Who is it going to be?

RichM

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Nice work Lawrence,I think this is the first Presidential election where both VP candidates appear to be better qualifed. I think GW will win and it won!t be close,if either party has a trump card it will come out this week for sure..
 

WendyCal

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
ROFL!!! i'm from Texas, so i'll just let you guess!!!

*********
Godspeed to all of you out there on the highways and byways!
 

TRUCKNMAMA

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Great job Lawrence, I think the VP candidates are a better choice for President too, but I don't want Gore in office so I have to go for Bush.:-(
Has anyone gotten there absentee ballots yet? Good thing I'm home, I'm calling in the morning. I havn't gotten mine yet.
Iris
 

garyaddis

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Go to OOIDA's website: http://OOIDA.com. They've posted interviews w/ both Gore and Bush re: issues facing truckers. To understand what you need to, however, you need to REALLY read the replies. For instance, George JR leaves it unstated but plainly said in between the lines that he will turn the Mexican trucks loose to deliver inside US.
 

Driverone

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
In spite of all the mud-slinging and dirty tactics from the opposition, I think George W will be the next president.
In my circle of contacts, he is well ahead of Al Gore.
Go Bush!
 

ACE

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
I believe Gov.Bush will be our next President. It is time for a Change.
 

Beaker

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Nov-03-00 AT 02:59PM (EDT)[/font][p]Gary wrote:

'...George JR leaves it unstated but plainly said in between the lines that he will turn the Mexican trucks loose to deliver inside US.'


This is what he said.
'...As President, I will safeguard American markets against unfair trade practices, and I will vigorously enforce all our immigration laws and trade agreements, including NAFTA, which includes a prohibition against Mexican trucks from carrying domestic cargo between points in the United States.' (Source- OOIDA http://ooida.com/bush.htm)

According to this, he's against Mexican drivers carrying "Intra- USA" shipments.

Gore did not say anything that we can sink our teeth into.


Go Bush!
 

garyaddis

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
>Gary wrote:
>
>'...George JR leaves it unstated but
>plainly said in between the
>lines that he will turn
>the Mexican trucks loose to
>deliver inside US.'
>
>
>This is what he said.
>'...As President, I will safeguard American
>markets against unfair trade practices,
>and I will vigorously enforce
>all our immigration laws and
>trade agreements, including NAFTA, which
>includes a prohibition against Mexican
>trucks from carrying domestic cargo
>between points in the United

I'm not going to go back to the ooida site for a direct Bush quote. Clearly, in the earlier part of his response to that particular question, Bush made it plain that he would do everything in his power to facilitate the "free" passage of goods between the US and Mexico; that the agreement called for Mexican trucks to deliver in the US--the portion you quoted refers to Mexican trucks being permitted to delvier from dock to dock to dock within US. OOIDA and the ATA's stance and the reason that Clinton has so far flat refused to permit the crossings is that after the truck leaves the border checkpoint, howthehell is anyone gonna control where the illiterate Mexican drives? Mexican drivers work for $7 per day, guy. How many times in the past 10 years have the big fleets attempted to bring in a flood of ignorant aliens to lessen the reasons they have to raise our wages!
>States
.' (Source- OOIDA
> http://ooida.com/bush.htm)
>
>According to this, he's against Mexican
>drivers carrying "Intra- USA" shipments.
>
>
>
>Go Bush!
 

Beaker

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Gary,

Reread Gore's stance on NAFTA & Mexico.
There's nothing we can sink our teeth into with him either.

Code:
http://www.expeditersonline.com/dcforum/User_files/39fc2ff469f5bcc1.gif

.........Go Bush!
 

garyaddis

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
>Gary,
>
>Reread Gore's stance on NAFTA &
>Mexico.
>There's nothing we can sink our
>teeth into with him either.
>.........Go Bush!

Sure there is. First, there's the inescapable fact that the Clinton Administration has indefinately frozen the implementation of Mexican truck deliveries inside the US. Gore states emphatically that he intends to keep things as they are till the Mexicans prove their compliance with our safety standards. Bush, on the other hand, says, "phase in," which is codeword for going through with the implementation, and checking compliance after the fact. A mistake. With all the money he's giving away to millionaires, where's the money for all this extra monitoring going to come from? Talk to a DOT man, or a Texas Highway Patrolman--they know they'll not be able to force compiance from the Mexicans. Sure, if Bush is brave enough to risk international problems (he's not) he may impose a few fines. But will the amount be greater than the profit? American fleets are already setting up Mexican branches; opening the borders will give free access to those who will flood our job market with people who are willing to work for elephant wages. That's precisely why Clinton/Gore has kept the border locked to Mexican transportation companies.

