*GHETTOBLASTER » Today, 6:31 am » wrote: ↑ but.....just last week BV "proved" she is a scientific genius because she was able to copy and paste a bunch of **** into a HS Science Fair exhibit and then try to claim that she was doing "ground breaking research"......
nefarious101 » Today, 6:58 am » wrote: ↑ TWEEEEEET!!!...A Trigger has been called
MR-7 just triggered the hell out the the Dairy Queen Dickhead
A Cha-Ching has been awarded....
Have they ever allowed you behind the wheel of one?*Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Do you not want operators of 80,000 lb GVW rigs to be able to speak and read english? It has been the law for years.
Do you not want operators of 80,000 lb GVW rigs to be able to speak and read english? It has been the law for years.
what does he care as long as his SNAP benefits make it to the 7-11 on time...*Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Do you not want operators of 80,000 lb GVW rigs to be able to speak and read english? It has been the law for years.
QED.
Blackvegetable » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ QED.
Is literacy correlated to good trucking?
If not, what will raising any such thresholds accomplish?
It has been federal law for years. You are running from the question as usual.Do you not want operators of 80,000 lb GVW rigs to be able to speak and read english? It has been the law for years.
*Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ It has been federal law for years. You are running from the question as usual.
Do you not want operators of 80,000 lb GVW rigs to be able to speak and read english? It has been the law for years.
We also agree that you have yet to answer it.Do you not want operators of 80,000 lb GVW rigs to be able to speak and read english? It has been the law for years.
If that IS the question, then it either does, or does not, address an actual problem.
Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ If that IS the question, then it either does, or does not, address an actual problem.
If it doesn't, it's propaganda....and self defeating.
Keep running, NoStands, it is what you do best.Do you not want operators of 80,000 lb GVW rigs to be able to speak and read english? It has been the law for years.
Huey's question is quite simple.
Another slogan you can rebleat, but not an argument you can prosecute..
Of course....because @*HooooeyVagina is simple.MR-7 » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Huey's question is quite simple.
Do you not want operators of 80,000 lb GVW rigs to be able to speak and read english?
Oh, ok. So you don't care if a driver can read the sign that tells him the bridge is weight limited? Or trucks not allowed in the left lane? Or the upcoming overpass is less than 13' 6"? Or the hills he is about to enter are grade 7? And I have lots more. But hey, your unambiguous stand is understanding reading english is not required.Blackvegetable » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Another slogan you can rebleat, but not an argument you can prosecute..
SS, DD.
In this particular instance it is not informed by a specific problem associated with literacy.
That makes it, in my opinion, purely propaganda
Is this clear?
As a general matter, do I believe literacy is a requirement for driving a tractor trailer?
In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, I don't.
Acknowledge that my stand cannot possibly be less ambiguous.
Trucker who can’t speak English kills 5 in Texas …Mar 17, 2025 · ATU has confirmed: the driver behind today’s horrific Austin, TX crash—killing 5 and injuring 11—barely spoke English. Experts say he was almost certainly on a Non-Domicile CDL. Special interest groups have flooded our …*Huey » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Oh, ok. So you don't care if a driver can read the sign that tells him the bridge is weight limited? Or trucks not allowed in the left lane? Or the upcoming overpass is less than 13' 6"? Or the hills he is about to enter are grade 7? And I have lots more. But hey, your unambiguous stand is understanding reading english is not required.
You did catch the part it is already the law, correct?