Not at the moment....I am starting my training at a local community college in a few weeks and am getting ready to go OTR more than likely around November. As far as the pic of the KW, no it's not mine, I just wish it was. Strange as it may be I fell in love with the W900Ls growing up and it is one of three dream cars I had from my early teens. I know that shows my age considering when Kenworth launched the L series but I did at least reach the cheaper insurance a few years ago.

 

cdswans said:

No.... my (humble) opinion is that the 10th Amendment is one of STATE's Rights, predominantly, .... and by default a "personal" right. So, the Bill of rights DID consider both the people AND the states.... as opposed to the (national) government. Even the 9th Amendment (which I would LOVE to see delineated,) speaks of "PEOPLE'S" rights...retained ONLY as they are not "superceded" by the Constitution. That leaves 8. [And see later WHO they applied to.]

I have NEVER said that the 2nd Amendment didn't construe the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms. I claim ONLY that it is WORDED in a way that implies the REASONING is because the people may have NEED of personal defense... and, by decree..... were CONSCRIPTED into "national" service to present a DEFENSE to insurrection by foreign governments in "outlying" areas that were otherwise defenseless.

And I present the argument that THOSE days of limited Federal forces or STATE "guards" are superceded by BOTH our National military forces AND our States' "National guards."

One COULD make the argument that, because the situations and military structure have CHANGED so much since those days.... the amendment has no LEGAL or CONSTITUTIONAL "bearing."

I don't claim that. I believe that it IS, and should BE, that Americans have an "unalienable" right (though it wasn't mentioned in the Declaration along with our OTHER "unalienable" rights).... to OWN or bear arms!

However.... as a "wannabe" Constitutional scholar (not of the caliber of our PRESENT POTUS)... I see NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment that precludes the government from setting "controls" on the TYPES of arms, or ammunition, that can be freely "possesed" by our citizens.

IF I say you can't own a HANDGUN.... but, I say you can own a shotgun or a rifle.... HOW have I "infringed" your 2nd Amendment rights?

And if you want to get "technical," when the amendment was written... there WERE no "repeating rifles" or "semi-automatic" weapons of ANY type! So HOW can you say that our "forefathers" HAD ANY FRIGGIN IDEA what they were talking about? :roll:

Remember.... these were the SAME "representatives" that counted Blacks as less than a whole "human being," and considered WOMEN as even LESS than THAT!

Simple question for ya.... did the 2nd Amendment, at the time it was written, guarantee the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS to a WOMAN??? Or a BLACK???

That's not entirely true. The Civil War was fought over the 10th Amendment of "states' rights," and it was decided that Federal rights trumped the 10th amendment!

AND.... we are about to see AGAIN whether the state of Arizona can "abridge" the Constitutional right of the Federal government to "legislate" in areas of border control and immigration.

Unfortunately for THEM.... immigration control is set down in the constitution... and NOT in any "bill of rights."

I agree. And therefore, the "right" to bear arms was NEVER intended as a "replacement" for the right to VOTE! It was to HELP the government protect our borders from OTHER countries who were actively "interested" in INSURRECTION against our outlying "territories."

I think the circumstances... AND concerns... were much different back then... but, I see your point. You are absolutely right that we don't have enough police to "protect" us from every criminal "insurgency." And I DO believe that it is not unreasonable to "extend" the "intent" of the 2nd amendment to "HOME PROTECTION."

But the problem is that the GUN advocates use the "rationale" that they must be armed to protect themselves against the GOVERNMENT! AND that they NEED these "multi-round" clips to hunt DEER or something! :roll:

What I'm saying is.... STOP the "rebellious" attitude if you want support from the rest of us! You don't NEED "assault weapons" to hunt OR to protect yourself from a home invasion. You just WANT them! And you continue to claim it is for protection against a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT!

YOU say you need them because you fear US! (the gov't.) But, WE say we fear you having them because you CLAIM to want to overthrow the government! :roll:

YOU claim to be "patriotic" but I fear YOU (the collective you) are the "domestic insurrection" we must protect ourselves against!

