Beating a dead horse

Here's an analogy that may be helpful in framing my view.

Think about the differences between men and women.  Y'all probably know the book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.  Well the basis for this book (which from personal experience I agree with) is that Men and Women speak a fundamentally different language and that the vast majority of male/female tensions occur because of the misunderstanding that occurs during translation.  We may use the same language (english) but the interpretation is vastly different.  I think it has to do with Men being left brain (logic) dominant and women being right brain (emotive/creative) dominant.

Anyway, let's look at the middle eastern culture as a hemisphere of the mind..... maybe (this is all rambling speculation for the sake of illustrating an idea, please grant me some leeway here) they are more dominated by "left brain" ideology, guided by strict rules and logic as they understand it, which is what makes them feel safe, relevant and how they make sense of their world.  We (the western world) are perhaps more guided by right brain ideology, driven by a more open creative and ephemeral ideology which is how we make sense of our world.

Now, just as it is in vain to try and convince a woman to think lie a man (and vice versa), it is similarly in vain to try an convince the Muslim world to think like us.

Never the less, we must co exist and do rely on each other.  Therefore, it seems to me that it is best to reduce our co-dependance so that our individual actions don't affect each other so much, therefore reducing our need to respond and also to establish very clear guidelines for interfacing with each other.  I am using a logic that has been successful in my own life while interfacing with my soon to be ex wife.

Ultimately the skills that work with easing tensions between individuals can work for easing tensions between nations (a collection of individuals).

All I can say is that I have NEVER been sucessful LONG TERM by raising my voice and fighting.  All that has done is create greater resentment and more issues.

I should finally note that this is directed at the macro issue of Western and Middle Eastern relations, not specifically the way we should respond to Al Qeada (which we have our disagreements on) or Iraq.  Thanks for listening.

I'm calling in PETA...  Leave that poor horse alone. 

Just kidding.

Y'all probably know the book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.  Well the basis for this book (which from personal experience I agree with) is that Men and Women speak a fundamentally different language and that the vast majority of male/female tensions occur because of the misunderstanding that occurs during translation.  We may use the same language (english) but the interpretation is vastly different.  I think it has to do with Men being left brain (logic) dominant and women being right brain (emotive/creative) dominant.

While this may be generally true, it is not always so. I am living proof of that, being a woman and fairly left brain oriented.  Of course it takes both parts of the brain to make a whole person. You are using a stereotype to predicate your entire argument. 

But I do agree that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in communication between the Western and Eastern cultures.  Having been raised in a multi cultural environment (Japanese and American) I know that many little things can cause unintended offense or confusion.  We certainly don't need to be doing that to people who have nuclear bombs. 

However to go back to your men vs women analogy. I think that a good marriage and communication within it, depends on BOTH sides attempting to understand and communicate.  It isn't incumbent on just one side (in this case the United States) to try to be the appeaser or to try to think like the other.  If we are to make this "marriage" or political process work both sides need to try.  So far I only see one side giving an inch.  If this was a marriage counseling situation, I would say we are headed for a nasty divorce.

[quote=dude]

Alright…I was thinking about this whole Iraq/Middle East/Muslim/Bush rocks/sucks debate and I had a thought which I believe is hardly unique yet simplifies my whole attitude about our (America’s) Middle Eastern approach.

How can a culture and society (the Muslim world) who reacts SOOOOOO violently to a f*ckin' cartoon ever embrace democracy (not even accounting for all the localized ethnic/tribal tensions and other diametric opposition to western ideals)?  I mean, isn't freedom of speach THE cornerstone of democracy? 

It seems to me that the social inertia that has been built through well over a thousand years of tradition in the Muslim world is well entrenched and fundamentally conflicts with the basic tenents of democracy. 

My whole attitude has been misconstrued as a "soft" let's get together and talk approach, when really it's more like...Let's have a better understanding of the ways we should and should not interface with this culture and let them work out their own issues without our interference.  Now, admittedly I am not an expert in foreign policy and understand that the Middle East is strategically important for energy....so I will concede ignorance on the issues lingering in the penumbra. 

Never the less, I would compare our zealous "bringing democracy to the world" attitude to one of us sitting with a client who had been through the depression and did not want to "risk" any of their money.  Would any of us just hammer them incesantly about stocks?  It's my belief that most of us would do our best to educate the client and if no success sell 'em CD (or whatever) and move on.  Is it really productive to try and change the way someone (or someone's) to change their fundamental values and attitudes?

My whole attitude is:  Let's focus our resources in the areas that are most likely to produce results, which unfortunatley (in my opinion) doesn't equate to bashing peoples heads in to change them.

dude, very well put- especially for a monday-

it is easy to agree with most of what you wrote, but where the rubber meets the road is OIL- and choosing when, where and how to interface with this culture revolves around this one thing- i don't think the west would give two hoots to any civilization who demonstrated such anger otherwise-

and for what its worth, you may want to check in with the MAJORITY of citizens from Iraq and Afghan who VOTED for the first time and make sure they all really do hate the way we are forcing democracy down their throats-

i agree that the effort and the money and lives that the USA is spending on this project is based upon a very shakey premise- but the W is kind of a big project guy and i applaud/support him in the grand vision he has for the region- and continue to pray that it works.

Dude it might be simpler. People who don't have food, security, shelter and protection are bribed to hate for almost nothing.

Since they can't read or write it is impossible for them to think on their own. Add the fact that exterme leaders including Saddam, Semalia warlords, Bin Ladin, Taliban and Arafat pay 20,000 and make statues of those who kill innocent people by blowing them selves up.

So you are saying that some people here relate more to brokeback then others?       Great articles!

Texas -  there are many studies that say 80% of IRAQ says they are confident country will be better in one year (among other things). If they believe and die for freedom how can we not help.

Did anyone see Mitt Romney is moving into the lead for republicans. Billery for the Dems.

[quote=TexasRep]

dude, very well put- especially for a monday-

it is easy to agree with most of what you wrote, but where the rubber meets the road is OIL- and choosing when, where and how to interface with this culture revolves around this one thing- i don't think the west would give two hoots to any civilization who demonstrated such anger otherwise-

and for what its worth, you may want to check in with the MAJORITY of citizens from Iraq and Afghan who VOTED for the first time and make sure they all really do hate the way we are forcing democracy down their throats-

i agree that the effort and the money and lives that the USA is spending on this project is based upon a very shakey premise- but the W is kind of a big project guy and i applaud/support him in the grand vision he has for the region- and continue to pray that it works.

[/quote]

I understand that the achilles heel in this whole problem is oil, which is why I am very interested in alternative energy sources.

Even though I disagree with Bush, I am certainly hoping he proves me wrong.....Our world is ill prepared for the consequences of failing in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

Babbling Looney:  I am generalizing about women here.  There definitely are exceptions to the rule.  One thing is clear though, that men and women (generally) have very different underlying motivations and "perceptual lenses" from which they make sense of the world.  In my life (as well as many of my friends) these differences have manifested mostly in misunderstandings arising from misinterpreting the meaning of what each other is saying.

Thanks for the excellent dialogue.

I thought this might shed some light on this interesting thread;

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-200602 19.html

[quote=mikebutler222]

I thought this might shed some light on this interesting thread;

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-200602 19.html

[/quote]

Nice.  

I believe this satirical Dilbert view to be a large part of the reason we’re in this mess- the sappy, me-generation age worldview of: damn if we do, damn if we don’t and/or “I want my MTV” spoiled rotten attitude--—  a generation ago, we’d be up and arms about how to cut down and cut-out this addiction as part of the “what I can do for my country” role we play in it—<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Now?

We’ve gone from the last crisis 20+ years ago and the Detroit answer to that: gerri-rigged, turbo-Chryslers that got 20+ mpg to the “I want my turbo-hummer” today- don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between who ignored the Monte-Carlo analysis and instead went to Monte Carlo on the sheik’s turbo-yachts wining and dining and basically dropping the ball-  

The result?

As our vehicles depreciate and wear out, the available selection out of Detroit averages less mpg now than 20+ years ago, meanwhile our technology has us 24/7 in a space station, shooting robot rockets at comets to analyze their cosmic dust, dune buggy-ing on Mars, ect.----

ya’ think if GM and Ford weren’t trying to out Hummer the other with Excursions, Hummers, F-650’s, ect- and developing 25 to 35 mpg vehicles that their bonds may be worth more than junk today?  And worth even more had they been able to develop those vehicles using a technology which made 20+ mpg all but obsolete and 50+ the norm?

Dilbert’s (wrong) view does not take into account the crucial supply/demand process which would drive down petro-profits or terror-profits, and instead throws in the towel with “if you don’t buy it, someone else will” and “its fungible” (a straw man) routine—an attitude which insults the fighting men and women of this country and their families with “Let them fight this battle, give me my MTV”

It’s only going to get worse if we don’t wake-up:

From eia
PROVEN CRUDE OIL RESERVES
It is generally agreed that the location of proven world crude oil reserves is far more concentrated in OPEC countries than current world oil production. Note that estimates of reserves vary; EIA does not assess oil reserves, but does list several independent estimates.  According to one independent estimate (Oil and Gas Journal), of the world's 1.28 trillion barrels of proven reserves, 885 billion barrels (69 percent) are held by OPEC, as of January 2005.

For sure new energy sources is critical for our long term success. Look at Chavez (crazy Anti American (friend of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan)) he is who he is thanks to oil.

Additionally Americans need to wake up. Dont blame Bush for our greed to drive every where every day, avoid car pooling and buy SUV's. Many need to look in the mirror. Just went to Eastern Europe where gas is about 5 bucks a gallon. These people make a few hundred a month. So most have 1.6l or 2.0l cars.

Amazingly during Clintons first year MPG was supposed to go up after 8 years it went down. One of the great accomplishments during the Billery years.

Tex it seems Toyota (LEXUS) is leading the way with good MPG auto's. They just built a plant in America and have reccord amounts of Hybrids and fuel efficient cars leaving lots now. LS430s get up to 30MPG. This is a big v-8 with 4.3l. GM and Ford should look in the mirror not at American Tax payers to bail them out.

[quote=TexasRep]

I believe this satirical Dilbert view to be a large part of the reason we’re in this mess- 

[/quote]

Hardly. Dilbert points out economic truth that Prius drivers and Micheal Moore fans will never understand.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=TexasRep]

We’ve gone from the last crisis 20+ years ago and the Detroit answer to that: gerri-rigged, turbo-Chryslers that got 20+ mpg to the “I want my turbo-hummer”

[/quote]

Detriot's answer to the last oil crisis was diesel engined cars that weren't worth a dime three years after you bought them. BTW, you may have noticed that Hummer sales (and Chysler doesn't make them) have fallen off and the reborn Hemi has the technology to turn off half of its cylinders for increased gas mileage. I suspect you're unaware what technology is available at your local dealer.

[quote=TexasRep]

As our vehicles depreciate and wear out,

[/quote]

As all cars, made everywhere, always have....

[quote=TexasRep]

the available selection out of Detroit averages less mpg now than 20+ years ago,

[/quote]

You have some evidence of this? I think you're wrong on this one. A similarly sized family sedan or mini van gets better mileage today than did a 1986 model. In fact, the mega SUVs get better mileage than the station wagon my father drive back at the dawn of time.

[quote=TexasRep]

ya’ think if GM and Ford weren’t trying to out Hummer the other with Excursions, Hummers, F-650’s, ect- and developing 25 to 35 mpg vehicles that their bonds may be worth more than junk today? 

[/quote]

Now you're really confused, and on a couple of fronts. Those larger vehicles, the ones that sold, are the only models Detroit made a profit in selling. If you want junk bonds, imagine a GM selling only the low margin subcompact line. Secondly, consumers determine what models sell (and until very recently it's been SUVs) not the auto makers. Detroits failures are many, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

BTW, if you want to buy an American made 25-35 mpg car, the lots are full of them.

[quote=TexasRep]

 And worth even more had they been able to develop those vehicles using a technology which made 20+ mpg all but obsolete and 50+ the norm?

[/quote]

Ahhh, how about garbage powered? Dream powered? Seriously, there's nothing that keeps Ford or GM from producing BOTH massive SUVs (and I'm not a fan) AND high mileage cars like Ford's hybrid escape. In fact, they already do. You've simply ignored the consumer demand issue. You may have noticed even the sainted foreign car makers build SUVs and trucks.

[quote=TexasRep]

Dilbert’s (wrong) view does not take into account the crucial supply/demand process which would drive down petro-profits or terror-profits, and instead throws in the towel with “if you don’t buy it, someone else will” and “its fungible” (a straw man) routine

[/quote]

You can't be serious. Dilbert is exactly right and anyone who makes a living in finance should be able to recognize that fact.

If we could wave a magic wand and stop buying oil from centers of terrorism (a link, btw, that's vastly exaggerated. We get a much smaller percentage of our oil from the middle east than most Americans know) someone else WOULD buy that oil. It wouldn't sit in the ground, and the supply/demand forces you seem to not understand would STILL move than fungible asset throughout the world. China and India would still buy that oil.

Drive a golf cart, if you like, it wouldn't change that fact.

[quote=TexasRep]

—an attitude which insults the fighting men and women of this country

[/quote]

Oh spare me....

If you have a real interest in fuel mileage, here's the EPA link.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/all-alpha-06.htm

And, oh, yeah, the Acruas at the top of the list, the ones getting mileage in the teens in town and low to mid-twenties on the highway, not made in Detroit... 

[/quote]

 I suspect you're unaware what technology is available at your local dealer.

i'm very aware- just bought an '06 2 weeks ago

[quote=TexasRep]

the available selection out of Detroit averages less mpg now than 20+ years ago,

[/quote]

You have some evidence of this? I think you're wrong on this one.

i read it somewhere- it is an average mpg study, lump in your 30+'s with the 10 mpg hummers and the average has gone DOWN over this period

Now you're really confused, and on a couple of fronts. Those larger vehicles, the ones that sold, are the only models Detroit made a profit in selling. If you want junk bonds, imagine a GM selling only the low margin subcompact line.

you missed my point entirely-

Secondly, consumers determine what models sell (and until very recently it's been SUVs) not the auto makers. Detroits failures are many, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.BTW, if you want to buy an American made 25-35 mpg car, the lots are full of them.

my point has never been "US consumers should do XYZ"- my context was that Detroit, should have been out in front of this enough to be able to give Joe consumer what he wants, and 25+ mpg.

[Ahhh, how about garbage powered? Dream powered? Seriously, there's nothing that keeps Ford or GM from producing BOTH massive SUVs (and I'm not a fan) AND high mileage cars like Ford's hybrid escape. In fact, they already do.

Ford's hybrid Escape? i shopped it,  and i would no more buy it than the gerri rigged turbo diesel of yesteryear- my point is: Detroit / USA- should have been able to be sufficiently ahead of this to be offering better by now-

You've simply ignored the consumer demand issue.

no, you've simply misread my post and manufactured your own debate-

You can't be serious. Dilbert is exactly right and anyone who makes a living in finance should be able to recognize that fact.If we could wave a magic wand and stop buying oil from centers of terrorism

who foolishly suggested this? You and Dilbert were the only two to believe where you buy oil from is material or debatable- not i.

...and the supply/demand forces you seem to not understand would STILL move than fungible asset throughout the world. China and India would still buy that oil.

if the USA consumed 25% less of that oil than we currently do, what would happen to the overall price of oil globally?
if the cars out of Detroit (big, massive cars that Joe consumer WANTS) got 50+ mpg, then Japan, China,Europe, ect followed with their vehicle production and as a result the world's demand dropped by 25% or more, what would that do the the global price on oil?

[quote=TexasRep]

—an attitude which insults the fighting men and women of this country

[/quote]

Oh spare me....

[/quote]

go back to your funny papers- this issue is too big for you.

[quote=TexasRep]

 I suspect you're unaware what technology is available at your local dealer.[/quote]

i'm very aware- just bought an '06 2 weeks ago

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, it sounds like you don't deserve it.

[quote=TexasRep]

the available selection out of Detroit averages less mpg now than 20+ years ago,

[/quote]

You have some evidence of this? I think you're wrong on this one.

i read it somewhere- it is an average mpg study, lump in your 30+'s with the 10 mpg hummers and the average has gone DOWN over this period

Sorry, no sale. You started with "available selection" (which clearly has a higher mpg than what was available 20 years ago) and moved to an average, which if even true, is dependent on what consumers CHOOSE to buy.

Now you're really confused, and on a couple of fronts. Those larger vehicles, the ones that sold, are the only models Detroit made a profit in selling. If you want junk bonds, imagine a GM selling only the low margin subcompact line.

you missed my point entirely-

I doubt it.

Secondly, consumers determine what models sell (and until very recently it's been SUVs) not the auto makers. Detroits failures are many, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.BTW, if you want to buy an American made 25-35 mpg car, the lots are full of them.

my point has never been "US consumers should do XYZ"- my context was that Detroit, should have been out in front of this enough to be able to give Joe consumer what he wants, and 25+ mpg.

Interesting. Joe consumer shows he doesn't want it, but Detroit (and I don't want to be in a position of defending them completely) should have led the way. BTW, just who produces what Joe wants AND has 25+ mpg. Be specific.

[Ahhh, how about garbage powered? Dream powered? Seriously, there's nothing that keeps Ford or GM from producing BOTH massive SUVs (and I'm not a fan) AND high mileage cars like Ford's hybrid escape. In fact, they already do.

Ford's hybrid Escape? i shopped it,  and i would no more buy it than the gerri rigged turbo diesel of yesteryear- my point is: Detroit / USA- should have been able to be sufficiently ahead of this to be offering better by now-

You're either joking or have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing "gerri rigged" about the Escape. In fact much of it's core technolgy is leased from the gods at Toyota. Do explain "better".  BTW, I hope it's more reality based than my anger at Detroit that the neat flying car has yet to show up at the dealership. 

You've simply ignored the consumer demand issue.

no, you've simply misread my post and manufactured your own debate-

Your post ignored that consumers dictate what the car makers produce...

You can't be serious. Dilbert is exactly right and anyone who makes a living in finance should be able to recognize that fact.If we could wave a magic wand and stop buying oil from centers of terrorism

who foolishly suggested this? You and Dilbert were the only two to believe where you buy oil from is material or debatable- not i.

Again, you can't be serious.

...and the supply/demand forces you seem to not understand would STILL move than fungible asset throughout the world. China and India would still buy that oil.

if the USA consumed 25% less of that oil than we currently do, what would happen to the overall price of oil globally?

And if frogs could fly.... do you have any idea what would be required to lower US oil use 25%?  Gasoline amounts to a tiny, tiny fraction of our oil usage. Even if you could triple the average mileage of US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US.

if the cars out of Detroit (big, massive cars that Joe consumer WANTS) got 50+ mpg, then Japan, China,Europe, ect followed with their vehicle production and as a result the world's demand dropped by 25% or more, what would that do the the global price on oil?

Let's assume you could waive that magic wand. Suddenly there is this technology and just as suddenly the entire world adopted it, you'd barely make a dent in the price of oil (if at all) because the OTHER uses for it dwarf what's used in cars.

[quote=TexasRep]

—an attitude which insults the fighting men and women of this country

[/quote]

Oh spare me....

[/quote]

go back to your funny papers- this issue is too big for you.

Clearly the reality of the economics of the issue escape you.

mikebutler222
Sorry, no sale. You started with "available selection" (which clearly has a higher mpg than what was available 20 years ago) and moved to an average, which if even true, is dependent on what consumers CHOOSE to buy.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I originally started with BOTH by stating:
As our vehicles depreciate and wear out, the available selection out of Detroit averages less mpg now than 20+ years ago.
- what I should have stated was “of cars sold”, which would point to the lack of fuel efficiency in cars Joe-public actually wants to purchase- which AGAIN, is my main point: That Washington/Detroit could have/should have collaborated for the greater good to produce BOTH vehicles that consumers want AND fuel efficiencies which are MUCH better than they were 20+ years ago in those vehicles.

mikebutler222
Interesting. Joe consumer shows he doesn't want it, but Detroit (and I don't want to be in a position of defending them completely) should have led the way. BTW, just who produces what Joe wants AND has 25+ mpg. Be specific.

