bankrupt he can be liquidated.
Are you sure about that???
http://larouchepub.com/other/2002/2932airlines.htmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ua-d07.shtmlhttp://www.hasbrouck.org/articles/bankruptcy.html
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do most bankrupts get billions from the govt????
No, and the airlines don't either.
The payments were in the 2001-02 timeframe to make up for costs
associated with September the Eleventh. A search of news databases
back then will show the stories.
Luxury Yacht
2007-12-01 00:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JG
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Yopu never4 answered why the govt keeps bailing the airlines out.
Let
them all go under..
I was not aware that filing for bankruptcy was a government bailout.
If
it
is thousands of Americans are bailed out by the government every month.
The bailout of the airlines occurred after 9-11.
And you are ignorant of the fact we provided the bankrupt airline with
billions. You know what happens to a bankrupt he can be liquidated.
Are you sure about that???
http://larouchepub.com/other/2002/2932airlines.htmlhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ua-d07.shtmlhttp://www.hasbrouck.org/articles/bankruptcy.html
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Do most bankrupts get billions from the govt????
No, and the airlines don't either.
The payments were in the 2001-02 timeframe to make up for costs
associated with September the Eleventh. A search of news databases
back then will show the stories.
That is correct. But that's not payments to bail them out of bankruptcy
since then and Randy asserts.

There have been loan guarantees made to banks, but that's not a payment and
that's not to the airlines.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2007-11-24 00:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Since Southwest is primarily a short hop airline you have just shot your own
arguement in the foot.
SW operates many long haul flights. SW is an exception to the normal
airline way of doing business. Note they are growing rather slowly;
one would expect them to have taken over much of the bankrupts'
business due to their higher efficiency. The thing is that their
model, as good as it is, works only in certain instances, and isn't
that scalable. They've pulled out of markets. Also, it hasn't been
smooth sailing for them: they try to stick to low cost airports, but
in high-cost areas they have labor trouble because they're employees
find the low salaries inadequate in a high cost city.
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-24 01:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Since Southwest is primarily a short hop airline you have just shot your own
arguement in the foot.
SW operates many long haul flights. SW is an exception to the normal
airline way of doing business. Note they are growing rather slowly;
one would expect them to have taken over much of the bankrupts'
business due to their higher efficiency. The thing is that their
model, as good as it is, works only in certain instances, and isn't
that scalable. They've pulled out of markets. Also, it hasn't been
smooth sailing for them: they try to stick to low cost airports, but
in high-cost areas they have labor trouble because they're employees
find the low salaries inadequate in a high cost city.
That's absolutely true. Southwest has been smart enough to pull out of
markets when they aren't profitable. But they don't pull out because of the
proximity to a larger city. And that's what Randy is advocating forcing to
happen.

.--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Larry Gross
2007-11-24 01:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Since Southwest is primarily a short hop airline you have just shot your own
arguement in the foot.
SW operates many long haul flights. SW is an exception to the normal
airline way of doing business. Note they are growing rather slowly;
one would expect them to have taken over much of the bankrupts'
business due to their higher efficiency. The thing is that their
model, as good as it is, works only in certain instances, and isn't
that scalable. They've pulled out of markets. Also, it hasn't been
smooth sailing for them: they try to stick to low cost airports, but
in high-cost areas they have labor trouble because they're employees
find the low salaries inadequate in a high cost city.
That's absolutely true. Southwest has been smart enough to pull out of
markets when they aren't profitable. But they don't pull out because of the
proximity to a larger city. And that's what Randy is advocating forcing to
happen.
.--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
"U.S. airlines are already worried about government efforts to cap
flights at John F. Kennedy International Airport, but on the horizon
is something that scares them even more--a proposal to make them pay
extra fees for flying when demand is highest."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw102907p3.xml