This is a CRAZY conundrum we've created in this country... and FAUXNEWS is egging it on!

Obama is the DULY elected president! You don't LIKE it? Fine! Organize and vote him OUT! But.... don't show up at rallys wearing GUNS on your hip and insinuating "Second Amendment Remedies" as Sharon Angle says!

If I'm not mistaken.... there was NO prohibiton against them owning GUNS! Buy a GUN.... and join the neighborhood "militia!"

:hellno:

 

The W900 is a beautiful BEAST! Long time ago, there was a poster here who drove one with his "ole lady." Can't even remember their names now. That's sad.

I met a guy at the GearJammer in Yakima, WA once who had one with an "extended" sleeper. Not a HUGE one... just a little bigger than the rest of us get! It was GREAT!

I've never driven a "hood," but I hope to someday. I like the XL Classic, but I know the W900 has a bigger sleeper (if not more power.) I like the look of MANY Peterbilts... but, they have so little room inside!

It REALLY comes down to where you can find a JOB these days... and the money. When the money is no longer an issue.... I'll start looking for my "dream truck." I AM in this for the "long haul!" :lol2:

Again.... welcome to the board, razorwyre! You can learn alot here.... and I believe you can CONTRIBUTE alot, too...

 

Nice shot at the Repubs there Hobo, masked it so-so on your last Page 2 post. Guess the feelings are mutual about one another's parties but that's ok. Still don't see where Bush Jr. cheated in his re-election as you claim. Nothing has ever been proven in that he cheated in his re-election bid. It was claimed he cheated in Florida in 2000 against Al Gore but again, nothing was ever proven. You should really get over those "cheat" claims unless you have proof, you look just as foolish as those who spout off false info. As for the fear-mongering, both sides where doing it heavily. I know in Ohio both sides got down and dirty with their tactics on Election Day.

We can change the system thru vote and that's great, that's what makes America different than all others. The problem is, we have tons of voters who vote without knowing what's going on, essentially throwing their vote away because they are clueless. The same thing will happen with Mid-Term elections of Congress. Many of the same jokers will get re-elected instead of we the people starting to clean the house because you will have so many voters go vote for the incumbent just because they recognize the name. I will attest to doing that myself the first time I was able to vote. I was clueless and voted for the names I recognized. Now though, I know who I want to vote for before I go in.

 

If people actually took the time to investigate and get to know the candidates for elective office, I am not sure that many would have been elected. I have spoken with women who voted for candidates who are "good looking" rather than on their values. Many whom I have spoken over the years will vote only for someone because they have heard more about then through their ads. Others vote based upon race. Obama being elected proved that. In fact, I spoke with a number of people who told me that they voted for Obama because he WAS black. I also spoke with some who voted for Obama's promised change, although they were uncertain of what those changes may have entailed. I suppose they didn't quite get the change they expected.

For those who receive government entitlements, they will vote for the candidates who promise them more "free" government handouts. Big business will put money into the coffers of those candidates who promise more corporate "freebie's".

I would like to see us go back to requiring voters to be property owners. Those who own property are usually more responsible and will more than likely take the time to get to know those whom we wish to elect to public office. I think that we had more accountability when we required voters to be property owners. Property owners are less likely to be recipient's of a government handout and thus will tend to vote more for those whom they deem will best represent the national interests rather than who will give them the biggest government check or entitlement. I would also like to see lobbyists, special interests and corporate contributions come to an end. It corrupts the system.

 

Funny, Obama said the same thing GMAN. Funny how he has foot and mouth disease, open mouth insert foot. He was the one who publicly stated during the healthcare deal that the lobbyists being pandered to needed to be told where to stick it. He was the one who said no more special interest groups getting favortisim for being a big donor. In his words, no more taking of blood money. Funny how he says that AFTER getting elected with a huge union backing and huge corporate contributions from BP and the likes.

 

You know.... I'd heard this too, so I went looking for the truth. I found what I was looking for. Several articles talked about how much he got, but the SOURCE of each of these articles was the same....then I found one that spells it out better than I ever could (with ONE additional point from me.)