Again, from my original post:
”…don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between…”
What part don’t you understand? I originally stated that the worth of GM/Ford would be “….. worth even more had they been able to develop those (the one’s they want) vehicles using a technology which made 20+ mpg all but obsolete and 50+ the norm…”

mikebutler222
You're either joking or have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing "gerri rigged" about the Escape. In fact much of it's core technolgy is leased from the gods at Toyota.

Have you driven it? Have you towed with it? Has it been battle tested enough to warrant the expenditure of $20,000+ on?
20+ years go by, the next crisis occurs, then whammo- here’s your answer- I’m not going to write a check, are you?
would you suggest that Joe-consumer who cannot afford to be upside down on a vehicle 5 years from now, take a flyer on what this “..core technolgy leased from the gods at Toyota..” will be worth in 2011?

mikebutler222
Your post ignored that consumers dictate what the car makers produce...

Really?
”…  don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between..”

mikebutler222
who foolishly suggested this? You and Dilbert were the only two to believe where you buy oil from is material or debatable- not i.
Again, you can't be serious.

Totally.

mikebutler222
And if frogs could fly.... do you have any idea what would be required to lower US oil use 25%?  Gasoline amounts to a tiny, tiny fraction of our oil usage.

From http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
”.. The root cause of high gasoline prices is soaring demand, caused in large part by increasingly fuel-inefficient cars and trucks. Of the 20 million barrels of oil consumed each day, 40 percent is used by passenger vehicles, 24 percent by industry, 12 percent by commercial and freight trucks, 7 percent by aircraft, and 6 percent in residential and commercial buildings.1 The U.S. passenger vehicle fleet alone accounts for one-tenth of world petroleum consumption..”

mikebutler222
Even if you could triple the average mileage of US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US.

From http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
”…According to the U.S. DOE, monthly average gasoline prices hit an all-time high in March 1981, when prices in today's dollars peaked at almost $3 per gallon (see Figure 4). The primary cause of that price peak was the war between Iran and Iraq, which removed large amounts of oil from the world oil market along with OPEC's ability at that time to enforce price and production quotas.

In response, the United States and other oil importing nations radically reduced their demand for OPEC oil through fuel efficiency, fuel switching and new production. In response, the total demand for OPEC oil fell by 13 million barrels per day, or 43 percent, between 1979 and 1983.20 Unable to maintain its desired market share at the high oil prices it was charging, OPEC was forced to slash its prices….”

mikebutler222
Let's assume you could waive that magic wand. Suddenly there is this technology and just as suddenly the entire world adopted it, you'd barely make a dent in the price of oil (if at all) because the OTHER uses for it dwarf what's used in cars.

Cite the data.

mikebutler222
Clearly the reality of the economics of the issue escape you.

Whose reality?   Dilbert’s?   Genius.

mikebutler222
Sorry, no sale. You started with "available selection" (which clearly has a higher mpg than what was available 20 years ago) and moved to an average, which if even true, is dependent on what consumers CHOOSE to buy.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I originally started with BOTH by stating:

As our vehicles depreciate and wear out, the available selection out of <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Detroit averages less mpg now than 20+ years ago.
- what I should have stated was “of cars sold”, which would point to the lack of fuel efficiency in cars Joe-public actually wants to purchase-

So you acknowledge Joe consumer actually drives the train. Progress is being made...

which AGAIN, is my main point: That Washington/Detroit could have/should have collaborated...

The fact remains that fuel mileage IS better, much better than 20 years ago for similar cars. Joe consumer, otoh, has wanted bigger vehicles. I'm still trying to figure out how you blame anyone but Joe.

Or is it you're suggesting there's a technology that could make a Suburban with "much better" mileage? If that's the case, two questions 1) what evidence to do have that it's possible  2) why wouldn't car makers offer it if it was possible?

mikebutler222
Interesting. Joe consumer shows he doesn't want it, but Detroit (and I don't want to be in a position of defending them completely) should have led the way. BTW, just who produces what Joe wants AND has 25+ mpg. Be specific.

Again, from my original post:
”…don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between…”
What part don’t you understand?

Part missing part. The part where you don't admit that consumers buy what they want and that no union of politicos/car makers could change that by any means other than taking away that choice.

And could you answer my question? Who produces what Joe wants with the mileage you claim is possible?

 I originally stated that the worth of GM/Ford would be “….. worth even more had they been able to develop those (the one’s they want) vehicles using a technology which made 20+ mpg all but obsolete and 50+ the norm…”

It seems pretty much a cheap shot to me to claim that car makers have failed because they haven't produced a technology that you haven't even proved is possible. I could use the same approach to attack airplane makers for not offering me a private plane I could deflate and store in my closet.

mikebutler222
You're either joking or have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing "gerri rigged" about the Escape. In fact much of it's core technolgy is leased from the gods at Toyota.

Have you driven it? Have you towed with it? Has it been battle tested enough to warrant the expenditure of $20,000+ on?

Yes, I've driven it. The fact is it's every bit as good as a Toyota. Just what did you eventually buy?

 
would you suggest that Joe-consumer who cannot afford to be upside down on a vehicle 5 years from now, take a flyer on what this “..core technolgy leased from the gods at Toyota..” will be worth in 2011?

Now your point seems to have completely vanished. You bash Detroit for not producing a high mileage car (and Detroit alone, I should add) and when one's offered to you, you won't buy.

mikebutler222
Your post ignored that consumers dictate what the car makers produce...

Really?
”…  don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between..”

Ohhhh, so "don't blame it all" translates to Consumers buy what they want?

mikebutler222
who foolishly suggested this? You and Dilbert were the only two to believe where you buy oil from is material or debatable- not i.
Again, you can't be serious.

Totally.

Obviously you weren't an econ major....

mikebutler222
And if frogs could fly.... do you have any idea what would be required to lower US oil use 25%?  Gasoline amounts to a tiny, tiny fraction of our oil usage.

From http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

Wait a sec, you're quoting the NRDC?????  Gee, bias-free there...

BTW, note they're talking about GAS PRICES, not OIL PRICES. And note their conclusion, 10% is all the cars in the US consume of total world  oil demand. A whopping 90% goes to other uses, and that demand continues to expand. Even if you DOUBLED US fuel mileage, you'd affect a miniscule amount of total oil usage.

 And again, all this supposition  is all based on a technology you can’t even prove is possible.

mikebutler222
Even if you could triple the average mileage of US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US.

From http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
”…According to the U.S. DOE, monthly average gasoline prices hit an all-time high in March 1981..

Note again, OIL PRICES, and they moved up because of SUPPLY THREATS. Also remember back just a few months ago to when gas prices hit near $3 again. While there was a heightened interest in high mileage vehicles, total oil consumption barely moved. Why? Because oil consumption is very inelastic.

In response, the United States and other oil importing nations radically reduced their demand for OPEC oil through fuel efficiency, fuel switching and new production.

Note how “NEW PRODUCTION” slipped in their last. The fact is world consumption is no where near as elastic as these people would have you believe. New production made up for the decline in OPEC sources.

http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n42d01.htm

Note the chart at the bottom of the page. World oil output actually increased while OPEC production plummeted.

BTW, here’s something you might find interesting. OPEC is about 45% of world oil production. Cut out of OPEC, Persian Gulf nations make up only 27% of the world’s total production. IOW, this “Detroit didn’t offer the high mileage cars they could, which in turn funded terrorists” nexus accounts for an entire 27% of the oil being discussed and a “possible” change in 10% of total world oil consumption.

mikebutler222
Let's assume you could waive that magic wand. Suddenly there is this technology and just as suddenly the entire world adopted it, you'd barely make a dent in the price of oil (if at all) because the OTHER uses for it dwarf what's used in cars.

Cite the data.

See above

mikebutler222
Clearly the reality of the economics of the issue escape you.

Whose reality?   Dilbert’s?   Genius.

Yes, the economic reality clearly on display in a cartoon. You’d think it was spelled out there simple enough for anyone to grasp.

Rather than blinding everyone with multicolor, cut and paste post, let's start anew. Here are a couple of questions for you.

1) What technology could produce what you're talking about, if Detroit failed, who has it.

2) What total reduction in world oil demand would that produce.

3) Why would that oil remain in the ground and not be purchased by some other, rapidly grown market.

4) Aside from removing the consumer's choice, what would move people out of larger, less efficent vehicles?

5) Given that OPEC produces 27% of the oil consumed, what effect would a reduction in US auto consumption do to their income?

It all stems back to the gluttony (sp?) of your avg American.  How many people on this forum drive Lexus, Acura, BMW, etc. just because we can?  I goes right along with why the majority of the American population spends more than they make,... because they can, it's accepted in our culture.  And how many of us have homes twice the size of our parents houses, while raising fewer children?

I spent some time in Europe years ago.  One day I was talking to a young German gentleman, and he couldn't believe the spending habits of Americans.  If he were to buy a new car, he drove his old one until he had enough money saved up  to buy a new one.  We don't think like this, our culture is an immediate gratification system (buy now pay later).

  I feel better now, having gotten that off my chest.

EREJ I have a big LEXUS and we get okay mileage. Also others like myself utilize Amtrak and cut out useless or consolidate trips.

America I think has woken up. During the Billery years many of us were happy, fat and ignorant (maybe we still are). The problem now is every one thinks their home equity is guaranteed. We (general population) assume "The housing market will never correct."

So everyone is getting bigger and better. Little Billy and Bobby Joe have all their toys and a free trip to college. There they can study liberal arts to increase their awareness of peace and free speech. The great thing is we can choose to do what ever the hell we want, but it's not surprising foreigners think were fat, ignorant and happy.

Laaaaa laaaaa laaaaaaaa..... As I rant more and more. Just like to do the opposite of most Americans. Live healthy, save money, travel and enjoy life debt free!

I feel so much better.

[quote=exEJIR]

It all stems back to the gluttony (sp?) of your avg American. 

[/quote]

That's sort of a call on morality via spending, isn't it? I'm not willing to make that call.

[quote=exEJIR]

How many people on this forum drive Lexus, Acura, BMW, etc. just because we can? 

[/quote]

It's that danged freedom thing again. It's just spoiled the country 

[quote=exEJIR]

 And how many of us have homes twice the size of our parents houses, while raising fewer children?

[/quote]

How is that anyone's business than mine?

[quote=exEJIR]

I spent some time in Europe years ago.  One day I was talking to a young German gentleman, and he couldn't believe the spending habits of Americans.  If he were to buy a new car, he drove his old one until he had enough money saved up  to buy a new one. 

[/quote]

We do rely on credit, but don't let your German pal fool you, so do they, just to a smaller extent.

[quote=mikebutler222]

mikebutler222
Sorry, no sale. You started with "available selection" (which clearly has a higher mpg than what was available 20 years ago) and moved to an average, which if even true, is dependent on what consumers CHOOSE to buy.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I originally started with BOTH by stating:

As our vehicles depreciate and wear out, the available selection out of <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Detroit averages less mpg now than 20+ years ago.
- what I should have stated was “of cars sold”, which would point to the lack of fuel efficiency in cars Joe-public actually wants to purchase-

So you acknowledge Joe consumer actually drives the train. Progress is being made...

which AGAIN, is my main point: That Washington/Detroit could have/should have collaborated...

The fact remains that fuel mileage IS better, much better than 20 years ago for similar cars. Joe consumer, otoh, has wanted bigger vehicles. I'm still trying to figure out how you blame anyone but Joe.

Or is it you're suggesting there's a technology that could make a Suburban with "much better" mileage? If that's the case, two questions 1) what evidence to do have that it's possible  2) why wouldn't car makers offer it if it was possible?

mikebutler222
Interesting. Joe consumer shows he doesn't want it, but Detroit (and I don't want to be in a position of defending them completely) should have led the way. BTW, just who produces what Joe wants AND has 25+ mpg. Be specific.

Again, from my original post:
”…don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between…”
What part don’t you understand?

Part missing part. The part where you don't admit that consumers buy what they want and that no union of politicos/car makers could change that by any means other than taking away that choice.

And could you answer my question? Who produces what Joe wants with the mileage you claim is possible?

 I originally stated that the worth of GM/Ford would be “….. worth even more had they been able to develop those (the one’s they want) vehicles using a technology which made 20+ mpg all but obsolete and 50+ the norm…”

It seems pretty much a cheap shot to me to claim that car makers have failed because they haven't produced a technology that you haven't even proved is possible. I could use the same approach to attack airplane makers for not offering me a private plane I could deflate and store in my closet.

mikebutler222
You're either joking or have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing "gerri rigged" about the Escape. In fact much of it's core technolgy is leased from the gods at Toyota.

Have you driven it? Have you towed with it? Has it been battle tested enough to warrant the expenditure of $20,000+ on?

Yes, I've driven it. The fact is it's every bit as good as a Toyota. Just what did you eventually buy?

would you suggest that Joe-consumer who cannot afford to be upside down on a vehicle 5 years from now, take a flyer on what this “..core technolgy leased from the gods at Toyota..” will be worth in 2011?

Now your point seems to have completely vanished. You bash Detroit for not producing a high mileage car (and Detroit alone, I should add) and when one's offered to you, you won't buy.

mikebutler222
Your post ignored that consumers dictate what the car makers produce...

Really?
”…  don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between..”

Ohhhh, so "don't blame it all" translates to Consumers buy what they want?

mikebutler222
who foolishly suggested this? You and Dilbert were the only two to believe where you buy oil from is material or debatable- not i.
Again, you can't be serious.

Totally.

Obviously you weren't an econ major....

mikebutler222
And if frogs could fly.... do you have any idea what would be required to lower US oil use 25%?  Gasoline amounts to a tiny, tiny fraction of our oil usage.

From http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

Wait a sec, you're quoting the NRDC?????  Gee, bias-free there...

BTW, note they're talking about GAS PRICES, not OIL PRICES. And note their conclusion, 10% is all the cars in the US consume of total world  oil demand. A whopping 90% goes to other uses, and that demand continues to expand. Even if you DOUBLED US fuel mileage, you'd affect a miniscule amount of total oil usage.

 And again, all this supposition  is all based on a technology you can’t even prove is possible.

mikebutler222
Even if you could triple the average mileage of US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US.

From http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
”…According to the U.S. DOE, monthly average gasoline prices hit an all-time high in March 1981..

Note again, OIL PRICES, and they moved up because of SUPPLY THREATS. Also remember back just a few months ago to when gas prices hit near $3 again. While there was a heightened interest in high mileage vehicles, total oil consumption barely moved. Why? Because oil consumption is very inelastic.

In response, the United States and other oil importing nations radically reduced their demand for OPEC oil through fuel efficiency, fuel switching and new production.

Note how “NEW PRODUCTION” slipped in their last. The fact is world consumption is no where near as elastic as these people would have you believe. New production made up for the decline in OPEC sources.

http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n42d01.htm

Note the chart at the bottom of the page. World oil output actually increased while OPEC production plummeted.

BTW, here’s something you might find interesting. OPEC is about 45% of world oil production. Cut out of OPEC, Persian Gulf nations make up only 27% of the world’s total production. IOW, this “Detroit didn’t offer the high mileage cars they could, which in turn funded terrorists” nexus accounts for an entire 27% of the oil being discussed and a “possible” change in 10% of total world oil consumption.

mikebutler222
Let's assume you could waive that magic wand. Suddenly there is this technology and just as suddenly the entire world adopted it, you'd barely make a dent in the price of oil (if at all) because the OTHER uses for it dwarf what's used in cars.

Cite the data.

See above

mikebutler222
Clearly the reality of the economics of the issue escape you.

Whose reality?   Dilbert’s?   Genius.

Yes, the economic reality clearly on display in a cartoon. You’d think it was spelled out there simple enough for anyone to grasp.

[/quote]

Holy Sh*t MikeB.  What planet are you from?  The point by point argument in technicolor now?  I think I counted 5 different shades of green, not to include red and an interesting shade of blue.  Man you've turned the rebuttal into an art form.

We should have a contest to see who can get the longest, most intricate, colorful and detailed point by point rebuttal from MikeB.

[quote=dude]

Holy Sh*t MikeB.  What planet are you from?  The point by point argument in technicolor now? 

[/quote]

Yeah, once he started the color response, there was no easy way to go back to the easier to read quote method.

BTW, I had to "re-select" the color everytime I wrote a line, thus the many shades of green 

 I think I counted 5 different shades of green, not to include red and an interesting shade of blue.  Man you've turned the rebuttal into an art form.

We should have a contest to see who can get the longest, most intricate, colorful and detailed point by point rebuttal from MikeB.

I think it's kinda funny how one of the links you posted contained the following paragraph:

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, the U.S. Geological Service says the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- is roughly 3.2 billion barrels. That amounts to only a six-month supply of oil, based on U.S. consumption. Simply put, there is not enough new oil recoverable from domestic sources at reasonable cost to influence the world price for oil or to substantially displace imports.

In addition the whole tone basically pulls the rug out from underneath the Bush administrations approach to energy independence.

It's not like you to be posting material that challenges your hero MikeB.

No doubt the task of increasing energy independence is unimaginably challenging, problem is that the consequences of not changing our habits will probably be much more catastrophic than tightening the belt, seeking alternatives and changing how we fundamentally operate as a society.

BTW MikeB, Thanks for the links, very informative.

[quote=dude]

I think it's kinda funny how one of the links you posted contained the following paragraph:

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, the U.S. Geological Service says the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- is roughly 3.2 billion barrels.

[/quote]

Dude, dude, dude, don't quote the NRDC as some sort of unbiased source. It just makes you look silly.

The USGS was guessing at the price of oil AND the reserve's size. More to the point, don't pertend it's just Bush that thinks drilling in ANWAR to lessen US reliance on foreign oil is a good idea.

[quote=dude]

BTW MikeB, Thanks for the links, very informative.

[/quote]

I didn't supply the NRDC link, dude. That was Tex...

Not implying that the NRDC is unbiased.  Got confused as to who posted the link.  Never the less, drilling in the artic is a fools game in my opinion, just postpones the inevitable. 

We must change our consumptive habits, localize (de corporatize) food production (to reduce the need for shipping), change how we builld structures (to encompass lower embodied energy construction materials and increase usage of thermal gain principles from the sun for heating) and utilize more renewable energy sources to even begin to put a dent in our need for oil. 

I know it sounds blasphemous but we could actually learn a lot from Cuba, who has made incredible strides in becoming self sufficient after the fall of the Soviet Union.  Although I'm definitely no fan of Communist ideals, I will say that the achievements Cuba has made are worth learning from since they had to make a radical change in a very short period of time.  In addition, contrary to popular belief, Cuba has a very high quality of life to boot.

I also get inspiration from Brazil, which has converted the majority of it's cars to ethanol and has done it in a very short time span.  It's amazing how the countries with so much less than us, who have a real need to address these issues are at the forefront of developing solutions.  Unfortunatley, I am not so optimistic about our cultures' ability to change, we are far to obsessed with the convenience and comforts our artificially high standard of living has provided.  We'll pay the price someday though.

[quote=dude]

Not implying that the NRDC is unbiased.  Got confused as to who posted the link.  Never the less, drilling in the artic is a fools game in my opinion, just postpones the inevitable. 

