RowdyRebel

I'm weighing my options...currently, I have 4 possibilities: 1) I need to either cut my runs down to 8 or less per month which either go beyond the 100 air-mile radius or exceed the 12th hour; 2) trade in my '01 for a '99 or older truck; 3) find a clean title and a driver's door with VIN to match to register my truck as that '99 or older rig; or 4) hang up the keys and find something else to do. I'll lose a lot more running elogs than I would cutting 2-3 runs per month from my schedule...because it never fails I run into delays getting my backhaul loaded on those longer hauls...which means in order to ensure 100% compliance 100% of the time, backhauls will have to be eliminated or else I'd have to start buying motel rooms, which makes the backhaul even less worthwhile. If the speed limiter passes and applies to older trucks, I'm hanging it up. Don't know if I'll sell the Mack or if I'll graft another cab behind mine (making it a quad-cab) and pull a drive axle out from under it and just use it as a toy hauler to pull the gooseneck horse trailer around as a private individual in a non-commercial setting where the FMCSA regs simply won't apply. ELD + speed limiters = I'm out.

...and meanwhile in other news, Trumps kid caused a commotion on social media for "comparing refugees to Skittles". His analogy was spot on, though.

Yeah, I goofed, too. Don't know WHY I was thinking the 17th was today...got my days all screwed up.

...with Sunday being Constitution Day and all... http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/15/no-the-constitution-isnt-outdated

Anyway, when all the bikes had made it by, we had dinner and headed to town. Had to get the parts (fixing the A/C on the wife's Suburban), and decided to swing past the hotels they were staying at. Amazing to see that many bikes in various states of disassembly being gone over to be ready to hit the road in the morning. Great people, helping one another however they can loaning tools or parts to those who need it. I was a little saddened to find out a guy who had stopped to talk as he checked over a few things had broke down in the 17 miles or so between the house and the day's finish line having to be trailered the last few miles...but he had it fixed and was ready to roll out again tomorrow. There were some Germans there, too, with some interesting stories about their adventures in dealing with customs as they brought their support van with them...and then the 55 mph race to reach the start before it kicked off without them. Definitely a fun day.

#80 was a Japanese guy (didn't speak much english) riding an Indian. My friend got a pic with that guy that would be too much for just 1 country song...

'course the wimmins didn't like the train, but it gave us guys time to talk with some of the riders and get some pretty good pics...

They come through town this afternoon...stopped for the night down in Cape. So, what's a gearhead to do when a bunch of 100+ year old motorcycles are rolling through town? Grab a lawn chair, an ice cold beverage & sit out at the end of the driveway, of course!

They were talking wooly worms and persimmon seeds on the radio this morning...seems a lot of black wolly worms (larger the brown stripe, milder the winter) and spoon-shaped persimmon seeds (lots of wet, heavy snow). I REALLY need to get the 8N up and running...but then again, we've got nothing but 4x4's to get around, so why shovel?

Bet they never thought the Cumberland would get that high, either. Flood lines back stage @ the Opry & from the TOP DECK of the Gen. Jackson...

Well, ended up sacrificing a 3/4" combination wrench...hacked it in 2 with my Sawmaster power hacksaw. Then, I had a wrench short enough to turn the damn socket. Open end wrenches were too thick...Used a crow foot to break it loose, but couldn't even get enough turn out of it to get another bite on the stupid thing. Absolutely ridiculous. Passenger side went a little quicker, but still had to go in through the wheel well. Next weekend will probably see tie rod ends and steer tires on the Mack, and T-case shift linkage on the F250. If I can get a front tank & straps and a fuel pump, I'll do that too. Also needs a u-joint on the front left steering knuckle and then it'll be ready for winter. That stuff is all pretty easy, though...not like today's BS.

Meet the college edumacated know-nothing "engineer" who designed the 2000 Chevy Blazer, I'm gonna punch him in the nose. Who in their right mind locates the motor so that the #3 cylinder spark plug is directly behind the dadgum steering column so you can just BARELY get a socket on the plug, but you can't get the ratchet on the back of it? Seriously, short of pulling the damn motor, there isn't an "easy" way to change the plugs on this POS. No wonder it's still got the OEM plugs & wires. Throwing a code, though, so the wife volunteered me to do the job. #'s 1, 3, & 5 had to go in through the wheel well to get at the plugs...hoping #'s 2, 4, & 6 will be easier. Between the Suburban and the Blazer, I'm starting to question the sanity of everyone who has ever told me GM's were easier to work on...NEVER had these kinds of issues with any of the Ford's I've wrenched on. Distributors right there on the front of the motor, plugs easy to reach...no matter what I was doing, the Fords were SIMPLE to work on. Everything about these GMs leaves me scratching my head trying to figure out what they were smoking when they designed the thing. Absolutely ridiculous...