Bush won't allow Mexican companies to pickup/deliver intra-US? Oh, a Mexican truck will deliver Mex goods to, say, Maine, then deadhead back to Mexico? Get real. Once they're in, they'll go where the hell they please.

Go Bush. Back to your rich boy clubs. There's a set of gold-headed golf clubs with your name on them.
 

garyaddis

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
RE: You want more?

Lawrence, got a film clip of Juniior driving drunk into that tree? Funny.
 

Mustang_1234

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
RE: You want more?

I personaly do not like either Bush or Gore. But since it will be either of the 2. I have to go with Gore because Bush's people will not answer the question " did George Bush get a woman pregenant in 1970 and have her get an abortion ?"

Anyone that calls the Republican office will not get an answer. All they say is "we will get back to you".
Since this is a major part of his campaign foundation I believe the question deserves an answer.

PS. abortion was illegal in this country until 1973
 

RichM

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
RE: You want more?

This whole area of abortion just gets me more poed every time I read or hear about it.In my area of the country and on the street that I live there are extremists on both sides of the issue.Face it, teenagers are going to have sexual relations.Since they have been old enough to walk they see it on television ,movies magazines and so on.I think if both sides got together and preached BIRTH CONTROL neither side would then have a issue.Why not get into the schools and show these high school students how much better your life can be without unwanted
pregnancys..If young sharp female attorneys,could show their lifestyle vs a 21 year old with 3 small kids on welfare and who will always be on welfare perhaps the girls may insist on Birth Control.same thing for the boys. Show them how they can be locked into support payments for years..But if all this happened can you imagine the religious right screaming that we are teaching children to have sex. What a world..
 

Olko

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
Retired Expediter
RE: You want more?

Rich, both sides do preach Birth Control! The religious right as you call them, preach that dirty word Abstinence. Of course the idea of teaching someone that they can actually practice self control has no place in our schools because it sounds to much like a Moral Value that has it's roots in "RELIGION".

OK, let's look at the other sides position. People are going to have sex because they cannot control themseves, so they should use the pill, condoms, etc. If/when these fail or are not used, then it is perfectly OK to take the life of the human being that has been created, in the name of convienence. They take this position to the extreme in the case of partial birth abortions.

Rich, you also seem to be saying that you think this is an issue that affects only teenagers, that is far from true. Abortions are performed on women of all ages. Single women who are old enough to know where babies come from, but don't believe it could happen to them, married women who feel they can't afford, or just don't want to have another child. Does anyone know how many abortions are preformed just because the child is the wrong sex. It is sad but true that "The most dangerous place for a child is his/her mothers womb".

I agree Rich, "What a World"
 

Beaker

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
RE: You want more?

In recent weeks I discovered an especially interesting essay written in 1801 by Noah Webster. In that work, Webster explained why a high level of morality was necessary in the Presidency:

All history is a witness of the truth of the principle that good morals are essential to the faithful and upright discharge of public functions. The moral character of a man is an entire and indivisible thing -- it cannot be pure in one part and defiled in another. A man may indeed be addicted, for a time, to one vice and not to another; but it is a solemn truth that any considerable breach in the moral sense facilitates the admission of every species of vice. The love of virtue first yields to the strongest temptation; but when the rampart resistance is broken down, it is rendered more accessible to every successive assailant... Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty [an encouragement] from government. And... the Chief Magistrate of the United States [the President] should be the last man to accelerate its progress.


President Samuel Adams expounded on this principle when he explained:

He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections... Private and public vices are in reality... connected... Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of [exceptional] character. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.

Source: Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, by David W. Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1996
 

neo

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
RE: You want more?

I, for one, believe that both the major candidates have low or questionable morals in certain areas of their lives. They just happen to be in different areas. Unfortunately, we have to choose a president from the human race which has temptations and makes mistakes instead of some protected "hothouse" where we could pick
one without flaws. Gore does exaggerate the truth, but I also think that Bush was quite a hellraiser in the not so distant past and doesn't want to go into the details. I also learned that Bush led such a life of privilege, he didn't have a real job until he was forty when he bought the Texas Rangers. I think they both were a product of their generation. I am also not surprised about the previous entry about Bush getting a woman pregnant in 1970. That would tend to fit the partying and irresponsible lifestyle he was leading. Gore, on the other hand, was smoking pot, mellowing out and pondering life. I think we should be honest and admit that we are choosing the candidate whose actions offend us the least because neither one is squeaky clean.
 
Top