[/quote]

An opinion, no matter how wrong, that's you're entitled to 

We must change our consumptive habits, localize (de corporatize) food production (to reduce the need for shipping), change how we builld structures (to encompass lower embodied energy construction materials and increase usage of thermal gain principles from the sun for heating) and utilize more renewable energy sources to even begin to put a dent in our need for oil. 

[quote=dude]

I know it sounds blasphemous but we could actually learn a lot from Cuba, who has made incredible strides in becoming self sufficient after the fall of the Soviet Union.

[/quote]

Ahhh, the wonders of a top-down dictatorship where consumers have no choice, and little else, for that matter. 

[quote=dude]

    In addition, contrary to popular belief, Cuba has a very high quality of life to boot.

[/quote]

That would explain the 1950s era Chevies everywhere. "High quality of life" ROFLMAO....

[quote=dude]

 Unfortunatley, I am not so optimistic about our cultures' ability to change, ...

[/quote]

It's a shame that you know so little of our history that you doubt our abilities. Then again, there's no greater article of faith on the left than the doubts of America....

pls delete from the above post the paragraph that starts with “We must change…”

MikeB said:

That would explain the 1950s era Chevies everywhere. "High quality of life" ROFLMAO....

Reply:

You have a very shallow definition of quality of life, which I expected.  If you're equating automobiles and satisfation with life I pity you.

Actually, most of the people I know who were alive during the 50's say that the quality of life was much better then than today.

Mike B said:

It's a shame that you know so little of our history that you doubt our abilities. Then again, there's no greater article of faith on the left than the doubts of America....

Reply:

Yeah all you Bush B*tches were so optimistic during the Clinton years.  In fact your avatar, Rush Limbaugh and his cronies were a foutain of good vibes in th 90's . 

Also, your predictable response about Cuba is illustrative of your ignorance and narrow mindedness.  You know, our best teacher is usually our enemy.  As long as the problem is being solved, who cares where the solution comes from?

You probably think the Vietnam War was a worthwhile cause. 

[quote=dude]

MikeB said:

That would explain the 1950s era Chevies everywhere. "High quality of life" ROFLMAO....

Reply:

You have a very shallow definition of quality of life, which I expected.  If you're equating automobiles and satisfation with life I pity you.

I find it hard to call a place with crumbling infrastructure and a complete lack of consumer goods (not to mention FREEDOM) a "high quality of life". People usually don't risk their lives to ride rafts to escape a "high quality of life"....

Actually, most of the people I know who were alive during the 50's say that the quality of life was much better then than today.

Mike B said:

It's a shame that you know so little of our history that you doubt our abilities. Then again, there's no greater article of faith on the left than the doubts of America....

Reply:

Yeah all you Bush B*tches were so optimistic during the Clinton years.  In fact your avatar, Rush Limbaugh and his cronies were a foutain of good vibes in th 90's . 

There you go again...ascribing views to me I've never expressed. Here's a hint, take a look at America HISTORY which is what I mentioned, to see how we've managed adversity in the past.

Also, your predictable response about Cuba is illustrative of your ignorance and narrow mindedness.  You know, our best teacher is usually our enemy.  As long as the problem is being solved, who cares where the solution comes from?

Is that you way of defending using a example from a consumer-choice free, top-down driven economy that's in the pits as something that could be done here? Geezze dude, how clueless can you be? What you're saying is that dictators can make the trains run on time. BFD...

You probably think the Vietnam War was a worthwhile cause. 

You probably think that was a rational response....

BTW, who cares what my view on that is, ever consider the views of the people sent to reeducation camps?

[quote=dude]

I know it sounds blasphemous but we could actually

learn a lot from Cuba, who has made incredible strides in becoming self

sufficient after the fall of the Soviet Union. Although I’m definitely no fan

of Communist ideals, I will say that the achievements Cuba has made are

worth learning from since they had to make a radical change in a very

short period of time. In addition, contrary to popular belief, Cuba has a

very high quality of life to boot.

I vote for MikeB also. Dude is smart, but my friends from Dominican and Haiti (similar to Cuba) want to be in America. They know making 5$ an hour with the opportunity to get paid for 2 - 45 hour jobs is awesome! Food on the table and shelter over head.

Talk to anyone under the USSR and learn that until democracy rolled in they got fruit once a year (New Years). Of course some planted fruits, but a vision of anything more then waiting in lines for hours to get beef was more then a dream.

America is the land of opportunity, but Americans are obsessed with debt. Maybe Bush, pork and congress can be to blame... Although I think the national debt has incrased 2.5 tril since Bush took over. Meaning there was 4 or 5 trillion before. So its a trend and once again not only GW's fault!

[quote=dude] 

We must change our consumptive habits, localize (de corporatize) food production (to reduce the need for shipping), change how we builld structures (to encompass lower embodied energy construction materials and increase usage of thermal gain principles from the sun for heating) and utilize more renewable energy sources to even begin to put a dent in our need for oil. 

Unfortunatley, I am not so optimistic about our cultures' ability to change, we are far to obsessed with the convenience and comforts our artificially high standard of living has provided.  We'll pay the price someday though.

[/quote]

That is were I was going with my post.  MikeB, I'm not saying that you or anyone else is not entitled to the comforts that we have been afforded in our line of biz. (h*ll, I'm right along with you)  I was merely speaking about the general population trying to keep up with the "Jones".  Energy (oil) consumption is just the tip of the iceberg.

mikebutler222
So you acknowledge Joe consumer actually drives the train. Progress is being made...<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Wrong again..

mikebutler222
Or is it you're suggesting there's a technology that could make a Suburban with "much better" mileage? If that's the case, two questions 1) what evidence to do have that it's possible  2) why wouldn't car makers offer it if it was possible?

This has been my (admittedly) conspirator theory all along—can I prove it? Of course not but when I wrote: “ …. meanwhile our technology has us 24/7 in a space station, shooting robot rockets at comets to analyze their cosmic dust, dune buggy-ing on Mars, ect….” My take was that our technology has spectacularly advanced; yet we are still getting less avg mpg than we did 20+ years ago in CARS THAT WE WANT TO DRIVE--

mikebutler222
Part missing part. The part where you don't admit that consumers buy what they want and that no union of politicos/car makers could change that by any means other than taking away that choice.

Or… if the technology which achieved the afore mentioned feats were channeled into this area and equally spectacular results were had.

mikebutler222
And could you answer my question? Who produces what Joe wants with the mileage you claim is possible?

You are off your rocker.

 mikebutler222
It seems pretty much a cheap shot to me to claim that car makers have failed because they haven't produced a technology that you haven't even proved is possible. I could use the same approach to attack airplane makers for not offering me a private plane I could deflate and store in my closet.

Well if it blows your skirt up, attack the airplane makers…at least it’s something your good at.

mikebutler222
You're either joking or have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing "gerri rigged" about the Escape. In fact much of it's core technolgy is leased from the gods at Toyota. Yes, I've driven it. The fact is it's every bit as good as a Toyota. Just what did you eventually buy?

You must be insane, or you have never taken your Ford back to the dealer and dealt w/ their tech’s in the tool shed.
I would no more trust that these guys could consistently repair my hybrid electro/conventional engine than I would if it were a nuclear reactor – that you would is great for you, and time will tell if this technology and the way Ford is applying it works out—I honestly hope that it does- what I would prefer to see is an engine which can perform as we are used to, AND get 25+ mpg or more IN VEHICLES THAT WE WANT.

mikebutler222
Now your point seems to have completely vanished. You bash Detroit for not producing a high mileage car (and Detroit alone, I should add) and when one's offered to you, you won't buy.

I applaud Detroit, et al for producing anything which stretches out a gallon of gas—I just won’t be the guinea pig who spends my money on their gerri rigged prototype using technology that they leased from another company— but my issue was (as if you care) that 20+ years went by before we started getting something produced along these lines—
How would have developing this technology, or technology better than this, and offering it and improving upon it every year for the past 20+ years hurt the manufactures or the public? If they were not profitably produced, then Washington should have stepped in with incentives/subsidies to keep the technology advancing for the greater good, and by now (crisis looming) we’d have proven vehicles and tech’s who know how to work on them.
As far as buying the Escape, no – the negatives are just too great and I’m unwilling to compromise performance to that extent, nor do I feel confident that this technology is as good as we’re are going to get.

mikebutler222
Ohhhh, so "don't blame it all" translates to Consumers buy what they want?

Exactly.

mikebutler222
You can't be serious. Dilbert is exactly right and anyone who makes a living in finance should be able to recognize that fact. If we could wave a magic wand and stop buying oil from centers of terrorism (a link, btw, that's vastly exaggerated. We get a much smaller percentage of our oil from the middle east than most Americans know) someone else WOULD buy that oil. It wouldn't sit in the ground, and the supply/demand forces you seem to not understand would STILL move than fungible asset throughout the world. China and India would still buy that oil.
who foolishly suggested this? You and Dilbert were the only two to believe where you buy oil from is material or debatable- not i.
Again, you can't be serious.
Totally.
Obviously you weren't an econ major....

If we (and others who will benefit from this better technology) decrease our consumption, prices will go down- who buys the oil that we don’t buy is not material- the price they pay is, and the price will be less, if we can exploit technologies which allow us and the world to consume less petro-fuels.  Thus, a shrinking terror-profit margin.
(I bet you and Dilbert secretly already knew this)

mikebutler222
BTW, note they're talking about GAS PRICES, not OIL PRICES. And note their conclusion, 10% is all the cars in the US consume of total world  oil demand. A whopping 90% goes to other uses, and that demand continues to expand. Even if you DOUBLED US fuel mileage, you'd affect a miniscule amount of total oil usage.

It’s a start- and don’t you think when them there foreigners catch wind that we are saving all this cash using these new machines here in the USA, they’ll want ‘em too?

mikebutler222
And again, all this supposition  is all based on a technology you can’t even prove is possible.

Correct- but like you I have a supreme confidence in the US system of capital enterprise and our ability meet a challenge if properly motivated and compensated.
Washington has collaberated with other sectors to motivate technology towards the greater good and should be working double time now w/ auto et. al.-

mikebutler222
Even if you could triple the average mileage US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US

 And if we allow blacks and women to vote the world will end, as we know it.
(P.S. I heard that the whole “ hair is gonna’ grow on your knuckles if you masturbate” thing was a myth)

mikebutler222
Note how “NEW PRODUCTION” slipped in their last. The fact is world consumption is no where near as elastic as these people would have you believe. New production made up for the decline in OPEC sources. Note the chart at the bottom of the page. World oil output actually increased while OPEC production plummeted.

Did you miss the part where it says “Raising fuel economy performance to 40 mpg over the next 10 years alone could cut passenger vehicle oil demand by about one-third or 4 million barrels per day by 2020. By 2015, increased fuel efficiency would save 2 million barrels of oil each day (see Figure 5, below) -- about equal to current daily imports from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (see Table 1).” ?   (BTW, before you grab your “new word of the day” and start on your “fungible” hobby horse again,  no one is insinuating that anyone can cut-out OPEC’s global market contribution of oil)
Is your position – “don’t bother, the facts are in, go on doing what you’ve been doing, it won’t matter anyway”??
Your entitled to that, if it is- but I think it’s asinine.

mikebutler222
BTW, here’s something you might find interesting. OPEC is about 45% of world oil production. Cut out of OPEC, Persian Gulf nations make up only 27% of the world’s total production. IOW, this “Detroit didn’t offer the high mileage cars they could, which in turn funded terrorists” nexus accounts for an entire 27% of the oil being discussed and a “possible” change in 10% of total world oil consumption.

We’ve gone over this already- production from Arab nations is used as a “backstop” after other nations compete and sell their oil- this keeps the non-Arab influenced price as high as possible in the market, basically, OPEC “makes-up” the global supply that is additionally needed.
As for our challenges in the future, its not production that matters, it’s reserves, and OPEC holds 69% of them.
From eia
PROVEN CRUDE OIL RESERVES
It is generally agreed that the location of proven world crude oil reserves is far more concentrated in OPEC countries than current world oil production. Note that estimates of reserves vary; EIA does not assess oil reserves, but does list several independent estimates.  According to one independent estimate (Oil and Gas Journal), of the world's 1.28 trillion barrels of proven reserves, 885 billion barrels (69 percent) are held by OPEC, as of January 2005.

mikebutler222
Let's assume you could waive that magic wand. Suddenly there is this technology and just as suddenly the entire world adopted it, you'd barely make a dent in the price of oil (if at all) because the OTHER uses for it dwarf what's used in cars.Cite the data.See above

I see no data in the “above” which answers this question.
What I did see was your Dr Chalabi refute your “Even if you could triple the average mileage US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US” with:
”CGES projects a much lower rate of demand increase:  less than 1% per year, or about 0.8-0.9% per year, in which case an incremental demand until the year 2010 would not exceed 3mn b/d. Under such sluggish world demand growth and increasing oil supplies, OPEC’s ability to maintain the present price band would be inconceivable.”
and
”However, these projections of world demand cannot be considered realistic if we take into account present and future trends, which lead to a much lower rate of increase. In the last 10 years, the average annual increase of world consumption has been 1.2%, falling to 0.9% over the past five years. Predicting a higher growth rate for future world demand, despite huge technological advancements, environmental pressure, government policies, etc., is hardly conceivable.”

mikebutler222
Clearly the reality of the economics of the issue escape you.
Whose reality?   Dilbert’s?   Genius.
Yes, the economic reality clearly on display in a cartoon. You’d think it was spelled out there simple enough for anyone to grasp.

The difference?
Dilbert knows that no idiot would ever really believe dogbert---- whoops, he stands corrected.

Whoa here boys...... It's easy to take my point out of context.

My whole point originally was revolving around the concept of energy independence.  I would not compare Cuba economically with the US in any way.  i know some people who went to Cuba and their reports of Cuba were nowhere close to all the negative propaganda we get here in the US (and no they didn't have a government minder with them).  Sure there are infrastructure issues, but the main point is that quality of life is highly subjective and doens't necessarily coorelate to wealth and material posessions.  The report I got was that there was no widespread squalor, crime or "poverty" (from the perspective of the Cubans).  Yeah, the infrastructure sucked, but there were many redeeming factors.  Apparently the healthcare system is world class and many students from around the world go to Cuba to get trained as doctors. 

Look, what I heard was that the quality of life was very high when judged by measures such as satisfaction, crime levels, time to spend w/ family and persue personal interests.  What was most suprising was that there weren't the droves of people who wanted to have a mass exodus that I always hear about in the news. 

I don't have the time to detail for all of you the many things I learned about Cuba from some folks who were there that don't support alot of the negative press that Cuba gets.  Sure, it's not a place I'd want to live, I like having electricity.

I hate to break it to you but the US is not the beacon of freedom and quality of life a lot of you think.  We have by far the worlds highest incarceration rates, see:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

To give you some perspective  we jail 5 to 8 times as many of our citizens than other leading industrialized countries (we even beat Russia) see:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/pub9036.pdf

About a quarter of all incarcerations are due to non violent drug crimes!  Note the chart that shows the INCREDIBLE leap in prison population shortly after the War on Drugs was initiated.  Funny thing is that if you take some college kid who get's busted for pot and put him in jail, when he gets out he's now got a criminal record and will have a hard time getting a good wage job so whats he to do?  Well how about all that sh*t he learned in prison.  The prison system is one of the most effective criminal schools in our country.  Anyway I'm getting a little off topic, I just can't stand idiocy.

What's also interesting is that we are about average as far as crime rate goes (although at a higher risk of violent crime).  Other countries with exponentially lower incarceration rates do not suffer from higher crime rates than us.  Jailing more people does not reduce crime.

Look, I'm not an anti-US guy.  I just passionately believe we can do much much better and I don't think Bush is doing the job right.  If we are to live up to the hope of being the MOST FREE country on the planet like we get hammered into our heads by the media, there is room for a lot of improvement.

You all may want to hate on me because I'm not a red blooded, apple pie patriotic American, that's fine.  I'd suggest that anyone who is curious about the truths of "quality of life" and freedom in the US do some research on their own and quit listening to the domestic media.  What you find will be facinating (I know it was for me). 

Peace. 

I’ll add that I know that the US places between #6 and #10 on various quality of life studies.  I’ll note that many of the various studies out there are primarily weighing GDP, per capita income, life expectancy and a lot of factors that clearly advantage more industrialized and developed nations.  I’m hoping that the majority of you who have an interest in the above info are open to the idea that people can be very happy and satisfied with life without a lot of luxuries.  Some of the most satisfied people I’ve known live off the power grid and live very minimalist lives. 

Doing a quick search on the internet I cam across an article by someone who has been to Cuba who reflected the same conditions that my friends experienced.  Here is an excerpt:

Cuba's universal, free, high-quality health care, is the best in the Third World. The island country has produced the lowest infant mortality rate in this hemisphere and life expectancy rates better than in the United States. Cuba has the highest number of both physicians per capita and health teams serving the global poor, in the world, along with the most complete infant immunization coverage and a national health and nutrition education program that has led to urban (mostly organic) gardens that produce 3 million tons of fresh produce per year for 11 million people. (Cuba expects to feed its population on organic food in the coming decade.)

Most of the problems that everybody hears about concerning Cuba has to do with Cuba having to change radically after the fall of the Soviet Union as well as continued economic sanctions by the US.  Any country who had to face those kinds of changes and obstacles would be a hard place to be for a while at least.

Although finding good info on Cuba on the net is a little difficult here are some articles which I found that backed up my friends experiences in Cuba

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/news.asp?ItemID=671 : talks about energy progress in Cuba

http://www.counterpunch.org/morris06032004.html

Note that I don't necessarily support the overall view of these authors.  I'm just using these articles as a validation of the info I've heard from folks on the ground.

Here's another interesting excerpt which I have found to be true:

The latest UN vote opposing the U.S. embargo was 179-3 (last year it was 173-3). The world opposes U.S. policy on Cuba, but the United States pummels the world into submission, in an all-too-familiar, and increasingly dangerous, exercise of the unilateral "rule of force."

There is a joke about Cuba and Fidel Castro that suggests that if Fidel could walk on water, the United States would report that he is too old to swim, i.e., here, everything about Cuba receives a negative spin.

Anyway, I have nothing more to say on this issue.

I lied.  I'll finish by saying that most of Cubas problems are actually due to the US embargo, which is soooooo necessary because Cuba is such a major threat (rolls eyes).  I think it's BS that we restrict any companies that do business with us from doing business with Cuba. 

Yeah, let's hit 'em on the head and then criticize and demonize them for being hurt. Great logic guys/gals.  Keep it comin' America, you never cease to amaze.

[quote=dude]I'll add that I know that the US places between #6 and #10 on various quality of life studies.  I'll note that many of the various studies out there are primarily weighing GDP, per capita income, life expectancy and a lot of factors that clearly advantage more industrialized and developed nations.  I'm hoping that the majority of you who have an interest in the above info are open to the idea that people can be very happy and satisfied with life without a lot of luxuries.  Some of the most satisfied people I've known live off the power grid and live very minimalist lives.  [/quote]

i've been to many places where the fruit is low hanging and the people are very laid back- they don't seem too bothered that they are missing out on all that we in the US seem to consider so important-
me? i spend my days dreaming of getting back to those places for a visit- but i live where i want.

[quote=dude]

I lied.  I'll finish by saying that most of Cubas problems are actually due to the US embargo, which is soooooo necessary because Cuba is such a major threat (rolls eyes).  I think it's BS that we restrict any companies that do business with us from doing business with Cuba. 

Yeah, let's hit 'em on the head and then criticize and demonize them for being hurt. Great logic guys/gals.  Keep it comin' America, you never cease to amaze.

[/quote]

to an extent i agree-
BUT- if Cuba had the resources that Iran has, we'd be living in a state of much higher stress-
Better if they are poor and nuetralized until they can prove that we can all get along?

Heres a link that you might like Tex:

http://www.energybulletin.net/3384.html

more info supporting my view.