ahhhhh yes...the old congestion pricing trick... :-)
Luxury Yacht
2007-11-24 02:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Larry Gross
Post by Luxury Yacht
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Luxury Yacht
Since Southwest is primarily a short hop airline you have just shot
your
own
arguement in the foot.
SW operates many long haul flights. SW is an exception to the normal
airline way of doing business. Note they are growing rather slowly;
one would expect them to have taken over much of the bankrupts'
business due to their higher efficiency. The thing is that their
model, as good as it is, works only in certain instances, and isn't
that scalable. They've pulled out of markets. Also, it hasn't been
smooth sailing for them: they try to stick to low cost airports, but
in high-cost areas they have labor trouble because they're employees
find the low salaries inadequate in a high cost city.
That's absolutely true. Southwest has been smart enough to pull out of
markets when they aren't profitable. But they don't pull out because of the
proximity to a larger city. And that's what Randy is advocating forcing to
happen.
.--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
"U.S. airlines are already worried about government efforts to cap
flights at John F. Kennedy International Airport, but on the horizon
is something that scares them even more--a proposal to make them pay
extra fees for flying when demand is highest."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw102907p3.xml
ahhhhh yes...the old congestion pricing trick... :-)
Supply and demand and the government trying to regulate it...while making
maing money for themselves in the process. Will that money go back in to
the airport or the ATC to increase capacity? Who knows.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2007-11-24 03:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Larry Gross
"U.S. airlines are already worried about government efforts to cap
flights at John F. Kennedy International Airport, but on the horizon
is something that scares them even more--a proposal to make them pay
extra fees for flying when demand is highest."
ahhhhh yes...the old congestion pricing trick...
Historically, in the old days of regulation, didn't airlines have two-
tiered fares for overnight flights? That is, if you didn't mind
flying in the middle of the night, you'd could save big money on your
fare?

Much of life works that way. Resort hotels are always cheaper off
season, super high during the premo holiday weekends. Even my swim
club has a discount fare available after August 1st.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2007-11-24 00:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
Contrary to what you may think not everyone has an agenda that is driven by
pet projects and keeping their ox from getting gored.
The vast majority of us (individuals and corporations) act out of self-
interest. How many of us will propose to our bosses that our job is
unnecessary and we ought to be terminated (when we have nothing else
to do)?

Unfortunately, the business world has been focused on short term
quarterly results as opposed to long term growth. That hasn't helped
things either.

The founding fathers recognized the self-interest issue which is why
they developed a govt with checks and balances, and supported a free
market system of competition. But in many markets today, it is not
true competition, but loaded down.


For public utilities like the airlines, the regulatory system
balancing the airlines' needs against the public needs worked out
reasonably well. The airlines made money and the public had high
quality air service. (Regulation in the railroad world didn't work so
well, but neither has deregulation.)
Post by Luxury Yacht
There will never be a need to fly a 747 into a middle sized market like a
Sacramento or a Buffalo. Economically and passenger load wise it doesn't
make sense. But those cities deserve serice, just the same. There is enough
demand to maintain a viable commercial service.
What it's coming down to is that those markets are NOT viable unless
they can fill up a 747. It's simply too expensive in terms of
resources to support small planes.
Post by Luxury Yacht
So then the logical
conclusion to your comment would be that we need to build MORE airports in
NYC and Los Angeles so that people in the smaller markets can get to a major
facility and then transfer to the marports like EWR or JFK or LAX. Then
you'd have to build the structure to be able to transfer the passengers.
Where is the money supposed to come from to build all that?
There is no money to do that.
Post by Luxury Yacht
And you failed to answer what you base your 'airlines do long runs best'
comment on. Congestion at airports is not from the length of the flights.
Rather it's a problem with the number of planes. And since airports are run
by government agencies rather than the airlines there's no correlation how
well and airline handles a flight and the flight's length.
That answer is easy: there is no substitute for long haul flights, it
simply would take too long to go by train coast to coast or by ship
overseas. We must have air travel for those services.

If _high quality_ psgr rail was available, there would be a substitute
for short haul flights. People could take the train from NYC to
Syracuse instead of flying because it would be competitive to do so.