Nixon was run out of office for the equivalent of a parking ticket compared to the multiple felonies this president has managed to get away with...and the current occupant's illegal and downright treasonous activities pale in comparison to those of his party's nominee.

Religion aside, Governments are instituted among men to secure certain unalienable rights, among them LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The government should NOT be in the business of funding, promoting, or in any other way supporting the killing of the most innocent among us. A "hands off" approach, neither endorsing nor prohibiting, would be the most I'd expect the government to do, but if they were to choose sides, they should do as Rubio claims to do and "err on the side of life"...an unalienable right which government was instituted among men in order to protect. Funding for abortions should NEVER under ANY circumstance come from government. If a person wants an abortion and has no personal moral compass prohibiting such a thing, they should pay for the procedure themself. If a "charitable organization" wanted to chip in, so be it, but by doing so they should lose any claim they might otherwise try to make on taxpayer funds. ALL money is fungible, so there is no such thing as "no taxpayer money paid for THAT" if ANY taxpayer money was in their budget.

Took a couple hundred years to get there, but here we are!

Even if Trump doesn't fix a damn thing wrong with this country, he won't screw it up half as bad as Clinton. All of these "never Trump" people need to remember that the next president will definitely pick one, and potentially select 2 or 3 others to sit on the Supreme Court, affecting decisions for the next 30+ years. The judges Trump has suggested are pretty darn good...IF he sticks to them...and even if he doesn't, they won't be half as bad as what we know to expect from Hillary. This is yet another "lesser of two evils" election, and it would be tough to find a greater evil than what Hillary intends to do if allowed the opportunity. Never Hillary.

And I find your insistence upon censoring the free speech rights which happen to take form in a manner which you find disagreeable to be troubling and un-American. Yes, it is against the law. However, the law is in conflict with the Constitution and is therefore invalid. I find it just as repulsive as you do to see someone burning our flag. The difference is, I believe the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, with strict prohibitions upon the actions of our government. When the government acts in violation of the Constitution, EVEN IF I AGREE with what the government is trying to accomplish, I must oppose the unconstitutional action. If you allow the government to overstep its power on THIS issue, where do you draw the line? When they start forcing you to quarter soldiers in your home? Perhaps when they retry you for the same offense? Or perhaps just when you are no longer free to exercise your religion? When do you finally say "You've gone too far!", and who will be left to help fight your fight when YOUR rights that YOU want to exercise are being infringed upon when you stood idly by (or worse yet ENCOURAGED) while the government trampled upon the rights of others because you agreed with the premise behind the unconstitutional actions? We either have a Constitution that matters or we do not. I will defend the Constitution EVERY time. It worries me that so many are willing to pick and choose when to defend the Constitution, based upon how they "feel" about an issue. For those who served, their oath was to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegence to the same...". It says nothing about protecting and defending the flag...only the Constitution. So to infringe upon a person's right to speak out, expressing whatever grievances he might have with our government, just because you disagree with his methods is violating your oath to defend the Constitution. Yes, I find the act of burning our flag repulsive, but I will defend their right to be an idiot until my last breath. I don't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution I will defend and which parts are OK to infringe upon. I will defend it IN ITS ENTIRETY.

The Revolutionaries tarred & feathered the King's tax collectors. They also dumped crates of tea they didn't own into the Boston Harbor. Burning a flag you own pales in comparison. Political speech and expressing your dissent with our government is ABSOLUTELY protected by the 1st Amendment. Congress has tried (and failed) numerous times to control and regulate political speech, and every time it happens, the courts strike it down. It doesn't matter if they are attempting to silence political ads 30-60 days prior to elections, or place limits on how much a person may use his dollars to speak during a campaign, or much to your dislike, even burning a flag in protest of some government action. I don't like seeing it any more than you. However, as someone who strongly believes in the Constitution, I have to defend their right to do so...just as I vehemently disagree with the KKK, but support their right to peaceably assemble and spout off their hateful and ignorant rhetoric. Just because you disagree with what someone is doing doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. As long as they are not infringing upon anyone else's rights in the process (destroying property owned by others, causing injury/death to others, etc.) then they should have the right to put their stupidity, ignorance, and lack of respect on full display. I have the right to ignore them, as everyone should. They seek attention, so don't give it to them. Don't take their picture. Don't video tape them. Don't buy the newspapers with them on the front page. Change the channel if they are on the news. When the media outlets realize the fastest way to lose viewers/readers is to publish these idiots, they will stop covering these incidents. If when a flag is lit, everyone just turned and walked away leaving the idiot there to protest by himself, it won't be much of a protest. Protesting loses it's appeal when you realize nobody gives a $#!+.

