Much like all small busines people in America. On one hand you have the very large companies that can leverage their size and afford to occasionally lose money to gain share.

Then you have the Don Quixote bitchninny libs, constantly tinkering with rules and regs in their selfcentered quest to solve the worlds problems...in their hate driven quest to fuck with BIG BUSINESS, they are oblivious to the "collateral damage" they cause (BTW, much to the delight of big business)

Yup, these guys are getting fucked in both holes...

I wish them luck



-- Modified on 3/27/2008 5:46:24 PM

-- Modified on 3/27/2008 5:49:21 PM

yes it is almost impossible for the independent to pay his way and feed his family but I did want to let people know this is going on. Major problems are ahead if it does. I have posted it on the Florida board as well. Way back when there was a truckers strike and people were killed. Food was off the shelves and things were tough. With everything else going on with the economy this could be a major disaster.

businesses are unfairly squeezed, and 2nd if the bitchaninny libs would just lay off the regulations, everybody would be happy.   Small business wouldn't get squeezed out by big business, nosirree!

What regulations do you want eliminated, BK?  Weight limits?  Trucker's logbooks?  Stop signs?  

Why should anybody be worried about Mexican truckers, then?

I dunno, BK, you're sounding more than a little bitchaninny yourself.  You know damn well this was all caused by Lewinsky sucking Clinton's dick.

I agree with rules and regulations and so do most truckers. This is about the price of gas more than anything. It is the driving force in everything we do these days. It controles our economy in every way. I seldom post and i'm not to articulate but do want to try to add something to this community. This was a friendly reminder of things that might come and maybe do your grocery shopping ahead of time.Sorry I started something or maybe i'm not
    Haley

to secure oil supplies - or something - and sumbitch if gas doesn't go up 25%!!

The way this is going, the Democrats could dig up Uncle Ho, fix his hair and get him into the White House on a fucking landslide.

Fidel, Lenin, and through in Hanoi Jane. Kind of like a libbie stew. Heroes of the leftie Demos, I'm sure just the thought of this gaggle of left wing shit brings a tear to the eye of every "good" demo.

Chuck, I believe the Mexican drivers are not really standing by, they are sitting around, under their sombreros, eating tacos and swigging tequila. They need some "good" lefties to help them but they haven't been able to find any that are really "good".

Let's see, an unpolular war, an economic crisis, and an extremely unpopular Repulican POTUS, and the Democratics still won't win the white house.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to fuck this up?

for fuel and are making money on it. The fuel upcharge being paid is running about 30% of the revenue charged today. $1000 truck load runs on average about 400-600 miles and charges another $300 for fuel with the surcharge. 600 miles burns about 120 gals, which costs $420 total for diesel, and is offset by the EXTRA $300. It is a play to drive the rates up. If you look at the stock market, carrier stock prices are solid since they are making lots of $$$ thanks to the high fuel cost. My broker is advocating BUY to clients

Evidently you have not noticed the cost og goods you purchase. Have noticed a increase it is from what we call fuel sur charge, it is tacked on the normal frieght rate to compensat for supe high fuel prices. that in turn is passed onto the consumer. do you have an understanding of what is taking place??

squeezed by the liberals, and it's the CONSUMERS that are getting fucked, and the TRUCKERS are the bitchaninnies.

Well, folks, what do you think of THAT?

1.5%/mo fines plus penalties, but you've got office staff to look after those things....

http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf

would'nt it be just Fuck City if all those regs you've been getting rich off of are the same regs keeping small guys small????

That would suck, unless you're John Edwards.....Then you could actually make a career out of claiming to be their Savior, all the while having your schwance up their poopchutes...

-- Modified on 3/28/2008 2:44:28 PM

the big fish in the pool. they are able to buy fuel in bulk and at a discount to the indi driver. those increases are contracted for on long term contracts, thay have the benefit of maintenace depots with specialized deisel mechanics

their economies of scale and leveraging of certain costs are what allow them to squeeze the shit out of indipendant truckers

but the Glass Dildo Operator is a one man show so he is not at a disadvantage....

8 years ago they were doing just fine, you stupid 'free marketers' have hosed the small businessman along with the working man.

Hey, ignoramus - when are you gonna make enough money to benefit from those big tax cuts? What's that, you don't make that much?

Good luck getting there. You pathetic losers drank the cool-aid and your masters are laughing their asses off at the way you vote against your best interests and for theirs. Still waiting for that trickle-down? That's them pissing on you.

And don't give me any shit about how well you're doing, pal - some of us know better.

when you get a bag of nuts come on back,

wonder why he did'nt say, "If you want to live like Dummyrats?"

Hand out, waiting on the goodies,......

talk about delusional


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBHByk6FkVI





-- Modified on 3/28/2008 6:57:57 PM

Vote Democratic!!!!


Hillary's NAFTA Lies Kill All of Her Credibility on Trade
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation at 7:24 AM on March 22, 2008.
When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.

What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.

Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion--promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House--that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.

This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana--states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.

But that impression was a deliberate deception.

And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant--that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"--that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.

John Nichols writes about politics for The Nation magazine as its Washington correspondent.

surcharge you forgot?

I didn't disagree with you.  I just asked what you wanted to eliminate, with only 3 examples.

So, can you pick one?  

Since your study complains most about say pollution regulations, let's eliminate all pollution controls.  Let's save all the money we spend on sewage systems.  Then you can shit in the street.  You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Talk about bitchaninnies, BK, you're Exhibit A!

but you seem to want the Washingtonians to stick it even farther up your ass, while I'd like them to fuck each other for a change, instead.