In addition, a major cost of flying is terminal. Fuel is used for
takeoff, not cruising. Planes making many "local" stops are costly to
operate, for more so on a psgr mile basis as compared to a non-stop
coast-to-coast flight. Thus it is the airlines' advtg to concentrate
on longer flights.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Just because someone has a different perspective than you doesn't mean
they're trying to sell anything. Differences of opinion are not allowed?
Unfortunately, in the real world many times so-called experts are
slanted for a particular scheme. Secondly--and sometimes more often--
the questions are carefully phrased in such a way to influence a
specific answer. Say you're not very fond of broccoli, but if it's a
choice between that and old garbage, you'll gladly take the broccoli.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2007-11-21 19:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luxury Yacht
I believe a mileage based tax system has to be considered as a part of the
solution while keeping in mind that many of the trucking lines are of a
marginal profitability now so any increased taxes will merely be passed on
to consumers, which will have all kinds of unintended and unaffected effects
on the economy. Yes, I know your favorite Wal Mart is profitable, but most
trucking companyies are not Wal-Mart.
Some of those effects may be desirable, such as promoting local
manufacture instead of imports from distant places or overseas.

Reduction of truck traffic may reduce nasty crashes and may alleviate
some traffic congestion.
Post by Luxury Yacht
. The reality is many of the short hop air routes have already been
eliminated or reduced.
An article today in the NYT stated JFK Airport in NYC, which was
intended as an international gateway, is being used for local flights
by prop planes, despite severe overcrowding.
Post by Luxury Yacht
Small town America has already taken enough hits to their work
force with jobs being sent oversees. The last thing those communities need
is their own government screwing them in to the ground.
But some of those job losses came from subsidized truck
transportation, making it cheap to bring in imports.

If we end up paying a little more for consumer goods but that money
stays within the US and even in local communities, I think we're
better off in the long run than sending that money out overseas. In
the long run we will be badly hurt.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2007-10-25 18:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Oct 25, 12:27 pm, necromancer
Post by necromancer
IIRC, gas taxes are one of the primary sources for road funding, unless
that has chnanged somewhere along the line and apparently those taxes
haven't kept up with the increase in traffic and the rising costs of
materials, labor etc... involved in road construction.
Cars and trucks are more fuel efficient than when the Interstates were
bult. My old 4 door sedan got 14 mpg, today I get 24 and have a much
nicer vehicle. People who drive SUVs today would've had a big heavy
station wagon that got maybe only 8 mpg.

So, less taxes are coming in per miles driven because of fuel
efficiency improvements.

In additions, roads are superior to what we had originally, there are
improved safety and capacity features and they cost money.
Arif Khokar
2007-10-25 20:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Cars and trucks are more fuel efficient than when the Interstates were
bult. My old 4 door sedan got 14 mpg, today I get 24 and have a much
nicer vehicle. People who drive SUVs today would've had a big heavy
station wagon that got maybe only 8 mpg.
So, less taxes are coming in per miles driven because of fuel
efficiency improvements.
Except for the fact that overall fuel economy has not changed in over 20
years. VMT, OTOH, has increased greatly in the last two decades. Gas
tax revenue should have increased even taking inflation into account.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2007-10-27 00:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arif Khokar
Except for the fact that overall fuel economy has not changed in over 20
years. VMT, OTOH, has increased greatly in the last two decades. Gas
tax revenue should have increased even taking inflation into account.
But maintenance needs have increased, too.