Tex, how exactly is Cuba a threat.  What interest do you think they have in fighting us (bay of pigs was 40 years ago).  I have never bought into the us vs. them attitude just because of differing ideologies.  I definitely don't believe in socialism but I support those who prefer to live in that manner.  I believe the "your either with us or against us" and "black or White" attitudes create a lot of problems that needn't be.  Look at Vietnam as an example.

Oops, wrong link:

http://www.energybulletin.net/13171.html

[quote=dude]

Tex, how exactly is Cuba a threat.  What interest do you think they have in fighting us (bay of pigs was 40 years ago).  I have never bought into the us vs. them attitude just because of differing ideologies.  I definitely don't believe in socialism but I support those who prefer to live in that manner.  I believe the "your either with us or against us" and "black or White" attitudes create a lot of problems that needn't be.  Look at Vietnam as an example.

[/quote]

i can't determine what's up in Fidel's mind, or Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the 9/11 terrorist crowd, but if we agree that for some reason Fidel is hostile towards the USA, then why help strengthen him into becoming a powerful, hostile enemy?
As for ideologies, who cares anymore?

I guess I'm not an expert on Cuba vs America politics but I'd bet that Fidel has little interest in starting conflict w/ the US.  Iran and the 9/11 crowd have broader and deeper cultural and religious issues with us and can understand sanctions and various actions against them.

As far as Fidel's hostility, how exactly do we define that?  Gosh, I'd say that there are plenty of countries out there which have an equivalent "hostility" towards us, yet have no US economic sanctions.  From what I've been reading, it seems that Cuban hostility has good reason.

http://www.stwr.net/content/view/38/37/

Actually, it seems that Castro has been a postive influence for the people of Cuba.  It's US policies that have been bad for Cuba.

i'm no expert either-

i'd guess tho that:

hostility+proximity+past actions= no McDonalds.

once Fidel dies, i'm thinking that we release the "past actions" part of the equation and our relationship will begin to normalize- allowing us to smoke better cigars and drink tastier rum-

 Yeah, a Cuban cigar would be nice.

[quote=dude]

I guess I’m not an expert on Cuba vs America politics

but I’d bet that Fidel has little interest in starting conflict w/ the US.

[/quote]



Again with the same bullsh*t. Dude, you’re dead wrong again.



Published Tuesday, January 9, 2001, in the Miami Herald

Jailed Cuban spy identifies his `handlers’



He said both directed him to get a job at the Southern Command’s Miami

headquarters.



BY GAIL EPSTEIN NIEVES

[email protected]





A former Cuban intelligence agent on Monday identified two more

defendants in the Cuban spy trial as his handlers'' and said both of <br />them directed him to get a job at the Southern Command's Miami <br />headquarters so he could snoop for the Cuban government. <br /> <br />The testimony of acknowledged ex-agent Joseph Santos, 40, was the first <br />to link accused spies Ramón Lavaniño and Fernando González with in- <br />the-trenches intelligence activity. On Friday, Santos similarly implicated <br />co-defendant Gerardo Hernández. <br /> <br />The trial's opening weeks focused on documentary and physical evidence <br />against the five accused spies. With Santos, jurors are hearing firsthand <br />accounts about the inner workings of Cuba's intelligence apparatus, from <br />spy recruitment to training to work assignments. <br /> <br />In the case of Santos and his wife, Amarylis -- also a Cuban agent -- <br />their achievements were far less illustrious than their assignments, <br />according to testimony. <br /> <br />Santos said he successfully completed a research project on the Southern <br />Command while its new headquarters were being built in Miami's Doral <br />section in early 1997. <br /> <br />He and his wife took photographs of all the surrounding buildings, <br />between Northwest 87th and 99th avenues and 25th and 40th streets, <br />to provide a pretty clear idea to anyone’’ what the area looked like.



Santos said he gave the report to his handler Lavaniño, an illegal <br />agent'' or ranking Cuban intelligence operative who also went by the <br />name Luis Medina. <br /> <br />But more importantly, Lavaniño told the Santos couple that their <br />supreme task’’ was to get jobs at the Pentagon’s SouthCom

headquarters, which directs U.S. military operations in Latin America and

the Caribbean.



Accused spy González – who also went by the name Rubén Campa –

gave them the same task, Santos testified. Penetrating'' SouthCom was <br />a high priority set by Cuba's intelligence chiefs, according to Havana-to- <br />Miami directives seized by the FBI and read to jurors Monday. <br /> <br />MISSION FAILED <br /> <br />The Santos failed at that assignment. They were too busy trying to make a <br />legitimate living and never found a place to apply for a job, Santos said. <br /> <br />But on cross-examination, the defense attorney for accused spy <br />Hernández scoffed at the notion that Santos could have obtained anything <br />important -- let alone national defense secrets, a key factor for proving <br />espionage -- even if he had managed to get hired at SouthCom. <br /> <br />Santos does not speak English. Before his arrest, he was working as a <br />laborer at Goya Foods and the Miami Arena. <br /> <br />Attorney Paul McKenna read jurors a report in which Hernández directed <br />Santos to obtainpublic information’’ about SouthCom. In fact, none <br />of your handlers ever tasked you with getting national security <br />information, did they?'' McKenna asked Santos. <br /> <br />Santos responded that it was implicit that he was supposed to get <br />information that could not be obtainedby conventional means.’‘



SERVING SENTENCES



Santos and his wife are already serving prison sentences after pleading

guilty to one count of conspiracy to act as a foreign agent.



Their terms are likely to be cut short for their help testifying against

Hernández, who prosecutors say conspired with the Cuban military to

murder four Brothers to the Rescue fliers in 1996.



McKenna cross-examined Santos about the plea agreement for a long

time in an apparent bid to undermine his credibility. Under sentencing

guidelines, Santos faced 60 months but prosecutors recommended he

serve 48. U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard agreed.



So these people here,'' McKenna said, naming prosecutors Caroline <br />Heck Miller, John Kastrenakes, David Buckner and FBI Agent Al Alonso -- <br />are all your friends that are helping you, correct?’‘



They're not my friends,'' Santos responded through an interpreter.I

met those people during the investigation of the case.’'





Copyright 2001 Miami Herald

In case you didn’t hear about this:



Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective

machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is

written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces,

aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy

prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile.



Cuba’s political prisoners, held for exercising their fundamental rights of

free association, free expression, free opinion, or freedom of movement,

provide the government’s repressive machinery with credibility,

demonstrating that opposition to the government engenders the genuine

risk of serving time in prison. The inhumane conditions and the punitive

measures taken against prisoners have been, in several instances

researched by Human Rights Watch, so cruel as to rise to the level of

torture.

Whatever Skee.  The US is not hot on matters of Civil or Human rights either, what do you call abu Gharaib or Guantanamo, how about domestic spying or imprisoning people "indefinitely" without charges or how about the McCarthy era?  We probably jail a higher percentagage of our citizens than Cuba does.   

I'm not defending Cuba here, they certainly have their problems (some of which you cited), but so do we.  I don't buy into the America superiority complex that the vast majority of our population buys into (and probably most posters on this board as well).  I used to, but then I lived in a foreign country for a while and started making friends in many different countries.  It became clear just how mislead I was.  

Just as history is written by the victor in a conflict.  Information is filtered through the prevalent paradigm of a given culture.  Our news biases the bad and misses the good in regards to Cuba.

We're probably guilty of using the same strategies Cuba is using when it comes to planting spys, why are they bad and us good?

America is guilty of a long list of unmentionables, including VERY destructive economic policies toward developing nations (especially in the 1970's, pick up the book confessions of an economic hitman), which have undoubtedly resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

What about the US's support of Pinnochet, Batista and other tyrannical dictators throughout history.

All I can say is that if you read the book, your attitude about US policy will change dramatically.  This is a book written by a former CFO in the energy consulting business who is also very well respected in the energy business.  His book is cited in many academic papers and is veeeerrrryyy eye opening.

When we're taught to see in Black and White, it's unfortunate all the possible outcomes that lie in the gray area we miss out on. 

That's what I dislike about Bush.  His vision is Black and White.  The problem is that reality exists in shades of gray and those who only see the extremes tend to keep the wheel spinning instead of slowing or halting it's progress.  The more polarized a situation is the more drastic the potential outcome.

You began by suggesting that we can learn a lot from Cuba and that the

quality of life is good there “contrary to popular opinion”. Just because a

few Spanish or German tourists go to Cuba to sunbathe topless and score

a hooker for five bucks does not make Cuba a nice place. I felt the need

to correct your misstatements. That’s all.



Also, referencing dictators like Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosevic, and Papa

Doc Duvalier does not help your case either. Pinnochet, by the way, drove

out the socialists/Marxists from Chile. Obviously, if the US is in the

middle of a Cold War, we going to support anyone that stops the spread

of Marxism in the Western Hemisphere. Which brings me back to Castro.



Castro and his buddy, Che Guevara, were actively spreading a Marxist

revolution throughout South America, but Che was shot and killed by

government forces in Bolivia in 1967. Castro then supported the

Sandinistas, which helped overthrow the Somoza regime in Nicaraqua in

1979, until he was stopped by one of the greatest presidents of the U.S.,

Ronald Reagan (the reason I’m a registered Republican).



I am disappointed with Bush as well. What I find curious is that many of

the administration’s insiders are the same folks from the Reagan era.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bush Sr., Greenspan etc., but the chemistry is

not there. His leadership skills are a far cry from those of Reagan.



We could continue this, but then you’d remind me of MikeB. So I’m willing

to let go if you are.

Do y’all suppose that if Cuba had a couple million BBLs/day of oil, we’d be embargoeing them? We do biz with dictators all over the world simply for their hydrocarbons.

Anyone who states death to AMerican or terms similar (Iran, AlQueda and Chavez) needs to go. If people like Fidel support these people then they are not with us... So their against us. Black and white is the only way to go on this issue. Bush said it best "your either with us or against us. (meaning the leadership not every person in a country)"

This is not to say that the majority of the people from these countries are bad.

For sure Cuba has nicer weather then New England so I believe people have a better life. :)

AHHHHHH.... Stupid computer or is it user?

Cuba has a much better standard of living. In fact their winter weather is much nicer then New England.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02 /26/AR2006022601265.html

Last week I appeared on a radio show with an author named John Perkins. This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," is a runaway bestseller. So now, out of concern for thousands of sufferers across this great nation, I offer up a Perkins antidote. If you see someone reading him, I want you to be prudent, approach cautiously and wait until the victim's fevers cool. Then administer these arguments.

[quote=dude] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Whatever Skee.  The <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US is not hot on matters of Civil or Human rights either, what do you call abu Gharaib ... [/quote]

The night shift, unsupervised, going midevil on detainees, going to trial, then going to jail.

 [quote=dude]

…or Guantanamo,…

[/quote]

A place where terrorists, captured on the battlefield are detained, given three hots and a cot and a copy of the Kuran.

[quote=dude]

 how about domestic spying

[/quote]

Hey, RFK and Hoover have been dead for a while now. No one said the nation’s history is spotless.

[quote=dude]

…or imprisoning people "indefinitely" without charges…

[/quote]

Something that rational people can disagree about as we face a new form of warfare where the biggest threats are often people in civilian clothes. In place, I’d suggest a swift military tribunal followed by the execution authorized by the Geneva Convention.

[quote=dude]

 or how about the McCarthy era?

[/quote]

You mean the romanticized version where there was no Cold War, there were no Soviet spies and the whole thing was the sole creation of a crazed US Senator? Or the version where there really were Soviet spies in various levels of the US government and a very flawed US Senator leveraged this fact for political gain and dragged some innocent people into it all?

[quote=dude]

  We probably jail a higher percentagage of our citizens than Cuba does.   

[/quote]

Does it matter that they jail people for exercising what’s generally considered basic human rights, like freedom of speech and we jail people for things like car jacking? 

Ahhh, lame “moral equivalency” arguments, they never do completely fade away…

[quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02 /26/AR2006022601265.html

[/quote]

looks interesting- but its not the type of conspiracy i was referring to-

no, mine was much more mundane- washington / detroit/ big oil, all doing what lobby’s do everyday in washington, on both sides of the aisle- ignoring the greater good for the quicker buck- a wager which looked good for awhile, since detriot proved adept at building bigger better than the others- but has left them “leasing from the gods at Toyota” when, time was, THEY were THE auto god-

GM has the big bet on Hydro- but it could be a bridge too far.

[quote=TexasRep]

looks interesting- but its not the type of conspiracy i was referring to-

[/quote]

That post had nothing to do with any of yours.

[quote=TexasRep]

no, mine was much more mundane- washington / detroit/ big oil, all doing what lobby’s do everyday in washington, on both sides of the aisle- ignoring the greater good for the quicker buck-

[/quote]

You realize, of course, that your little conspiracy makes little economic sense, right? You're asking us to believe that auto makers buried a high-mileage technology, something that would give them a massive competitive advantage, and for what? To keep friends in the oil business?

[quote=TexasRep]

 ...but has left them “leasing from the gods at Toyota” when, time was, THEY were THE auto god-...

[/quote]

You should also realize that for your theory to work, every car maker on the planet has to be in on it, since none of them have rolled out this technology you're so certain isn't being used today only because Detroit didn't pursue it.

That means every maker, from every nation on Earth is more concerned with being pals with others in the industry than gaining a massive, massive advantage. Hell, that means countries where gas costs $6/gal are driving cars 1/2 as efficient as they could be because Toyota and Renault and VW don't want to upset the world-wide auto maker botherhood.

Sorry, that one doesn't make sense. Perhaps the simple theory is the correct one, the technology isn't in place for the same reason that the drug companies haven't cured cancer. Or have I hit on another conspiracy theory of yours?

You realize, of course, that your little conspiracy makes little economic sense, right? You're asking us to believe that auto makers buried a high-mileage technology, something that would give them a massive competitive advantage, and for what? To keep friends in the oil business?

 <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No- they have enough friends. The billions of dollars it would cost to retool their plants and re-engineer their product versus the high profit margins on SUVs and PU’s that were selling like hot cakes, because (this is the good part) they had convinced their friends in DC to give tax breaks to customers for buying these same high profit Suburban’s and Hummer’s--- economic sense ? more like a no brainer.

You should also realize that for your theory to work, every car maker on the planet has to be in on it, since none of them have rolled out this technology you're so certain isn't being used today only because Detroit didn't pursue it. That means every maker, from every nation on Earth is more concerned with being pals with others in the industry than gaining a massive, massive advantage. Hell, that means countries where gas costs $6/gal are driving cars 1/2 as efficient as they could be because <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Toyota and Renault and VW don't want to upset the world-wide auto maker botherhood.

But our global competitors are not waiting, you’ve already pointed out that Toyota has virtually lapped the field w/ hybrid, and they continue to advance and while the Japanese have bet on hybrids, in Europe they are running on  “clean-diesel” –a more fuel-efficient diesel engine which accounts for half of new car sales there—this while U.S. carmakers and lawmakers fought for the status quo-- Honda upped the fuel economy of its Civic by 5 to 10 percent in 2001 and debuted its hybrid insight--  that same year G.M. rolled out its Hummer 2, which gets 10 miles to the gallon--

Sorry, that one doesn't make sense. Perhaps the simple theory is the correct one, the technology isn't in place for the same reason that the drug companies haven't cured cancer. Or have I hit on another conspiracy theory of yours?

 <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

The facts are in front of you- I can’t help you if it still doesn’t make sense--
I’ve concluded that you are either a professional arguer who simply enjoys picking a fight, or you’ve got an unwavering agenda to protect all within the American system, despite blinding contrary evidence—
I’ve pointed out that this situation has festered over the tenure of both political parties, so I’m no Bush hater, and my perspective is NOT anti-American--

it simply angers me that we enrich the cultures who try to kill us, are now deployed and fighting these powers costing us $200 billion+ so far, while young American’s die or become maimed, in an effort against an enemy who have, and continue to, petro-profit from the billions we provide them-- all for the oil we’re now there to protect---this while Washington / Detroit ENCOURAGE the purchase of 10 mpg vehicles, increasing our dependency on these same terror regimes further--- you’re right it doesn’t make sense at all.

[[quote=mikebutler222]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You realize, of course, that your little conspiracy makes little economic sense, right? You're asking us to believe that auto makers buried a high-mileage technology, something that would give them a massive competitive advantage, and for what? To keep friends in the oil business?

 [/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

No- they have enough friends. The billions of dollars it would cost to retool their plants and re-engineer their product versus the high profit margins on SUVs and PU’s that were selling like hot cakes,

[/quote]

Factories retool most every year and high mileage SUVs and PUs would sell as well or better than their low mileage counterpoints. The economic incentives work exactly the opposite of what you’ve outlined.

[quote=TexasRep]

… because (this is the good part) they had convinced their friends in DC to give tax breaks to customers for buying these same high profit Suburban’s and Hummer’s--- economic sense ? more like a no brainer.

[/quote]

Please try to be serious if you’re going to take up all this time and bandwidth. The tax breaks for SUVs (because they’re classified as light trucks, and have been for years) used in business (which worked just like the deprecation schedules used for years on heavier business vehicles) affected a tiny, tiny part of the buyers of those vehicles.

You still seem to miss the point that in order for your conspiracy theory to work the entirety of the  world’s auto makers had to be willing to forego the market advantage they’d have if they could produce this miraculous technology you claim they refuse to implement if they could deliver the very same SUVs the public clearly want(ed) (perhaps they want them no more, but they’re still not migrating to hyper-efficient minicars) with much higher fuel mileage.

 [quote=TexasRep]

But our global competitors are not waiting, you’ve already pointed out that <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Toyota has virtually lapped the field w/ hybrid,…

[/quote]

Let’s see, the very technology that you mocked in an earlier post as “not battle tested” and that you wouldn’t buy is now “virtually lapped the field”? Which is it? And how long have these vehicles been widely available now?  Three years? Was Toyota sitting on said technology all that time?

[quote=TexasRep]

Honda upped the fuel economy of its Civic by 5 to 10 percent in 2001 and debuted its hybrid insight--  that same year G.M. rolled out its Hummer 2, which gets 10 miles to the gallon—

[/quote]

And at the time, which did consumers want? BTW, was the Hummer 2 (13/13, EPA) the only car GM produced? Guess what Toyota was offering in 2001? The Landcrusier at 13/16 mpg. Honda (which has since gone even bigger with trucks and SUvs)  had the  Passport 16/20, while the Ford Explorer was available at 16/22. It sounds like they were all offering what they thought the consumer wanted to buy…

www.fueleconomy.gov

[quote=TexasRep]

The facts are in front of you-

[/quote]

And those “facts” that big oil, government interests and Detroit conspired to keep high mileage US made cars off the roads, where are they again?

 [quote=TexasRep]

I’ve concluded that you are either a professional arguer who simply enjoys picking a fight, or you’ve got an unwavering agenda to protect all within the American system, despite blinding contrary evidence—

[/quote]

And you are, no doubt something completely different. While you spend as much time on your side of this debate defending a POV that’s little more than a blanket conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence that, btw, runs contrary to the economic interests of US car makers themselves.

Here’s the bottom line for me. Detroit’s failure’s are legendary. Their failure to produce a world class midsized family car since the early days of the Taurus (hard to even imagine these days how well that car was received and how it outsold its Honda and Toyota rivals) is particularly galling. Their head-down, not thinking to the future “leadership” has done much to bring them to where they are today. Having said that, the idea that there’s a technology that they (and the rest of the world’s car makers) have simply refused to produce until Honda and  Toyota rolled out their hybrids three or so years ago, because they wanted to protect big oil and their political friends is just nonsense. If Ford could produce an Explorer that got 50 mpg they’d be making as many as they possibly could and making record profits doing so.