Please read this, Mr. Ford.

BP’s donations to Congress are more worrying than its donations to Obama | Grist

Look at the list of the biggest Congressional recipients. Look at the party designator after each name. And even consider the short explanation as to why these representatives and senators got the money.

Notice the rationale given for Obama getting the most money. And then consider MY little additional thought, which is...

As far as presidents or presidential candidates go.... WHY would BP feel the need to "oil the palm" of Dubya.... an OIL MAN?? WHY would they need to give lots of money to McCain who was CLEARLY on their side with his "Drill NOW, Drill everywhere" campaign platform?

Probably sensing that Obama would win, and clearly concerned about his "clean energy" policies if he DID win.... wouldn't it make SENSE that they would try to "buddy up" to HIM more than anyone else??

And, IF it was SO MUCH money.... why was Obama's "take" only slightly higher than the Republican representative from Alaska??

Read this one too.... and notice WHICH party has ALWAYS gotten the most BP money:

http://sedonatimes.com/follow-the-bp...ibution-trail/

Once again.... "your side" is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. And once again, the TRUE facts of the matter don't support your insinuations. :roll:

 

Actually Hobo you put words in my mouth I never stated. I never said Obama got the most, he got a large sum from BP is what I said. I never stated he got a certain amount so no, my facts were true with what I stated.

Anyways, I listed BP as an example of a large corp who gave him a bunch of money because they are currently in the news plus he took them to task and forced them to set up a slush fund even though they lined his wallet with some nice green Ben's. It isn't about who gets the most money, it's what Obama said and what he's actually doing that bothers me and others. He said that stuff needed to stop but he and all the others continue to take money and pander to the lobbyists. He should have heeded his own advice and set the example instead he has done the opposite.

BTW, what is "my side?" Last I checked I don't have a particular side. I agree with both sides at times sometimes I agree with neither side, sometimes I pick a side but I do not have 1 side that I always stick with.

 

Mr. Ford95 said:

Um... no. I did NOT put words in your mouth. I NEVER said that YOU said he got the MOST money. The ARTICLE I quoted said that. What YOU said was that he got ALOT of money from them and that was somehow reason for you to distrust or condemn him. The article I linked to showed that HE didn't get much more than many OTHER people, and that MOST of them were PUBS!

So... you were just using a "current" example to prove your point that Obama is as "dirty" as any other politician? I don't disagree that ALL politicians take money from companies and PACs. I don't like it and I believe Obama is TRYING to curtail it. But.... your characterization of the "fund" as a "slush fund" is clearly indicative of YOUR "opinon," which is ONLY shared by FAUXNews! :hellno:

This is a valid point that I would LIKE to see further discussion on. It's a very detailed situation, and can't be summed up in a post or two. I don't think you REALLY want to discuss it, but if you do.... I'll do some research and get back to you on it.

But, in general, I get the idea that you and others want to throw him under the bus because he WANTED to change Washington politics IMMEDIATELY.... but, found it was harder to do than he expected. MOSTLY, because of the "firewall" he ran into with the Republicans in Congress who just wanted him to FAIL!

In an earlier post you said:

Since I am clearly a Democrat.... I supposed this to mean that YOU were of the "other party." My bad if I misunderstood your CLEARLY worded declaration of party affiliation. :roll:

For what it's worth, I have always considered you somewhat "ambiguous" when it comes to parties and who's to blame. I feel you are open to reason and discussion, and I enjoy "discussing things" with you. So, PLEASE.... don't get your panties in a bunch. But, at times you DO talk like a Republican! [quack!]

 

I believe ONE of those popular "swellings" had a name.....Ross Perot anybody? issedoff: I believe Bush #1 would have defeated Clinton if that swelling hadn't showed up,:roll: not that I was a big fan, but we'll never know.

Are we EVER going to get rid of the Clintons? How bout the 11 million dollar plus mansion they are looking at :hellno:. I'm thinking that is a little excessive. They should probably consult with obama first, find out what he thinks they should spend, and tone it down a bit. :thumbsup: What are they thinking?