For a simple example, I was on an Interstate today which was
originally built with a very wide grassy median strip. I noticed they
added a cable barrier to the median, due to head-on accidents. The
barrier has prevented a few nasty accidents. That's just one single
example of safety upgrades added to original highways. In other
places, cables have been replaced by solid guards.
Free Lunch
2007-10-27 01:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:50:49 GMT, in misc.transport.road
Post by Arif Khokar
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Cars and trucks are more fuel efficient than when the Interstates were
bult. My old 4 door sedan got 14 mpg, today I get 24 and have a much
nicer vehicle. People who drive SUVs today would've had a big heavy
station wagon that got maybe only 8 mpg.
So, less taxes are coming in per miles driven because of fuel
efficiency improvements.
Except for the fact that overall fuel economy has not changed in over 20
years. VMT, OTOH, has increased greatly in the last two decades. Gas
tax revenue should have increased even taking inflation into account.
Gas tax revenue has increased, but it has increased less than demand for
road maintenance and construction. To get the revenue per mile travelled
back to the that collected half a century ago, we would have to nearly
double the gasoline tax.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-10-27 15:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Free Lunch
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:50:49 GMT, in misc.transport.road
Post by Arif Khokar
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Cars and trucks are more fuel efficient than when the Interstates were
bult. My old 4 door sedan got 14 mpg, today I get 24 and have a much
nicer vehicle. People who drive SUVs today would've had a big heavy
station wagon that got maybe only 8 mpg.
So, less taxes are coming in per miles driven because of fuel
efficiency improvements.
Except for the fact that overall fuel economy has not changed in over 20
years. VMT, OTOH, has increased greatly in the last two decades. Gas
tax revenue should have increased even taking inflation into account.
Gas tax revenue has increased, but it has increased less than demand for
road maintenance and construction. To get the revenue per mile travelled
back to the that collected half a century ago, we would have to nearly
double the gasoline tax.
More then that even. Inflation caused by demand from China is huge.

Randy
Larry Gross
2007-11-14 22:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arif Khokar
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Cars and trucks are more fuel efficient than when the Interstates were
bult. My old 4 door sedan got 14 mpg, today I get 24 and have a much
nicer vehicle. People who drive SUVs today would've had a big heavy
station wagon that got maybe only 8 mpg.
So, less taxes are coming in per miles driven because of fuel
efficiency improvements.
Except for the fact that overall fuel economy has not changed in over 20
years. VMT, OTOH, has increased greatly in the last two decades. Gas
tax revenue should have increased even taking inflation into account.
the "fleet average" for fuel economy has improved though as older cars
are replaced with more fuel efficient cars.

and the trend continues... as the more expensive gasoline gets, the
more folks would use strategies to use less gasoline. States that do
not index the fuel tax are seeing actual declines in tax revenues.
Even the others are not seeing significant revenues over and above the
actual costs of maintenance.

folks need to face up to some realities.

If you don't want tolls added to existing interstates - fine - but
there won't be any money for new lanes either...

raise the gas tax? right.. and make gas even more expensive so folks
buy even less gasoline?

the fuel tax funding paradigm only worked as long as oil was cheap..
it appears.
John David Galt
2007-11-16 20:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by richard
In my personal humble opinion, I feel that no state should even be
allowed to consider adding tolls to a road that was constructed using
taxpayer's dollars.
I beg to differ, because you can't just build a road and forget it; it
continues to cost money, both to maintain it and for emergency response.
(Granted that those mostly come from state and federal gas and car tax
funds, so the net subsidy is from cars to transit and not vice versa.)

In these days of political correctness, tolls can be the only reliable
way to get a funding source for roads that the transit lovers can't grab
(but only if the road is also privatized).

I'm all in favor of having the toll payers repay the general fund for
the value of the road, but over time.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-16 20:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John David Galt
Post by richard
In my personal humble opinion, I feel that no state should even be
allowed to consider adding tolls to a road that was constructed using
taxpayer's dollars.
I beg to differ, because you can't just build a road and forget it; it
continues to cost money, both to maintain it and for emergency response.
(Granted that those mostly come from state and federal gas and car tax
funds, so the net subsidy is from cars to transit and not vice versa.)
In these days of political correctness, tolls can be the only reliable
way to get a funding source for roads that the transit lovers can't grab
(but only if the road is also privatized).
And why can that not be written into a lease or purchase agreement?