It’s just a cheap shot to suggest they could have had something that’s not being used, something you can’t even name.

We could, on some other thread, explore how tenuous the “oil used in the US=profits to terrorists” (what percentage of US used oil even comes from the Middle East, much less from countries there that would seep oil profits to terrorists) logic is.

[quote=skeedaddy]You began by suggesting that we can learn a lot from Cuba and that the
quality of life is good there "contrary to popular opinion". Just because a
few Spanish or German tourists go to Cuba to sunbathe topless and score
a hooker for five bucks does not make Cuba a nice place. I felt the need
to correct your misstatements. That's all.

to let go if you are. [/quote]

My friends and their experiences do not fit the above description.  All I am saying is that in this country a lot of people rush to make broad judgments about the quality of life in third-world countries.  They make shallow assuptions (like MikeB) that they are miserable because they don't have modern cars or luxuries like us.  The bright side is that many of them have more time to pursue their interests and be with family in addition to many other benefits.  Yeah there are issues with Cubas communist trappings of course, but for the vast majority of the population, they don't feel "oppressed". 

If you recall, the original and core point to all of this is that I was commenting on how well Cuba has progressed in the areas of energy independence and utilization of alternative energy sources.  My point is that we could learn from them and perhaps Brazil on ways to approach energy independence.  The other issues of relative quality of life is sooooooo subjective that it's a waste of time to debate, because it's a matter of personal taste. 

I'm a pretty minimalist kinda guy with a passion for turning trash into treasure (one of the reasons I dig biodiesel) and finding innovative solutions to the problem of stressing our worlds limited resources.  I keep up with developments in solar power, off grid living, organic gardening, self sufficiency, alt energy etc......  I also have many friends from different countries in Central and South America including: Guatemala, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico and Chile.  For me, I would really enjoy living in a few of the above mentioned countries (primarily guatemala and ecuador) even though their economic infrastructure is very minimal.  The people are great; waaay more ethical, honest, loyal and helpful than the avearage american.  The climate is great.  The innovation in my areas of interest in south america is at the cutting edge vs america primarily because they have less to work with and therefore have a lot of intrinsic motivation to find more efficient, less destructive ways to meet their basic needs.

So from my paradigm, the quality of life appears quite good.  I guess we can leave it at that.

[quote=dude]

  All I am saying is that in this country a lot of people rush to make broad judgments about the quality of life in third-world countries.  They make shallow assuptions (like MikeB)

[/quote]

Dude, please give it a rest. I've spent half my life outside the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US. I was born outside the US, for crying out loud. You pointed to a tropical gulag as a place with a high standard of living. You put your foot in it, and mostly because of your knee-jerk blame-America first attitude.  Equating people in Cuba being locked up for trying to exercise what most of the Western world considers basic freedoms with how the US locks up common criminals, that sort of logic.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Cuba doesn't deserve a place on the "nice standard of living" list not just because it's a nation starving, living with crumbling infrastructure and no consumer goods, but because it is little more than an island prison. So Castro provides his prisoners with fine medical care (for the third world), I’m sure the US prison system provides fine medical care too. All you’ve told me is something I already knew, dictators can make the trains run on time.

Today, while you mention it and its high standard of living there are Cubans trying to figure out how to try inner tubes together so they can escape Fidel’s worker’s paradise.

[quote=dude]If you recall, the original and core point to all of this is that I was commenting on how well Cuba has progressed in the areas of energy independence
and utilization of alternative energy sources.  My point is
that we could learn from them and perhaps Brazil on ways
to approach energy independence.[/quote]



I’ve been waiting for your response and this market looks like crap.





"The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block, between 1989
and 1991, and the addition of extra-territorial stipulations to the
U.S. blockade, threw the Cuban economy into deep crisis, resulting in
the implementation of the ‘Special Period’, a literal economy of
desperation, survival, and scarcity. Although Cuba has officially
recovered from its economic depression, increased trade with Venezuela
has been a relief.  Venezuela has become Cuba’s top trading partner,
providing oil, food, and construction materials at preferential prices.
This assistance is essential to the maintenance of Cuba’s social
system, achieved by the revolution."



This is energy independence?  Oil at half the market price? You
know, I think you are intelligent enough to consider the point I
have  presented here.  I believe I have documented myself
well. Futhermore, repeating the same point will not make a difference
in this discussion, because you have your mind made up.  Folks
reading this care as much about Cuba as they do about Haiti or Kenya.



On the other hand, highlighting Brazil’s application of ethanol from
sugar cane is a good example to make your point. I was speaking with a
surgeon from Brazil just a couple of weeks ago.  He was telling me
that by next year all new Brazilian cars will run on 100%
ethanol.  Most cars now use 25% ethanol and 75% gasoline.  To
get there, Brazil has invested over $10 billion in the project. 
Ethanol prices are half the price of refined gasoline.



I, on the other hand, prefer to use the sugarcane in my Cachaça.

Please try to be serious if you’re going to take up all this time and bandwidth. The tax breaks for SUVs (because they’re classified as light trucks, and have been for years) used in business (which worked just like the deprecation schedules used for years on heavier business vehicles) affected a tiny, tiny part of the buyers of those vehicles. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

….and the school boy whined “oh, yeah? Well it only affected a tiny part of the overall market.” He then sticks out his tongue for effect-

You still seem to miss the point that in order for your conspiracy theory to work the entirety of the world’s auto makers had to be willing to forego the market advantage they’d have if they could produce this miraculous technology you claim they refuse to implement if they could deliver the very same SUVs the public clearly want(ed) (perhaps they want them no more, but they’re still not migrating to hyper-efficient minicars) with much higher fuel mileage.

IMO-had US carmakers/politos/big oil reps : 1. closed the “light truck” loopholes  2. imposed higher MPG and tougher emission standards and 3. assisted with tax breaks and incentives for these changes ---- in effect, had Washington taken the Monte Carlo, worst case scenario more seriously and channeled the efforts, technology and resources into achieving lighter chassis’ and more efficient motors and equipment—and Detroit carmakers continued to refine this technology over the past 20 years, we would not be considering the technology you call miraculous as anything special- or GM bonds junk.     

  Let’s see, the very technology that you mocked in an earlier post as “not battle tested” and that you wouldn’t buy is now “virtually lapped the field”? Which is it? And how long have these vehicles been widely available now?  Three years? Was <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Toyota sitting on said technology all that time?

I’m sorry, when did Toyota buy Ford, again?

And those “facts” that big oil, government interests and Detroit conspired to keep high mileage US made cars off the roads, where are they again?

Driving right next to you and parked at the gas pump-
As well as in the 2002 senate vote against the raise in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards—the national guidelines for fuel efficiency standards have not been significantly raised in more than two decades--

Detroit’s failure’s are legendary…..their head-down, not thinking to the future “leadership” has done much to bring them to where they are today. Having said that, the idea that there’s a technology that they (and the rest of the world’s car makers) have simply refused to produce until Honda and Toyota rolled out their hybrids three or so years ago, because they wanted to protect big oil and their political friends is just nonsense.

This continues to be your very wrong perception of my POV-- I have said ad nausea that they don’t need the friends- nor does anyone in the Corp world need to protect any of the reptilian Washington hacks- Detroit, not wanting to massively retool or reengineer, used the hacks to keep regulatory pressure off of them—now I’m mostly in favor of fewer reg’s, but when 69% of known oil reserves sit underneath the Arab world, Washington really needed to be far-sighted enough to mandate and encourage better gas efficiencies  - - instead they took Detroit’s money, and took a wager that Arabia would remain stable and oil would be as inelastic as you claim it to be-

When Europe and Asia recognized this vulnerability? Europe developed a voluntary agreement between European manufacturers and the European Union which promises a per-vehicle reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent between 1995 and 2008—The national standards in Japan require about a 23 percent increase in the fuel economy of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2010---only in the United States is a significant public benefit like fuel economy left to market whim--

If Ford could produce an Explorer that got 50 mpg they’d be making as many as they possibly could and making record profits doing so.

My prediction? They will produce whatever car the US customer wants at fuel efficiencies (petro/electro/hydro) which are responsible, using technology which would be considered miraculous by today’s standards, within 10 years-

It’s just a cheap shot to suggest they could have had something that’s not being used, something you can’t even name.

If you truly research it, you’d find that the technologies (metals/ fuels / hydraulics/ motors) are already available and are being experimented with, but remain 10+ years away from full implementation- in the meantime, we try to do the truly miraculous: establishing a democracy in Iraq!

We could, on some other thread, explore how tenuous the “oil used in the US=profits to terrorists” (what percentage of US used oil even comes from the Middle East, much less from countries there that would seep oil profits to terrorists) logic is.

Geez- the fungible quality you attribute to oil serves to understand the pricing mechanics of that commodity- who cares “what % of US used oil comes from the Middle East”? – if the US and other industrialized countries barter up the price of oil thru increased demand, the Middle East get richer no matter who officially purchased their oil-
The oil industry generates its own ancillary industries- the Bin Ladens were not directly involved in oil, but do their businesses benefit from the largess of oil ministries and the business generated in the building of infrastructure to support the oil biz?

going and going and going.....

Long live south of Mexico.. Just be careful of the drug lords and police. They are often one.

[quote=TexasRep] [quote=mikebutler222] Please try to be serious if you’re going to take up all this time and bandwidth. [/quote]

….and the school boy whined “oh, yeah? Well it only affected a tiny part of the overall market.” He then sticks out his tongue for effect-

[/quote]

I suppose if that’s how you take the fact that your theory, that SUV sales were influenced in some significant way by a tax break that applied only to a tiny, tiny fraction of the buyers….

[quote=mikebutler222]

You still seem to miss the point that in order for your conspiracy theory to work the entirety of the world’s auto makers had to be willing to forego the market advantage they’d have if they could produce this miraculous technology you claim they refuse to implement if they could deliver the very same SUVs the public clearly want(ed) (perhaps they want them no more, but they’re still not migrating to hyper-efficient minicars) with much higher fuel mileage.

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

…..in effect, had Washington taken the Monte Carlo, worst case scenario more seriously and channeled the efforts, technology and resources into achieving lighter chassis’ and more efficient motors and equipment—and Detroit carmakers continued to refine this technology over the past 20 years, we would not be considering the technology you call miraculous as anything special- or GM bonds junk.

[/quote]

So, once again, you’re suggesting there’s some miracle technology that had only there not been collusion on the part of “big oil”, Detroit and Washington, there would be cars making much, much higher mpg. The problem with your theory, as I’ve explained before, is that not only would this collusion have to be in the US, it would have to be everywhere there are car makers. European and Asian makers have faced extraordinarily expensive gas and have not produced this miracle technology. What’s kept them from producing 50 mpg Explorer sized vehicles?

BTW, if you think GM’s problems are that they haven’t produced a type of car that hasn’t even ever been in great demand (hyper-efficient cars) you not only don’t understand economics, you can’t read a balance sheet.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Let’s see, the very technology that you mocked in an earlier post as “not battle tested” and that you wouldn’t buy is now “virtually lapped the field”? Which is it?

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

I’m sorry, when did Toyota buy Ford, again?

[/quote]

Nice try at a dodge (pun intended) but you must realize what technology licensed means. The same hybrid technology that wows you in a Toyota is in the Escape. If it was “battle tested” in the Toyota, the same applies to the Escape.

[quote=mikebutler222]

And those “facts” that big oil, government interests and Detroit conspired to keep high mileage US made cars off the roads, where are they again?

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

Driving right next to you and parked at the gas pump-

[/quote]

Yeah, we’re still waiting for you to point out the high-mileage large SUV that should be in production right now in Japan or elsewhere where none of the evils you pin on the US Gov’t/big oil/Detroit conspiracy to keep you in a Hummer have an effect on emerging technologies.

[quote=mikebutler222]

. Having said that, the idea that there’s a technology that they (and the rest of the world’s car makers) have simply refused to produce until Honda and Toyota rolled out their hybrids three or so years ago, because they wanted to protect big oil and their political friends is just nonsense.

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

This continues to be your very wrong perception of my POV-- I have said ad nausea that they don’t need the friends- nor does anyone in the Corp world need to protect any of the reptilian Washington hacks- Detroit, not wanting to massively retool or reengineer, used the hacks to keep regulatory pressure off of them

[/quote]

But again, your theory makes zero economic sense. Every economic incentive in the world is, and has been on Detroit to produce the highest mileage vehicles possible OF THE TYPE consumers want to buy. Car makers retool every single year, they already spend massive amounts (and often with multi-million dollar wheel barrels of taxpayer money, which undermines your “Washington hasn‘t cared“ theory as well) on increasing fuel efficiency. If they could produce a 50 mpg Explorer, they would.

Your entire case seems to be that gov’t simply failed to waive the magic wand to call for increased fuel mileage, and therefore Detroit failed to wave their magic wand which would have doubled fuel efficiency. If only you could create technology by having gov’t demand it.

[quote=mikebutler222]

If Ford could produce an Explorer that got 50 mpg they’d be making as many as they possibly could and making record profits doing so.

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

My prediction? They will produce whatever car the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoNUS</ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN customer wants at fuel efficiencies (petro/electro/hydro) which are responsible, using technology which would be considered miraculous by today’s standards, within 10 years-

[/quote]

I don’t doubt that. I fact, it makes my case for me. They will produce what people want, and that miracle technology simply isn’t available today. Not in Detroit, and nowhere else. That “nowhere else” demonstrates that your whole Detroit/DC/oil nexus is fiction, since the evil trio doesn’t have long enough arms to squelch technology advancement everywhere else in the world. If it could be done today, someone from somewhere would be doing it, and making a mountain of money in the mean time.

[quote=mikebutler222]

We could, on some other thread, explore how tenuous the “oil used in the US=profits to terrorists” (what percentage of US used oil even comes from the Middle East, much less from countries there that would seep oil profits to terrorists) logic is.

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

Geez- the fungible quality you attribute to oil serves to understand the pricing mechanics of that commodity- who cares “what % of US used oil comes from the Middle East”?

[/quote]

Oh, great, you now understand what fungible means. All this time I’ve accepted your given that things simply don’t work that way. Now that you accept it, we can discuss how Middle East gov’ts will always be able to sell what they pull out of the ground, even if you begin riding a bike.

[quote=TexasRep]

– if the US and other industrialized countries barter up the price of oil thru increased demand,

[/quote]

Are we back to discussing the fact that oil used to move US cars amounts to only 10% of the world’s usage, and therefore a doubling of average fuel economy here (even if you could halt the increase in demand that comes from increased population and economic activity) even if you could do it tomorrow, is like pissing in the ocean as to it’s effect on demand?

[quote=TexasRep]

The oil industry generates its own ancillary industries- the Bin Ladens were not directly involved in oil, but do their businesses benefit from the largess of oil ministries and the business generated in the building of infrastructure to support the oil biz?

[/quote]

There’s only one bin Laden that we’re concerned with, of a very large, by all accounts legit, family and he’s not part of the family business…..

I love how when I say Cuba's not as bad as all of you are making it out to be and that plenty of people are happy there, I all the sudden become the "pro Cuba" guy ~rolls eyes~. 

As far as Cuba's "energy independence", I'm refferring to some of their solutions to using less energy, not claiming that they are free from any assistance or need for energy.  The point here is that they have been pretty effective at reducing their need for energy overall.  Those who are forced to make changes often come up with great solutions to problems we will all have to address.  Cuba is only one example of many countries that I could have referenced which has made more progress than we have when it comes to making infrastructural changes to reduce energy consumption.  Does that make Cuba a beacon of light in the world.....no, does it mean that we might possibly learn something about making changes in our infrastructure, maybe.

Whatever...... I tire of having ineffective discussions because it's difficult to articulate the tone of my point in this format.  Frankly, I have a hard time explaining a nuanced view to those who see everything as black or white, here or there, with us or against us.  I don't fit into boxes very easily and get irritated by people trying to cram me in the "communist sympathizer", "softie liberal" or whatever camp.  Based on my values and beliefs, I can't be easily described as a Republican or Democrat, although you could definitley say that I value a lot of issues that could be associated with a "conservative" platform. 

Other than that I don't really care much about any "proof" that can be posted here about how bad Cuba sucks and that everyone there wants to leave (theres probably just as much proof that contradicts the prior assesment).  I'll take the first hand, unbiased reporting from my friends as an accurate enough sample of the sentiment of the people there.  They travelled quite extensively and talked with a lot of folks. 

Even though, I admit I could be wrong.............just speaking from my experience that's all.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

  All I am saying is that in this country a lot of people rush to make broad judgments about the quality of life in third-world countries.  They make shallow assuptions (like MikeB)

[/quote]

Dude, please give it a rest. I've spent half my life outside the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US. I was born outside the US, for crying out loud. You pointed to a tropical gulag as a place with a high standard of living. You put your foot in it, and mostly because of your knee-jerk blame-America first attitude.  Equating people in Cuba being locked up for trying to exercise what most of the Western world considers basic freedoms with how the US locks up common criminals, that sort of logic.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Cuba doesn't deserve a place on the "nice standard of living" list not just because it's a nation starving, living with crumbling infrastructure and no consumer goods, but because it is little more than an island prison. So Castro provides his prisoners with fine medical care (for the third world), I’m sure the US prison system provides fine medical care too. All you’ve told me is something I already knew, dictators can make the trains run on time.

Today, while you mention it and its high standard of living there are Cubans trying to figure out how to try inner tubes together so they can escape Fidel’s worker’s paradise.

[/quote]

Yeah Mike, being a military brat from Germany (or wherever your dad was posted) is comparable to living in a third world country.

You were right there swimming in the fecal matter infested ditch with all the poor underprivleged third world babies, sh*tting themselves and crying from their misery .   From that experience you have a first hand expertise on just how miserable these third world citizens are ~rolls eyes~. 

Look, if conditions are soooooo bad in Cuba/South America then why are US suicide rates higher?  There is not one South American country where suicide rates are as high as the US.  Maybe it's a narrow example, but still it is one measurement that can be used to indicate a general hope about the future in the minds of a given countries' citizens.

As far as innovation y'all should check out Gaviotas.........This is one of the most inspiring stories of success that I have ever come across, essentially these guys have created an oasis in Colombia... they have solved a lot of problems in some of the harshest political and ecological conditions imaginable.  I highly recommend the book Gaviotas for those who would like to get a glimpse of the kinds of solutions that are possible.

[quote=mikebutler222]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02 /26/AR2006022601265.html

Last week I appeared on a radio show with an author named John Perkins. This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," is a runaway bestseller. So now, out of concern for thousands of sufferers across this great nation, I offer up a Perkins antidote. If you see someone reading him, I want you to be prudent, approach cautiously and wait until the victim's fevers cool. Then administer these arguments.

[/quote]

This guy obviously hasn't read the book (or didn't put much effort into it).  Although some of what he's reffering to is in the book he adds a lot of exagerrated dramatic BS (makes for good editorials).  John Perkins was a CFO for a major energy consulting firm in the 70's (name escapes me currently) that was of the likes of Brown and Root.  He also invented new formulas for doing growth estimates that were pioneering and well recognized in his day.  In addition he is and was a well respected energy consultant.  This is not some wacko peddling conspiracy theories.  This is a wealthy, well respected man who has a lot to loose.  Nice try Mike......Editorials are a great rebuttal........totally objective and accurate .

Look Mike, if you think our government doesn't do this kind of crap...what do you call the Iran Contra affair?  The CIA was supervising acts of sabotage and terrorism in Nicaragua, involvement with drug money in addition to a long list of dirty secrets that good 'ol Ollie North shredded. 

If that had never been revealed you'd say anyone who believed that the Iran Contra Affair went on was "conspiracy theorist". 