Yes, it is against the law, but the law violates the Constitution, which makes the law invalid. You can argue the fact that it is the law until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the simple fact that under the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." "It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." -- Marbury V Madison, 1803

Spitting on a person is assault, and should be treated as such. Spit on me, and I'll feed you a knuckle sammich. Yes, if you respect the country, you should respect the flag. If you respect the sacrifice so many have made to keep the freedoms that flag represents, you should respect the flag. In the "land of the free", though, respect for the flag, country, or anything else cannot and SHOULD not be mandated. Having put up with the BS you did in NY, you ought to recognize the importance of having the freedom to do your own thing and be more outraged at government overreach than by some knucklehead using the freedom he's lucky to have to demonstrate his own ignorance and stupidity. As long as he isn't stealing the flag from a flagpole to burn, and he isn't harming or endangering anyone else as he burns it, then I don't think it is the government's place to tell the idiot that he can't burn it just because of what it is. I don't support the flag burning, only the freedom one has to have to be able to do it. If we executed or locked up for life those who burned our flag, we'd be no better than N. Korea, China, Cuba, or any other commie dictatorship.

Like I said, I find it repulsive and insulting when people burn the flag...however it is their right to do so. As much as I'd like to take a "love it or leave it" approach and give them the boot, there are things this government does that I don't agree with either. Should I have to leave too? For example, the over-regulation of our industry...ELD mandates and such....or the whole Obamacare BS...or the fact that "stand down" orders were given resulting in the death of an ambassador and 3 other Americans...or the legislating that occurs from the bench in so many instances it isn't funny. Executive power grabs, a legislature that doesn't care, and a judiciary that places more value on "precedent" than the actual Constitution. If I have the right to dissent and disagree with actions our government is making, so does the next guy. If I say he doesn't have the right to dissent and disagree, what claim would I have to that same right?

Problem is, the law is unconstitutional. What part of "Congress shall make no law" is so difficult to comprehend? ...and the Founding Fathers included the right to free speech because they knew what it was like to have to watch what was said for fear of retribution from the King. The 1st Amendment is there to protect the right of ANYONE to dissent, protest, and express their discontent with what the government is doing...so long as they are doing so peaceably and not destroying property other than their own. As long as they are the rightful owner of the flag they are burning (or have the rightful owner's permission), then they have just as much right to burn it as they do to burn anything else they own. The Founding Fathers also included in the 5th Amendment the prohibition on taking life, liberty, or property from any person without due process. In other words, they wouldn't have hung anyone over a peaceable protest...even if a flag was burned.

I strongly disapprove, however I also recognize that they have the right to be disrespectful to the flag and to the nation that provides them with the freedom to be ignorant. Same with the KKK. They are a bunch of idiots spouting some pretty stupid ideas...but I support their right to speak. Nobody has to listen, just as nobody has to watch the @$$#0£€ burning the flag. They want attention. Nobody has to give it to them. If you want to have freedom for yourself, you have to defend the freedom of others. To attempt to revoke certain freedoms from some just because you disagree with them, well, somebody probably disagrees with you, too. Should they be allowed to revoke your freedoms based upon that same reasoning you used to deny the freedom of others?

You seem to be confused. Driving is a privilege, granted by the state, which can be revoked by the state. Rights are a different animal. For example, my right to keep and bear arms does not deprive ANYBODY of any of their rights. If my bank account supports it, I can buy 50,000 guns and 20,000,000 rounds of ammunition without a single other person having to give up one shred of their liberties. If somebody else wants to do the same, they have every right to do so as well, and it doesn't affect me one way or the other. As long as everybody is respectful of the rights of others (so as not to deprive them of life, liberty, or property), then there is no reason why everyone can't have it their way.