Higher tolls are coming and those higher tolls are going to be used
for transit.

Whether you like it or not.



Randy
John David Galt
2007-11-30 19:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Once I state my opinion on something, however, that's it. Whatever the
person does after that is their nevermind, not mine. I don't expect people
to follow what I say, I only ask for the courtesy of respect for my point
of view and my right to hold same. I don't have a problem with people
having a different view than I do-it's their right. Just because they may
think differently than I do does not mean we can't talk or have a
productive relationship.
Uh huh, yeah, right. You're so courteous and respectful about your aesthetic
dislike of Carl Rogers' web site that you now call him "Cal Qaeda".

FOAD.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-11-30 20:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John David Galt
Post by EAST COAST HIVE MIND
Once I state my opinion on something, however, that's it. Whatever the
person does after that is their nevermind, not mine. I don't expect people
to follow what I say, I only ask for the courtesy of respect for my point
of view and my right to hold same. I don't have a problem with people
having a different view than I do-it's their right. Just because they may
think differently than I do does not mean we can't talk or have a
productive relationship.
Uh huh, yeah, right. You're so courteous and respectful about your aesthetic
dislike of Carl Rogers' web site that you now call him "Cal Qaeda".
FOAD.
A while back Carl made a very digusting and uncalled for statement
about the Comrade's family problems I don't blame the Comrade for
making Carl's life more miserable then it already is.

Randy
EAST COAST HIVE MIND
2007-11-30 23:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Uh huh, yeah, right.  You're so courteous and respectful about your
aesthetic dislike of Carl Rogers' web site that you now call him "Cal
Qaeda".
Nice try. But wrong. I stated my issues with Carl's website long ago, he
decided to ignore them, so there was nothing that could be done. It ceased
being an issue at that point in time, I'm not going to be vexed over
something I can't change.

Perhaps you've had yr head in a paper bag all this time, and haven't noticed
Carl's style of dealing with his fellow humans. He's done a fine job of
alienating everyone on this group; he's insulted the religious, gays,
working class people and short people. He picks fights with people who
haven't said anything to or about him in a long time. He's condescending,
patronising, arrogant and rude. he's been called on it, and continues
despite that. Therein lies the issue. I've written on it in my blog and in
here many a time. Now if his website does happen to come into those
discussions, it's because it's a means of promulgating his foolishness. His
website has some decent content. Pity it's overshadowed by his ego and
attitude.

You've been on this newsgroup long enough to know full well how I operate.
If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.
--
Comrade Otto Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
The Quality Goes In Before The Name Goes On!
a***@gmail.com
2017-08-21 19:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am Armando Taylor, a private money lender. I give out loans with an interest rate of 2% per annual and within the amount of $1000.00 to $500,000,000.00 as the loan offer. 100% Project Funding with secured and unsecured loans are available. We are guaranteed in giving out financial services to our numerous clients all over the world. With our flexible lending packages, loans can be processed and funds transferred to the borrower within the shortest time possible. We operate under clear and understandable terms and we offer loans of all kinds to interested clients, firms, companies, and all kinds of business organizations, private individuals and real estate investors. Just complete the form below and get back to us as we expect your swift and immediate response. EMAIL:(***@gmail.com)

Attention!!!

Do you have a bad credit?
Do you need money to pay bills?
Do you need to start up a new business?
Do you have unfinished project at hand due to bad financing?
Do you need money to invest in some area of specialization which will profit you?

We offer the following loans below,
personal loans[secure and unsecured]
business loans[secure and unsecured]
combination loans
students loans
consolidation loans and so many others.

Phone Number+1 412-329-4367

1. Full Names:……………………….
2. Contact Address:…………………..
3. Loan Amount Needed:………………..
4. Duration of the Loan……………….
5. Direct Telephone Number:……………..
6. Monthly Income:……………..

Email (***@gmail.com)
Best Regards,

Mr Armando Taylor.

Loading...