MikeB, you probably don't believe anything unless Rush Limbaugh signs off on it, and what is Rush Limbaugh?  A fat, obnoxious, hypocrittical drug addict.

[quote=dude]

Look, if conditions are soooooo bad in Cuba/South

America then why are US suicide rates higher? There is not one South

American country where suicide rates are as high as the US.

[quote=dude]

This guy obviously hasn't read the book

[/quote]

He read it, and along with many other people saw it as bogus....

[quote=dude]

[quote=dude]

  John Perkins was a CFO for a major energy consulting firm in the 70's

[/quote]

The firm was called Chas. T. Main, and he wasn't the CFO.

[quote=dude]

In addition he is and was a well respected energy consultant. 

[/quote]

So he says, and like most things in his book, it goes completely unsupported.

[quote=dude]

 This is not some wacko peddling conspiracy theories. 

[/quote]

That's exactly what he is. BTW, he's a "9/11 was an inside job" guy...

[quote=dude]

This is a wealthy, well respected man who has a lot to loose. 

[/quote]

He's got nothing to "loose", he's retired...

[quote=dude]

Look Mike, if you think our government doesn't do this kind of crap...what do you call the Iran Contra affair? 

[/quote]

A great scheme to funnel profits from weapon sales to freedom fighters in Nicaragua, which, btw, forced the Sandinista communists to hold an election, which they lost.

[quote=dude]

MikeB, you probably don't believe anything unless Rush Limbaugh signs off on it, and what is Rush Limbaugh?  A fat, obnoxious, hypocrittical drug addict.

[/quote]

So very, well, "dude". He brings up a guy never mentioned by anyone else, while defending a crackpot conspiracy guy he can't even describe ("He was the CFO")  accurately..... 

[quote=dude]

I The point here is that they have been pretty effective at reducing their need for energy overall. 

[/quote]

When you have a top down command economy that's barely got a pulse, your energy needs are low to begin with.

[quote=dude]  I don't fit into boxes very easily ..

[/quote]

ROFLMAO....

and get irritated by people trying to cram me in the "communist sympathizer", "softie liberal" or whatever camp.  Based on my values and beliefs, I can't be easily described as a Republican or Democrat, although you could definitley say that I value a lot of issues that could be associated with a "conservative" platform. 

Other than that I don't really care much about any "proof" that can be posted here about how bad Cuba sucks and that everyone there wants to leave (theres probably just as much proof that contradicts the prior assesment). 

[quote=dude]I'll take the first hand, unbiased reporting from my friends as an accurate...

[/quote]

I guess they've never seen a boat lift out of Cuba. Must have missed that during their travels....

[quote=dude]

Even though, I admit I could be wrong.............just speaking from my experience that's all.

[/quote]

Your experience? When were you in Cuba? Should I believe you or the thousands of boat people? Should I believe you or the people in Cuban prisons for the awful sin of opening up an non-gov't approved library?

Dude, my friend, you're a perfect example of WFB's defintion of a liberal. "A mind so open it can never seize on any facts".

A great scheme to funnel profits from weapon sales to freedom fighters in Nicaragua, which, btw, forced the Sandinista communists to hold an election, which they lost.

Yeah a great ILLEGAL scheme that you or I never would have heard of had the right conditions not existed (and therefore could have been fodder for your demonized "conspiracy theorists").  CIA involved in drugs, assasinations and meddling in other countries affairs......GREAT SCHEME mikeB.  Oh and don't forget selling arms to Iran (you left that one out).  You have no moral fibre MikeB if you think this is the kind of thing our government should be engaging in.  This is the kind of crap that creates animosity around the world.  As far as John Perkins' claims, if you read the book you'd see that his claims are not too far from things like the Iran Contra affair.  Nothing in the book was as wild as the "911 inside job" crap.  If he believes that, I'm unaware of it and frankly, given his alleged experiences I can see why he might believe that (although I don't). 

Although I don't completely agree with his world view and conclusions, I'll post some of John Perkin's comments. 

Now, I normally wouldn't buy into this stuff, but as I've said before I know alot of people who have lived /are living in Ecuador (one of them lived with the indigenous Kichua indians referenced in the text below).  Before I read the book they described the same kinds of conditions and results from Ecuador's 'infrastructure loans'. 

You must understand that the area he mentions below is in an area that is considered the most biodiverse area on the planet.  The local indigenous natives have an understanding of over 200 different plants that have beneficial medical uses (my friend was cured from leishmaniasis which is a very serious disease by a kichua 'shaman', his friend several weeks prior had to go to leave the country and be treated for several months in the US for the same disease).  While my friend lived there (4 years) he was responsible for documenting the biodiversity of Ecuadorian rainforests and was present when they discovered over 315 distinct species of tree in one Hectare (a world record)...... to give you an idea of the significance of this, in the Oregon rainforests (the most biodiverse area in the US) you might find 15 to 20 different species of tree in a Hectare.  My friend described miracluous medicines and knowledge that has been preserved through millenia and the influence of major oil companies is threatening the way of life and environment that allows these people to preserve their knowledge, which could greatly benefit mankind.  In addition, these are the kinds of places that many scientist believe hold the keys to finding cures for Cancer and many other chronic illnesses.  I am passionate about protecting these places and people.  Anyway, I thought I'd give you some background as to why I believe a good amount of John Perkins claims in his book.  He makes some conclusions that I don't jive with, but I believe his claims that he was involved 'entraping' these countries by using deceptive overly optomistic projections of growth to validate the need for loans that would be bigger than they could ultimately payoff, therefore allowing US companies to extract resource concessions etc.... 

When I read a book that verify's what I hear from those I love and trust, I tend to give it a little more weight than otherwise.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------

Quito, Ecuador’s capital, stretches across a volcanic valley high in the Andes, at an altitude of nine thousand feet. Residents of this city, which was founded long before Columbus arrived in the Americas, are accustomed to seeing snow on the surrounding peaks, despite the fact that they live just a few miles south of the Equator.

The city of Shell, a frontier outpost and military base hacked out of Ecuador’s Amazon jungle to service the oil company whose name it bears, is nearly eight thousand feet lower than Quito. A steaming city, it is inhabited mostly by soldiers, oil workers, and the indigenous people from the Shuar and Kichwa tribes who work for them as prostitutes and laborers.

To journey from one city to the other, you must travel a road that is both tortuous and breathtaking. Local people will tell you that during the trip you experience all four seasons in a single day.

Although I have driven this road many times, I never tire of the spectacular scenery. Sheer cliffs punctuated by cascading waterfalls and brilliant bromeliads, rise up one side. On the other side, the earth drops abruptly into a deep abyss where the Pastaza River, a headwater of the Amazon, snakes its way down the Andes. The Pastaza carries water from the glaciers of Cotopaxi, one of the world’s highest active volcanoes, and a deity in the time of the Incas, to the Atlantic Ocean more than three thousand miles away.

In 2003, I left Quito in a Subaru Outback and headed for Shell on a mission that was like no other I had ever accepted. I was hoping to end a war I had helped create. As is the case with so many things we EHMs must take responsibility for, it is a war that is virtually unknown anywhere outside the country where it is fought. I was on my way to meet with the Shuar, the Kichwa, and their neighbors, the Achuar, Zaparos, the Shiwiars—tribes determined to prevent our oil companies from destroying their homes, families, and lands, even if it means they must die in the process. This is a war that for them is about the survival of their children and cultures, while for us it is about power, money, and natural resources. It is one part of the struggle for world domination and the dream of a few greedy men—global empire.

That is what we EHMs do best: we build a global empire. We are an elite group of men and women who utilize international financial organizations to foment conditions that make other nations subservient to the corporatocracy that runs our biggest corporations, our government, and our banks. Like our counterparts in the Mafia, we provide favors. These take the form of loans to develop infrastructure—electric generating plants, highways, ports, airports, or industrial parks. One condition of such loans is that engineering and construction companies from our own country must build all these projects. In essence, most of the money never leaves the United States; it is simply transferred from banking offices in Washington to engineering offices in New York, Houston, or San Francisco.

Despite the fact that the money is returned almost immediately to corporations that are members of the corporatocracy (the creditors), the recipient country is required to pay it all back, principal plus interest. If an EHM is completely successful, the loans are so large that the debtor is forced to default on its payments after a few years. When this happens, like the Mafia, we demand our pound of flesh, which often includes one or more of the following: control over United Nations votes, the installations of military bases, or access to precious resources, like oil or the Panama Canal. Of course, the debtor still owes us the money—and another country is added to our global empire.

Driving from Quito toward Shell on this sunny day in 2003, I thought back thirty-five years to the first time I arrived in this part of the world. I had read that although Ecuador is only about the size of Nevada, it has more than thirty active volcanoes, over 15 percent of the world’s bird species, and thousands of as-yet unclassified plants, and that it is a land of diverse cultures where nearly as many people speak ancient indigenous languages as speak Spanish. I found it to be fascinating and certainly exotic; yet, the words that kept coming to mind back then were pure, untouched, and innocent.

Much has changed in thirty-five years.

At the time of my first visit in 1968, Texaco had only just discovered petroleum in Ecuador’s Amazon region. Today, oil accounts for nearly half the country’s exports. A trans-Andean pipeline, built shortly after my first visit has since leaked over a half million barrels of oil into the fragile rain forest—more than twice the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez. Today, a new $1.3 billion, 300-mile pipeline constructed by an EHM-organized consortium promises to make Ecuador one of the world’s top ten suppliers of oil to the United States. Vast areas of rain forest have fallen, macaws and jaguars have all but vanished, three Ecuadorian indigenous cultures have been driven to the verge of collapse, and pristine rivers have been transformed into flaming cesspools.

During this same period, the indigenous cultures began fighting back. As one result, on May 7, 2003, a group of American lawyers representing more than thirty thousand indigenous Ecuadorian people filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Chevron Texaco Corp. The suit asserts that between 1971 and 1992 the oil giant dumped into open holes and rivers over four million gallons per day of toxic wastewater, contaminated with oil, heavy metals, and carcinogens, and that the company left behind nearly 350 uncovered waste pits that continue to kill both people and animals.

Outside the window of my Outback, great clouds of mist rolled in from the forests and up the Pastaza’s canyons. Sweat soaked my shirt and my stomach began to churn, but not just from the intense tropical heat and the serpentine twists in the road. Knowing the part I had played in destroying this beautiful country was once again taking its toll. Because of me and my fellow EHMs, Ecuador is in far worse shape today than before we introduced her to the miracles of modern economics, banking, and engineering. Since 1970—during this period known euphemistically as the oil Boom—the official poverty level grew from 50 to 70 percent, under- or unemployment increased from 15 to 70 percent, and public debt increased from $240 million to $16 billion. Meanwhile, the share of national resources allocated to the poorest segments of the population declined from 20 to 6 percent.

Unfortunately, Ecuador is not the exception. Nearly every country we EHMs have brought under the global empire’s umbrella has suffered a similar fate.

The Subaru slowed as it meandered through the streets of the beautiful resort town of Baños, famous for the hot baths created by underground volcanic rivers that flow from the highly active Mount Tungurahgua. Children ran along beside us, waving and trying to sell us gum and cookies. Then we left Baños behind. The spectacular scenery ended abruptly. The Subaru sped out of paradise and into a modern vision of Dante's Inferno.

A gigantic monster reared up from the river, a mammoth gray wall. Its dripping concrete was totally out of place, completely unnatural and incompatible with the landscape. Of course, seeing it there should not have surprised me. I knew all along that it would be waiting in ambush. I had encountered it many times before and in the past had praised it as a symbol of EHM accomplishments. Even so, it made my skin crawl.

That hideous, incongruous wall is a dam that blocks the rushing Pastaza River, diverts its waters through huge tunnels bored into the mountain, and converts their energy to electricity. This is the 156-megawatt Agoyan Hydroelectric Project. It fuels the industries that make a handful of Ecuadorian families wealthy, and it has been the source of untold suffering for the farmers and indigenous people who live along the river. This hydroelectric plant is just one of many projects developed through my efforts and those of other EHMs. Such projects are the reason Ecuador is now a member of the global empire, and also the reason why the Shuar, the Kichwa, and their neighbors have declared war on our oil companies.

Because of EHM projects, Ecuador is awash in foreign debt and must devote an inordinate share of its national budget to paying this off, instead of using its capital to help the millions of its citizens officially classified as dangerously impoverished. The only way Ecuador can buy down its foreign obligations is by selling its rain forests to the oil companies. Indeed, one of the reasons the EHMs set their sights on Ecuador in the first place was because the sea of oil beneath its Amazon region is believed to rival the oil fields of the Middle East. The global empire demands its pound of flesh in the form of oil concessions.

These demands became especially urgent after September 11, 2001, when Washington feared that Middle Eastern supplies might cease. On top of that, Venezuela, our third-largest oil supplier, had elected a populist president, Hugo Chavez, who took a strong stand against what he referred to as U.S. imperialism; he threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States. The EHMs had failed in Iraq and Venezuela. But we had succeeded in Ecuador; now we would milk it for all it is worth.

Ecuador is typical of countries around the world that EHMs have brought into the economic-political fold. For every $100 of crude taken out of the Ecuadorian rain forests, the oil companies receive $75. Of the remaining $25, three quarters must go to paying off the foreign debt. Most of the remainder covers military and other government expenses— which leaves about $2.50 for health, education, and programs aimed at helping the poor. Thus, out of every $100 worth of oil torn from the Amazon, less than $3 goes to the people who need the money most, whose lives have been so adversely impacted by the dams, the drilling, and the pipelines, and who are dying from lack of edible food and drinkable water.

Every one of those people—millions in Ecuador, billions around the planet—is a potential terrorist. Not because they believe in communism or the tenets of anarchism, nor because they are intrinsically evil, but simply because they are desperate. Looking at this dam, I wondered—as I have so often in so many places around the world—when these people would take action, like the Americans against England in the 1770s or Latin Americans against Spain in the early 1800s.

The subtlety of this modern empire-building puts the Roman centurions, the Spanish conquistadors, and the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European colonial powers to shame. We EHMs are crafty; we learned from history. Today we do not carry swords. We do not wear armor or clothes that set us apart. In countries like Ecuador, Nigeria, and Indonesia, we dress like local schoolteachers and shop owners. In Washington and Paris, we look like government bureaucrats and bankers. We appear humble, normal. We visit project sites and stroll through impoverished villages. We profess altruism, talk with local papers about the wonderful humanitarian things we are doing. We cover the conference tables of government committees with our spreadsheets and financial projections, and we lecture at the Harvard Business School about the miracles of macroeconomics. We are on the record, in the open. Or so we portray ourselves, and so are we accepted. It is how the system works. We seldom resort to anything illegal because the system itself is built on subterfuge, and the system is by definition legitimate.

However—and this is a very large caveat—if we fail, an even more sinister breed steps in, ones we EHMs refer to as the jackals, men who trace their heritage directly to those earlier empires. The jackals are always there, lurking in the shadows. When they emerge, heads of state are overthrown or die in violent “accidents.” And if by chance the jackals fail, as they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, then the old models resurface. When the jackals fail, young Americans are sent in to kill and die.

As I passed the monster, that hulking mammoth wall of gray concrete rising from the river, I was very conscious of the sweat that soaked my clothes and the tightening of my intestines. I headed on down into the jungle to meet with the indigenous people who are determined to fight to the last man in order to stop this empire I helped create, and I was overwhelmed with feelings guilt.

How, I asked myself, did a nice kid from rural New Hampshire ever get into such a dirty business?

MikeB said:

The firm was called Chas. T. Main, and he wasn't the CFO.

Reply:

Sorry, he was the Cheif Econonmist with 50 people working for him.

Mike.....you are a major ingnoramus.  You're all head and no heart brother. 

Finally to summarize the claims that I believe in the book here is a summarry from John Perkins:

Well, the company I worked for was a company named Chas. T. Main in Boston, Massachusetts. We were about 2,000 employees, and I became its chief economist. I ended up having fifty people working for me. But my real job was deal-making. It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan–let's say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador–and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure–a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries. The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, “Look, you're not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.” And today we're going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It's an empire. There's no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It's been extremely successful.

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-perkins111104.htm

Here's a link with an interview.  Note that he says that 911 is the result of the kinds of things he's done, not that it was an inside job.  I think you are inaccurate on this MikeB.

I'm done with this issue.  Peace.

To clarify, 911 was the result of pissing off a lot of poor people.

Then again I wouldn’t put it past you or the media you read to exaggerate and mischaraterize to make your point. 

I suppose if that’s how you take the fact that your theory, that SUV sales were influenced in some significant way by a tax break that applied only to a tiny, tiny fraction of the buyers….<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The United States consumes 25 percent of all the oil produced in the world, yet we control just 3 percent of the world's oil reserves—
my position? Any policy that encourages purchasing gas-guzzling vehicles is as ignorant as you are-

So, once again, you’re suggesting there’s some miracle technology that had only there not been collusion on the part of “big oil”, Detroit and Washington, there would be cars making much, much higher mpg. The problem with your theory, as I’ve explained before, is that not only would this collusion have to be in the US, it would have to be everywhere there are car makers. European and Asian makers have faced extraordinarily expensive gas and have not produced this miracle technology. What’s kept them from producing 50 mpg Explorer sized vehicles?

And what keeps them from building Taco Bell’s on every corner?

BTW, if you think GM’s problems are that they haven’t produced a type of car that hasn’t even ever been in great demand (hyper-efficient cars) you not only don’t understand economics, you can’t read a balance sheet.

Neither could the thousands of workers they’ll continue to lay off due to not having the right products for the times-

 Nice try at a dodge (pun intended) but you must realize what technology licensed means. The same hybrid technology that wows you in a Toyota is in the Escape. If it was “battle tested” in the Toyota, the same applies to the Escape.

And the tech’s at Ford are battle tested?--- that’s what we were talking about--- dodge?

Yeah, we’re still waiting for you to point out the high-mileage large SUV that should be in production right now in Japan or elsewhere where none of the evils you pin on the US Gov’t/big oil/Detroit conspiracy to keep you in a Hummer have an effect on emerging technologies.

Large SUVs in other countries?
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but come to think of it, I’ve never heard of a snow cone stand in Antarctica either….hmmmm, another conspiracy?

But again, your theory makes zero economic sense. Every economic incentive in the world is, and has been on Detroit to produce the highest mileage vehicles possible OF THE TYPE consumers want to buy. Car makers retool every single year, they already spend massive amounts (and often with multi-million dollar wheel barrels of taxpayer money, which undermines your “Washington hasn‘t cared“ theory as well) on increasing fuel efficiency. If they could produce a 50 mpg Explorer, they would.

You are confused again—retooling for a completely new technology would cost auto makers billions and billions- but still less than conquering other countries-

Your entire case seems to be that gov’t simply failed to waive the magic wand to call for increased fuel mileage, and therefore Detroit failed to wave their magic wand which would have doubled fuel efficiency. If only you could create technology by having gov’t demand it.

The magic wand thing again, eh?
Senators pass legislation- wand waving is for fairies.

Oh, great, you now understand what fungible means. All this time I’ve accepted your given that things simply don’t work that way. Now that you accept it, we can discuss how Middle East gov’ts will always be able to sell what they pull out of the ground, even if you begin riding a bike.

Just because you were able to use “fungible” in a sentence, doesn’t convince me that you really get it- go read Dilbert again and tell us what the evil Dogbert “forgot” to tell you.

Are we back to discussing the fact that oil used to move US cars amounts to only 10% of the world’s usage, and therefore a doubling of average fuel economy here (even if you could halt the increase in demand that comes from increased population and economic activity) even if you could do it tomorrow, is like pissing in the ocean as to it’s effect on demand?

I’ve read that passenger cars account for fully 40 percent of the oil Americans consume— yet you express out how meaningless conservation is--
you are either:

1. an absolute idiot
2. a liar
3. an ideologue so buried in the party dogma, no light could ever reach you.

I’m betting on some sort of amalgam- with nuts.

There’s only one bin Laden that we’re concerned with, of a very large, by all accounts legit, family and he’s not part of the family business…..

Oh yeah, he got his multi millions selling goats in Afghanistan, right?

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!

Tex......

[quote=dude]

Mike.....you are a major ingnoramus.  You're all head and no heart brother. 

[/quote]

Dude, you believe any conspiracy theory that comes your way, pal. At the very least, when you refer to a fellow conspriacy nutcase, get his CV right. This is like you "Bush let the bin Laden family go before the FBI could talk to them and while all flights were suspended" fantasy...

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Mike.....you are a major ingnoramus.  You're all head and no heart brother. 

[/quote]

Dude, you believe any conspiracy theory that comes your way, pal. At the very least, when you refer to a fellow conspriacy nutcase, get his CV right. This is like you "Bush let the bin Laden family go before the FBI could talk to them and while all flights were suspended" fantasy...

[/quote]

Again, exaggerations Mikeb.  You are a master spin doctor bro.  The truth was that the saudis were the only folks allowed fly while no one else is, whether Bush himself had anything to do with it (I was using Bush's name in reference to his administration) I don't know and don't care.  The FACT that they were allowed to leave is NOT a conspiracy theory dipsh*t, you are an aggravating and annoying gnat.

my position? Any policy that encourages purchasing gas-guzzling vehicles is as ignorant as you are-

Yawn…. The child reverts to name calling, again…at least he’s moved off the fabrication that SUVs purchases were greatly influenced by a business tax deduction that applied to a tiny, tiny fraction of the buyers. I suppose in his magical world businesses don’t need large vehicles. It must be nice there….

The problem with your theory, as I’ve explained before, is that not only would this collusion have to be in the US, it would have to be everywhere there are car makers. European and Asian makers have faced extraordinarily expensive gas and have not produced this miracle technology. What’s kept them from producing 50 mpg Explorer sized vehicles?

And what keeps them from building Taco Bell’s on every corner?

That would be demand. OTOH, I doubt you’re going to tell me there would be no demand in this country for higher mileage versions of the kinds of cars US buyers purchase?

Your tidy little theory crumbles when you have to acknowledge that economic incentives run in the opposite direction as your supposition AND that car makers not part of the evil trio (US Gov’t/big oil/Detroit) haven’t achieved the technological advances you claim Detroit could have, if only they wanted/were forced.

Well, unless your new version of the theory explains how the evil trio managed to keep even European and Asian car makers from producing high mileage SUVs that they could sell boatloads of in the US, you’re back to square one.

Nice try at a dodge (pun intended) but you must realize what technology licensed means. The same hybrid technology that wows you in a Toyota is in the Escape. If it was “battle tested” in the Toyota, the same applies to the Escape.

And the tech’s at Ford are battle tested?--- that’s what we were talking about--- dodge?

You’re being willfully ignorant. You marvel at the technology in a Toyota, and when the very same technology is installed in a Ford it’s “not battle tested”….

Yeah, we’re still waiting for you to point out the high-mileage large SUV that should be in production right now in Japan or elsewhere where none of the evils you pin on the US Gov’t/big oil/Detroit conspiracy to keep you in a Hummer have an effect on emerging technologies.

Large SUVs in other countries?
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but come to think of it, I’ve never heard of a snow cone stand in Antarctica either….hmmmm, another conspiracy?

This shouldn’t be so hard for you. The question obviously referred to the US market. By your theory Detroit won’t make them, but what keeps other makers, especially those who, in their own markets have faced extraordinarily high fuel prices, from having found this mystical technology?

But again, your theory makes zero economic sense. Every economic incentive in the world is, and has been on Detroit to produce the highest mileage vehicles possible OF THE TYPE consumers want to buy. Car makers retool every single year, they already spend massive amounts (and often with multi-million dollar wheel barrels of taxpayer money, which undermines your “Washington hasn‘t cared“ theory as well) on increasing fuel efficiency. If they could produce a 50 mpg Explorer, they would.

You are confused again—retooling for a completely new technology would cost auto makers billions and billions- but still less than conquering other countries-

I love it. You can’t define this technology, you can’t explain why no car maker outside the reach of the evil trio hasn’t produced it, but you can tell us how much it will cost to introduce. How about you try a simple one; how much has the US government spent in a partnership with Detroit in the last decade to do just what you say they aren’t doing, researching alternative fuels and increasing mileage.

Your entire case seems to be that gov’t simply failed to waive the magic wand to call for increased fuel mileage, and therefore Detroit failed to wave their magic wand which would have doubled fuel efficiency. If only you could create technology by having gov’t demand it.

The magic wand thing again, eh?
Senators pass legislation- wand waving is for fairies.

When the Senate passes legislation calling for mpg standards unattainable with current technology it’s nothing but political grandstanding. They would be passing fiction. OTOH, it does seem to convince people like you that “progress” is being made….

Oh, great, you now understand what fungible means. All this time I’ve accepted your given that things simply don’t work that way. Now that you accept it, we can discuss how Middle East gov’ts will always be able to sell what they pull out of the ground, even if you begin riding a bike.

Just because you were able to use “fungible” in a sentence, doesn’t convince me that you really get it- go read Dilbert again and tell us what the evil Dogbert “forgot” to tell you.

Still confounded by the concept that fuel you “save” by peddling a bike wouldn’t keep a quart of oil in the ground, eh? Must have been an English major in college…

Are we back to discussing the fact that oil used to move US cars amounts to only 10% of the world’s usage, and therefore a doubling of average fuel economy here (even if you could halt the increase in demand that comes from increased population and economic activity) even if you could do it tomorrow, is like pissing in the ocean as to it’s effect on demand?

I’ve read that passenger cars account for fully 40 percent of the oil Americans consume— yet you express out how meaningless conservation is--
you are either:

1. an absolute idiot
2. a liar
3. an ideologue so buried in the party dogma, no light could ever reach you.

I’m betting on some sort of amalgam- with nuts.

Golly, so very witty, and so dishonest. Your own figures said the US passenger car fleet accounts for just 10% of the world’s usage. Even if your magic technology (the one no one in the world is using) appeared to tomorrow AND you changed over the entire US fleet to the high mpg car tomorrow you’d be effecting 5% of the world’s demand. Considering how the Persian Gulf nations provide, what, 27% of the world’s oil production, you’d make what sort of impact on them?

There’s only one bin Laden that we’re concerned with, of a very large, by all accounts legit, family and he’s not part of the family business…..

Oh yeah, he got his multi millions selling goats in Afghanistan, right?

So your magic technology would, in addition to vastly increasing mpg to the point that oil prices are affected, but it would go back in time and take money from Usama that he got from the family business before they disowned him? Wow…..

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Mike.....you are a major ingnoramus.  You're all head and no heart brother. 

[/quote]

Dude, you believe any conspiracy theory that comes your way, pal. At the very least, when you refer to a fellow conspriacy nutcase, get his CV right. This is like you "Bush let the bin Laden family go before the FBI could talk to them and while all flights were suspended" fantasy...

[/quote]

Again, exaggerations Mikeb.  You are a master spin doctor bro.  The truth was that the saudis were the only folks allowed fly while no one else is, whether Bush himself had anything to do with it (I was using Bush's name in reference to his administration) I don't know and don't care.  The FACT that they were allowed to leave is NOT a conspiracy theory dipsh*t, you are an aggravating and annoying gnat.

[/quote]

You still refuse to see that your entire tale was fiction. The FBI did speak to every bin Laden family member they wanted to speak with. They did not leave while the US airspace was closed. They did not get special treatment from the administration.

From the 9/11 Commission report;

Let me make another attempt to start this on a clean sheet and get away from the distractions and the difficult format we’ve fallen into.

My take on your theory is essentially this; Detroit hasn’t produced higher mileage versions of the cars and SUVs people want because they’re too cozy with gov’t and big oil. Had gov’t passed legislation requiring higher mpg standards, Detroit would by now have some new, super-mpg mileage vehicles and GM wouldn’t be in financial peril. Furthermore, if we drove these higher mileage vehicles, we could affect the price of oil, less oil would be pumped out of the ground, oil producing countries would profit less, terrorists would have fewer petrol-dollars to fund their efforts. If I’ve laid that out incorrectly, please change it where needed.

My problem with this is;

If the evil trio held up the production of this new technology, why isn’t it being produced in countries they can’t affect? Why isn’t Japan or Germany importing a 50 mpg SUV and selling them like hotcakes.

Why wouldn’t the economic incentives of being able to sell a high mileage version of cars Americans want cause them to use this technology?

The notion that the Senate could pass a bill demanding higher fuel mileage standards and end up achieving anything other that forcing small, largely unwanted cars into the market place is just laughable. They might as well pass a bill demanding the end of gravity so that we could conduct space travel on an less expensive basis.

GM’s problems are due to many issues, high legacy costs, lousy products in some vehicle segments a history of poor reliability. However, what’s kept them from going belly-up are those very in-demand (who knows, maybe now is the beginning of a market cycle where SUVs are out and some new substitute for the long dead station wagon will come into vogue) , low fuel mileage, high profit margin vehicles you hate.

The notion that the Senate could pass a bill demanding higher fuel mileage standards and end up achieving anything other that forcing small, largely unwanted cars into the market place is just laughable. They might as well pass a bill demanding the end of gravity so that we could conduct space travel on an less expensive basis.

More evidence of chronic narrowness and a head in the sand attitude.   

If the evil trio held up the production of this new technology, why isn’t it being produced in countries they can’t affect? Why isn’t Japan or Germany importing a 50 mpg SUV and selling them like hotcakes.

Who refered to automakers as "evil"?  Another great example of your flawless spin doctoring.  I applaud your truly laughable manipulations of a persons position into unrecognizable gibberish.  No wonder, when all the info filters through such a narrow mind how it gets all distorted. 

What amazes me MikeB is how you truly know everything.  It's useless debating with someone who has a mastery over every subject like you do.  We should just shut up and open our hearts and minds to your flawless logic and wisdom.

You remind me of the guys who argued all through the 80's and 90's that global warming didn't exist.  Boy do they look stupid now (I'd bet $100 that you were one of 'em ).  Same logic, same paradigm.

Your logic and blind endorsement of idotic, near sighted and truly narrow ideologies is tragic.  Bush is a fool, his policies are garbage and I'm embarassed to have him as a president.  An out of touch, insulated nearsighted idiot.  Be proud of your leader MikeB, he's calling you to fight the good fight.  Keep on parrotting for the cause. 

Well..... I would appreciate some global warming right about now.  It is the coldest wettest winter we have ever had in the last 30 years.  The high temperature is about 27.

There is not a consensus that there is a global warming trend that is anything out of the ordinary. The swings that Mother Earth has been doing over the last 4 billion years  have been  more radical in both directions than the puny warming trend over the last 100 or so years.  In the 900s Euorpe was so warm that people wore next to nothing and the forests were entirely deciduous.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period    Geee ...how can we blame this on Bush and the Industrial Revolution??   The world has been hotter and has been colder all without the assistance of little old nasty man. 

Get real.  Humanity is a blink of the eye in the history of the world.   The Medieval Warm Period partially coincides in time with the peak in solar activity named the Medieval Maximum (AD 1100–1250).    Wow, could it be that big hot thing up in the sky causes the Earth to heat up when it gets hotter????   Naaah it must be caused by evil Republicans and eeeeveel humanity.

The trouble with you "liberals" (and that is an epithet) is that you lack the ability to take a long view of things.  Everything is framed in a short time span.  10 years ago is ancient history to you.    You also can't seem to fathom the end result of your actions, again looking only at the short term of today and mabye next week.  Liberals are also into instant self gratification and feel good ideas.  Hence all the socialistic welfare programs and communistic ideals that are going to bankrupt the country.  Don't make people be accountable and work to gain knowledge and self respect.  Hand it all out on a silver platter because it feels good.  No matter that the programs have been shown to actually make things worse than better. 

When we ultimately lose the cultural and ideological war against extreme Muslim wahabiism. When the Talaban clones are persecuting women and homosexuals. When we are being told what is funny or not and how to think. When we are no longer allowed to experience the freedoms of a western and capitalist society......I am going to hold you and your crackpot liberal ideas personally responsible.  

The good news is that this is a long struggle so I will most likely be dead. The bad news  is that your daughters and grand daughters will become slaves and wear burkas from head to toe.  God forbid .....ooops Allah forbid, they want to wear nail polish, want to read a book, have a job, show their face outside of a house that is now a prison or have a conversation with a male person without the threat of being stoned to death.

Let me make another attempt to start this on a clean sheet and get away from the distractions and the difficult format we’ve fallen into. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Awwww….and I was so enjoying the:
me:   Fact
You: lie, twist
me:  fact
you: fungible!

My take on your theory is essentially this; <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Detroit hasn’t produced higher mileage versions of the cars and SUVs people want because they’re too cozy with gov’t and big oil.

Look, I owned a multi-million dollar company and I was cozy w/ gov’t---- that “Detroit” a multi-billion dollar industry is cozy w/ gov’t is a reality, a necessity, legal, and not even at issue-
 
No driver wants to be the first to be found 10 days later, underneath the bumper of a F-650, while driving their 1000 lb, 60 mpg Techno-car to work--- WASHINGTON needed to, for the greater good, channel our production into lighter, fuel efficient buggies- then get out of the way and let US engineers take the available technology and apply it to the market need and demand- WASHINTON did it before in 1975, did it with HDTV, highspeed internet, and other areas, where it perceived, for the public greater good, a need to channel technology-

Had gov’t passed legislation requiring higher mpg standards, Detroit would by now (AFTER 20+ YEARS) have some new, super-mpg mileage vehicles and GM (possibly) wouldn’t be in financial peril. Furthermore, if we drove these higher mileage vehicles, we could affect the price of oil,

If we drove them, then subsequently europe, asia, china, then commercial vehicles, drove them and then manufacturing machines were changed as the technology evolved, more and more applications are applied-

less oil would be pumped out of the ground, oil producing countries would profit less, terrorists would have fewer petrol-dollars to fund their efforts. If I’ve laid that out incorrectly, please change it where needed. My problem with this is;If the evil trio held up the production of this new technology, why isn’t it being produced in countries they can’t affect? Why isn’t Japan or Germany importing a 50 mpg SUV and selling them like hotcakes.

Lots of europe/ asia are taxed so heavily by owning heavy vehicles, fueling them, ect—they have little demand for these products- this light truck phenomena is almost exclusively a recent US trend-  not to mention that the truest / best innovation comes from the USA by far, especially when faced with the real necessity to change-

Why wouldn’t the economic incentives of being able to sell a high mileage version of cars Americans want cause them to use this technology?

Its likely that the engines used in the US in the short run WILL come from engineering from abroad- but when the US truly gets in the game- I believe we will finally see USA bred results in this area that we put ourselves 20+ years behind in-  

The notion that the Senate could pass a bill demanding higher fuel mileage standards and end up achieving anything other that forcing small, largely unwanted cars into the market place is just laughable. They might as well pass a bill demanding the end of gravity so that we could conduct space travel on an less expensive basis.

But they successfully did:
”…Fuel efficiency standards had a profound impact on U.S. oil demand. In 1975, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), with the goal of saving 2 million barrels per day by roughly doubling the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. According to the National Research Council, Corporate Automobile Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards had reduced oil consumption by 2.8 million barrels per day in 2000,21 a 25 percent reduction in gasoline demand or a 13 percent reduction in overall U.S. demand (see Figure 2, above). CAFE standards saved consumers about $70 billion in 2000, $66 billion in direct consumer savings and another $3 to $6 billion through lower imported oil costs.22…”

GM’s problems are due to many issues, high legacy costs, lousy products in some vehicle segments a history of poor reliability. However, what’s kept them from going belly-up are those very in-demand (who knows, maybe now is the beginning of a market cycle where SUVs are out and some new substitute for the long dead station wagon will come into vogue) , low fuel mileage, high profit margin vehicles you hate.

Ford and GM took the easy way out – they led the world in the production in the highly profitable light truck segment, then “bet the ranch” that terror/arab gov’t / shortage/demand type fuel issues would not raise the price of a gallon of gas past the pain-threshold of about $3 – so far they have lost lots of chips on that bet- even William Clay Ford Jr. has admitted they’ve screwed it up—had they done the responsible thing, worked with the Ledge over the past 20+ years to produce the kind of vehicles we should be driving (given our reserves vs. our consumption) and allowed USA engineers to solve the problems – high mpg vs. power vs. size these past 20 years, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that we would be so much less reliant on Mid East oil, there may have not been a 9/11 or a need to invade Iraq- as we evolve into Hydrogen cells, that will become more and more apparent-

The notion that the Senate could pass a bill demanding higher fuel mileage standards and end up achieving anything other that forcing small, largely unwanted cars into the market place is just laughable. They might as well pass a bill demanding the end of gravity so that we could conduct space travel on an less expensive basis.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

More evidence of chronic narrowness and a head in the sand attitude.   

And your failure to show how the Senate passing a bill could create technology otherwise unavailable is more evidence in a belief in fantasy.

If the evil trio held up the production of this new technology, why isn’t it being produced in countries they can’t affect? Why isn’t <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Japan or Germany importing a 50 mpg SUV and selling them like hotcakes.

Who refered to automakers as "evil"?  Another great example of your flawless spin doctoring.  I applaud your truly laughable manipulations of a persons position into unrecognizable gibberish.  No wonder, when all the info filters through such a narrow mind how it gets all distorted. 

Do try to keep up, Dude, if your’re going to comment. The insinuation from the very beginning of this conversation was that big oil/Detroit/big gov’t all colluded to doing things that were not in the interest of the nation. If it bothers you to see that assertion protraryed for what it is, namely that these three were evil, then stop reading the posts. BTW, I think it’s fascinating that of all the comments in that thread, some very snarky, this is the one that captures your imagination.

What amazes me MikeB is how you truly know everything.  It's useless debating with someone who has a mastery over every subject like you do.  We should just shut up and open our hearts and minds to your flawless logic and wisdom.

As the guy that’s offered up one bizarre idea after another (“Bush let the bin Laden family leave the country before the FBI talked to them and while no one else could fly” and “Cuba has a high standard of living”) I can see how your ego would be bruised.

 WASHINGTON needed to, for the greater good, channel our production into lighter, fuel efficient buggies- then get out of the way and let US engineers take the available technology and apply it to the market need and demand- <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You want <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Washington to “channel production”? Production is channeled by demand, not by government edict. It’s a far stronger incentive than anything Washington could do.  Who wouldn’t buy a higher mileage version of the kind of car they wanted? The fact is the technology wouldn’t emerge as if by magic with a gov’t edict, and it hasn’t due to consumer demand. And why not? Again, the simpliest answer is because there’s simply no way possible, right now, to make a car people really want in large numbers that makes 50 mpg.

You wanted Washington to pass higher CAFÉ standards which would have resulted in a number of things, as it did last time. The first is the possibility of fines if a car maker’s average fuel economy is below a set point.

Car makers get around this by offering just as many high mileage, low demand, death trap (see below) cars as it takes to increase their average so that they can offer the higher profit, lower mileage cars people demand. Second would have been lighter, smaller and more dangerous cars (again, see below).

WASHINTON did it before in 1975, did it with HDTV, highspeed internet, and other areas, where it perceived, for the public greater good, a need to channel technology-

Washington didn’t create HDTV or high-speed internet (in fact, they held up both with antiqued regulations). AFTER the public showed interest and AFTER the technology was available, Washington made (and very, very slowly) changes to existing laws and regulation to help those products and services blossom. Washington is anything, anything but the home of innovation.

Had gov’t passed legislation requiring higher mpg standards, Detroit would by now (AFTER 20+ YEARS) have some new, super-mpg mileage vehicles and GM (possibly) wouldn’t be in financial peril. Furthermore, if we drove these higher mileage vehicles, we could affect the price of oil,

If we drove them, then subsequently europe, asia, china, then commercial vehicles, drove them and then manufacturing machines were changed as the technology evolved, more and more applications are applied-

 Now you’re talking about a top to bottom realignment of the industrial world, from every vehicle driven to every manufacturing machine, etc, etc, etc on a technology you can’t even name. That may someday happen, but I find that placing the blame that it’s not happening now on the US automakers to be too far a stretch to be rational.

less oil would be pumped out of the ground, oil producing countries would profit less, terrorists would have fewer petrol-dollars to fund their efforts. If I’ve laid that out incorrectly, please change it where needed. My problem with this is;If the evil trio held up the production of this new technology, why isn’t it being produced in countries they can’t affect? Why isn’t Japan or Germany importing a 50 mpg SUV and selling them like hotcakes.

Lots of europe/ asia are taxed so heavily by owning heavy vehicles, fueling them, ect—they have little demand for these products- this light truck phenomena is almost exclusively a recent trend-  not to mention that the truest / best innovation comes from USA by far, especially when faced with the real necessity to change-

 Huh? The SUV wave began before 1990, if 16 years isn’t enough time for some manufacturer to come on line with a high mileage version, the simplest answer is because there’s no such available technology. If anything the europen/asian manufacturers have been in an economic situation for decades where there’s been massive incentive to produce these super high mpg vehicles, but they haven’t.

Instead, they’ve done what the technology allows, which is to stuff people into tiny cars the average American wouldn’t buy (when I lived in the UK the tiny 505 was referred to as a “family sedan” and my Volvo was a limo). Furthermore, their larger vehicles, the Volvos and Mercedes sedans, get no better mileage there, despite the incredible cost of fuel, than they do here (which is to say mid-sized SUV sort of mileage). If decades of great incentives based on the price of fuel hasn’t caused European/Asian makers to produce the 50 mpg “full sized” sedan, there’s a reason there, and it isn’t Detroit or Washington.

Again, the simple answer as to why is obvious, there just is no available technology to do beter, and the blame for that can’t be placed on the big oil/Detroit/gov’t trio.

 Why wouldn’t the economic incentives of being able to sell a high mileage version of cars Americans want cause them to use this technology?

Its likely that the engines used in the in the short run WILL come from engineering from abroad- but when the US truly gets in the game- I believe we will finally see USA bred results in this area that we put ourselves 20+ years behind in-  

 That doesn’t explain why makers from abroad aren’t doing it now. That’s the hole in your theory that oil/Detriot/gov’t has been retarding advancements. BTW, you continue to ignore the massive amounts already spend in join gov’t/Detroit research on this subject for at least the last 14 years.

The notion that the Senate could pass a bill demanding higher fuel mileage standards and end up achieving anything other that forcing small, largely unwanted cars into the market place is just laughable. They might as well pass a bill demanding the end of gravity so that we could conduct space travel on an less expensive basis.

But they successfully did:
”…Fuel efficiency standards had a profound impact on U.S. oil demand. In 1975, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), with the goal of saving 2 million barrels per day by roughly doubling the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. According to the National Research Council, Corporate Automobile Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards had reduced oil consumption by 2.8 million barrels per day in 2000,21

You should read the source document for that footnote. It says the mileage increase in the 1975 CAFÉ (which, according to the source document reduced the 2000 oil demand from what it WOULD HAVE BEEN, IF AVERAGE MPG HAD FALLEN AS GAS PRICES CAME DOWN FROM THE EMBARGO PRICES OF 1973. The fact is oil demand was STILL higher in 2000 than it was in 1975) came from lightening vehicles and cost, in 1993 alone, 1300 to 2600 deaths in vehicle accidents.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309076013/html/111.html

 Reread my post, “achieving anything other that forcing small, largely unwanted cars into the market place”. And what did Detroit do to get around CAFÉ, which forced them to produce low demand, low profit cars? They stopped building the family station wagon and started building minivans and SUVs which were in demand and didn’t count in the CAFÉ stats as they weren’t covered.

GM’s problems are due to many issues, high legacy costs, lousy products in some vehicle segments a history of poor reliability. However, what’s kept them from going belly-up are those very in-demand (who knows, maybe now is the beginning of a market cycle where SUVs are out and some new substitute for the long dead station wagon will come into vogue) , low fuel mileage, high profit margin vehicles you hate.

…..had they done the responsible thing, worked with the Ledge over the past 20+ years to produce the kind of vehicles we should be driving (given our reserves vs. our consumption) and allowed USA engineers to solve the problems – high mpg vs. power vs. size these past 20 years,

Again, the problem with your theory about this new technology you’re sure would have come, is that there isn’t a car maker in the world using it. Not one, and it’s hard to blame that fact on GM/Ford making bad decisions

 there is NO DOUBT in my mind that we would be so much less reliant on Mid East oil, there may have not been a 9/11 or a need to invade Iraq- as we evolve into Hydrogen cells, that will become more and more apparent-

 Linking 9/11 to the world’s need for oil is to completely misunderstand the stated aims of the terrorists. BTW, hydrogen cells require, you guessed it, oil.

New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis after 9/11
    By Eric Lichtblau
    The New York Times

    Sunday 27 March 2005

    Washington - The episode has been retold so many times in the last three and a half years that it has become the stuff of political legend: in the frenzied days after Sept. 11, 2001, when some flights were still grounded, dozens of well-connected Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, managed to leave the United States on specially chartered flights.

    Now, newly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.

    The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.

    The Saudi families, in Los Angeles and Orlando, requested the F.B.I. escorts because they said they were concerned for their safety in the wake of the attacks, and the F.B.I. - which was then beginning the biggest criminal investigation in its history - arranged to have agents escort them to their local airports, the documents show.

    But F.B.I. officials reacted angrily, both internally and publicly, to the suggestion that any Saudis had received preferential treatment in leaving the country.

    "I say baloney to any inference we red-carpeted any of this entourage," an F.B.I. official said in a 2003 internal note. Another F.B.I. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this week regarding the airport escorts that "we'd do that for anybody if they felt they were threatened - we wouldn't characterize that as special treatment."

    The documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, which provided copies to The New York Times.

    The material sheds new light on the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and it provides details about the F.B.I.'s interaction with at least 160 Saudis who were living in or visiting the United States and were allowed to leave the country. Some of the departing Saudis were related to Osama bin Laden.

    The Saudis' chartered flights, arranged in the days after the attacks when many flights in the United States were still grounded, have proved frequent fodder for critics of the Bush administration who accuse it of coddling the Saudis. The debate was heightened by the filmmaker Michael Moore, who scrutinized the issue in "Fahrenheit 9/11," but White House officials have adamantly denied any special treatment for the Saudis, calling such charges irresponsible and politically motivated.

    The Sept. 11 commission examined the Saudi flights in its final report last year, and it found that no Saudis had been allowed to leave before national airspace was reopened on Sept. 13, 2001; that there was no evidence of "political intervention" by the White House; and that the F.B.I. had done a "satisfactory screening" of the departing Saudis to ensure they did not have information relevant to the attacks.

    The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, with major passages heavily deleted, do not appear to contradict directly any of those central findings, but they raise some new questions about the episode.

    The F.B.I. records show, for instance, that prominent Saudi citizens left the United States on several flights that had not been previously disclosed in public accounts, including a chartered flight from Providence, R.I., on Sept. 14, 2001, that included at least one member of the Saudi royal family, and three flights from Las Vegas between Sept. 19 and Sept. 24, also carrying members of the Saudi royal family. The government began reopening airspace on Sept. 13, but many flights remained grounded for days afterward.

    The three Las Vegas flights, with a total of more than 100 passengers, ferried members of the Saudi royal family and staff members who had been staying at Caesar's Palace and the Four Seasons hotels. The group had tried unsuccessfully to charter flights back to Saudi Arabia between Sept. 13 and Sept. 17 because they said they feared for their safety as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks, the F.B.I. documents say.

    Once the group managed to arrange chartered flights out of the country, an unidentified prince in the Las Vegas group "thanked the F.B.I. for their assistance," according to one internal report. The F.B.I. had interviewed many members of the group and searched their planes before allowing them to leave, but it nonetheless went back to the Las Vegas hotels with subpoenas five days after the initial flight had departed to collect further information on the Saudi royal guests, the documents show.

    In several other cases, Saudi travelers were not interviewed before departing the country, and F.B.I. officials sought to determine how what seemed to be lapses had occurred, the documents show.

    The F.B.I. documents left open the possibility that some departing Saudis had information relevant to the Sept. 11 investigation.

    "Although the F.B.I. took all possible steps to prevent any individuals who were involved in or had knowledge of the 9/11/2001 attacks from leaving the U.S. before they could be interviewed," a 2003 memo said, "it is not possible to state conclusively that no such individuals left the U.S. without F.B.I. knowledge."

    The documents also show that F.B.I. officials were clearly riled by public speculation stirred by news media accounts of the Saudi flights. They were particularly bothered by a lengthy article in the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair, which included charges that the bureau considered unfair and led to an internal F.B.I. investigation that the agency named "Vanitybom." Internal F.B.I. correspondence during the review was addressed to "fellow Vanitybom victims."

    Critics said the newly released documents left them with more questions than answers.

    "From these documents, these look like they were courtesy chats, without the time that would have been needed for thorough debriefings," said Christopher J. Farrell, who is director of investigations for Judicial Watch and a former counterintelligence interrogator for the Army. "It seems as if the F.B.I. was more interested in achieving diplomatic success than investigative success."

    Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, called for further investigation.

    "This lends credence to the theory that the administration was not coming fully clean about their involvement with the Saudis," he said, "and we still haven't gotten to the bottom of this whole affair."

________________________________________________________

Special treatment of the Saudis by the FBI, undisclosed flights out of Las Vegas (not in your holy 911 commission report), Saudis allowed to leave while most flights were grounded all in the wake of the largest criminal investigation in the FBI's history (911 obviously).  These are the folks that may have given us a head start on tracking down Bin Laden (the real enemy, not Saddam).  Lots of blacked out areas in the papers they recieved that give more details.

Point is that these folks should have been more thoroughly questioned and it appears they were given red carpet treatment. 

You are a piece of work if you think that it's coincidence these folks were accomodated and helped by the FBI, instead of being grilled by the FBI.  At minimum this speaks to major incompetence in the Bush administrations ability to supervise and direct activities concerning the most tragic crime to be committed on our soil.

Frankly I don't believe it's a coincidence.  The Saudis shouldn't have been thanking us for our assistance, they should have left irritated at being grilled and interrogated.  If there was a possiblity that one of those who were swiftly escorted out of our country could have saved lives by giving information that could have sped up the capture of Bin Laden, why wasn't it done.  MikeB, if you were under investigation, I guarantee the FBI would be all over your friends and family.

Whatever, your love for your idol is blinding you. 

[quote=babbling looney]

Well..... I would appreciate some global warming right about now.  It is the coldest wettest winter we have ever had in the last 30 years.  The high temperature is about 27.

There is not a consensus that there is a global warming trend that is anything out of the ordinary. The swings that Mother Earth has been doing over the last 4 billion years  have been  more radical in both directions than the puny warming trend over the last 100 or so years.  In the 900s Euorpe was so warm that people wore next to nothing and the forests were entirely deciduous.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period    Geee ...how can we blame this on Bush and the Industrial Revolution??   The world has been hotter and has been colder all without the assistance of little old nasty man. 

Get real.  Humanity is a blink of the eye in the history of the world.   The Medieval Warm Period partially coincides in time with the peak in solar activity named the Medieval Maximum (AD 1100–1250).    Wow, could it be that big hot thing up in the sky causes the Earth to heat up when it gets hotter????   Naaah it must be caused by evil Republicans and eeeeveel humanity.

The trouble with you "liberals" (and that is an epithet) is that you lack the ability to take a long view of things.  Everything is framed in a short time span.  10 years ago is ancient history to you.    You also can't seem to fathom the end result of your actions, again looking only at the short term of today and mabye next week.  Liberals are also into instant self gratification and feel good ideas.  Hence all the socialistic welfare programs and communistic ideals that are going to bankrupt the country.  Don't make people be accountable and work to gain knowledge and self respect.  Hand it all out on a silver platter because it feels good.  No matter that the programs have been shown to actually make things worse than better. 

When we ultimately lose the cultural and ideological war against extreme Muslim wahabiism. When the Talaban clones are persecuting women and homosexuals. When we are being told what is funny or not and how to think. When we are no longer allowed to experience the freedoms of a western and capitalist society......I am going to hold you and your crackpot liberal ideas personally responsible.  

The good news is that this is a long struggle so I will most likely be dead. The bad news  is that your daughters and grand daughters will become slaves and wear burkas from head to toe.  God forbid .....ooops Allah forbid, they want to wear nail polish, want to read a book, have a job, show their face outside of a house that is now a prison or have a conversation with a male person without the threat of being stoned to death.

[/quote]

You definitley think like a dumb broad.  Did you know that scientists can track the relationship between airborn carbon gasses and their relationship to world temperatures for thousand of years by drilling ice cores in Antarctica.  Interestingly, the incredible rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere starting around the Industrial revolution and the coorelations with rise in gloabal temperature is undeniable.

I can't believe how stupid you sound.  Don't you know that your position has been completely destroyed by the current inertia of leading edge research?  You need to stop believing the Chairman of Exxon in regards to the effects of his product on people. 

You want Washington to “channel production”? Production is channeled by demand, not by government edict. It’s a far stronger incentive than anything Washington could do.  <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Gov’t channels technology all the time, and usually at the behest or in conjunction with the industry being effected-

Who wouldn’t buy a higher mileage version of the kind of car they wanted? The fact is the technology wouldn’t emerge as if by magic with a gov’t edict, and it hasn’t due to consumer demand. And why not? Again, the simpliest answer is because there’s simply no way possible, right now, to make a car people really want in large numbers that makes 50 mpg.

1. I’ve outlined why people partly don’t want smaller cars- its more complicated than “just because”
2. I’ve pointed out the technology is largely available and has been for a long time
3. I’ve pointed out that retooling on a scale large enough to matter would cost Detroit BILLIONS of dollars
4. I suggested that the BILLIONS would still be but a fraction of the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in cost to conquor countries to stablize the region, for what? Our high moral regard for democracy in the Mid-East? No its all about the oil in the sand-

You wanted Washington to pass higher CAFÉ standards which would have resulted in a number of things, as it did last time. The first is the possibility of fines if a car maker’s average fuel economy is below a set point.

Not likely- Washington works w/ Big Auto to be reasonable and flexible-

Car makers get around this by offering just as many high mileage, low demand, death trap (see below) cars as it takes to increase their average so that they can offer the higher profit, lower mileage cars people demand. Second would have been lighter, smaller and more dangerous cars (again, see below).

No- this will be mandated on vehicles SOLD, not merely produced.

Washington didn’t create HDTV or high-speed internet (in fact, they held up both with antiqued regulations).

Wrong- research it again- it was the INDUSTRY which sought out uniform standards from Washington-they stayed collectively involved as the technology evolved-

AFTER the public showed interest and AFTER the technology was available, Washington made (and very, very slowly) changes to existing laws and regulation to help those products and services blossom. Washington is anything, anything but the home of innovation.

You either forget or still don’t realize that the technology is largely already around-

 Now you’re talking about a top to bottom realignment of the industrial world, from every vehicle driven to every manufacturing machine, etc, etc, etc on a technology you can’t even name. That may someday happen, but I find that placing the blame that it’s not happening now on the US automakers to be too far a stretch to be rational.

What I’m saying is already roundly accepted, non-controversial and pretty durn obvious- the US got behind b/c they didn’t guard against the worst case scenario-

 Huh? The SUV wave began before 1990, if 16 years isn’t enough time for some manufacturer to come on line with a high mileage version, the simplest answer is because there’s no such available technology. If anything the europen/asian manufacturers have been in an economic situation for decades where there’s been massive incentive to produce these super high mpg vehicles, but they haven’t.

“…31 January 2006: The sales of diesel cars in Europe countinue to increase, according to a new survey by Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Diesels accounted for 49% of the total European car market at the end of 2005, a 7% increase compared to the prior 12 month period. Diesels are most popular in Belgium (72%), France (70%), Spain (68%), and Austria (66%); they are not popular in Sweden (9%) and Greece (1%).

Instead, they’ve done what the technology allows, which is to stuff people into tiny cars the average American wouldn’t buy (when I lived in the UK the tiny 505 was referred to as a “family sedan” and my Volvo was a limo). Furthermore, their larger vehicles, the Volvos and Mercedes sedans, get no better mileage there, despite the incredible cost of fuel, than they do here (which is to say mid-sized SUV sort of mileage). If decades of great incentives based on the price of fuel hasn’t caused European/Asian makers to produce the 50 mpg “full sized” sedan, there’s a reason there, and it isn’t Detroit or Washington.

“….Mercedes-Benz unveiled two new diesel car models during the North American International Auto Show 2006 in Detroit: the E 320 BLUETEC and a full-size diesel SUV named Vision GL 320 BLUETEC. The E 320 BLUETEC will be launched this fall in the US market. The Vision GL 320 BLUETEC is still a concept vehicle with no market launch date.

Both vehicles use the same V6 diesel engine developing 155 kW (211 hp) and 540 Nm torque. The engine features 4 valves per cylinder, a common-rail fuel injection with piezoelectric injectors, a variable geometry turbocharger, and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). The fuel economy is 6.7 l/100 km (35 mpg) in the E 320 and 9.4 l/100 km (25 mpg) in the Vision GL 320, thus representing a fuel saving of 20-40% compared to gasoline engines with similar power rating.

Again, the simple answer as to why is obvious, there just is no available technology to do beter, and the blame for that can’t be placed on the big oil/Detroit/gov’t trio.

It looks like you and you agree again….

 That doesn’t explain why makers from abroad aren’t doing it now. That’s the hole in your theory that oil/Detriot/gov’t has been retarding advancements. BTW, you continue to ignore the massive amounts already spend in join gov’t/Detroit research on this subject for at least the last 14 years.

… but they are.

 Reread my post, “achieving anything other that forcing small, largely unwanted cars into the market place”. And what did Detroit do to get around CAFÉ, which forced them to produce low demand, low profit cars? They stopped building the family station wagon and started building minivans and SUVs which were in demand and didn’t count in the CAFÉ stats as they weren’t covered.

Just what I’ve been saying- they used loopholes that COULD have been closed, but were not. Why in the 9/11 era weren’t they?

 Linking 9/11 to the world’s need for oil is to completely misunderstand the stated aims of the terrorists.

I may have overshot with the 9/11 / iraq invasion statement, but EVERYONE (save you) can see that we need to do what ever possible NOW to wean off our over indulgence on oil-- 

BTW, hydrogen cells require, you guessed it, oil.

Michael Taylor, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, August 5, 2001

For the day-in, day-out, long-haul auto commuter, it would seem to be ideal: a peppy car that gets 40-plus miles to a gallon of fuel and, to boot, has an engine that could last half a million miles without an overhaul.

Sound interesting? Got your checkbook out? Well, you can have one if you live in Europe. But not here.

The big sensation in France, Germany, Switzerland and other nations in Western Europe these days is the new, cleaner diesel engine.

You see them in the popular Mercedes-Benz A-series cars (Mercedes' answer to the Honda Civic), the BMW 530d and the Renault Laguna -- none of them sold in North America. And unless you pop open the fuel filler door and see that it calls for diesel, you would be hard put to tell the difference between these cars and their gas-powered cousins.

[quote=skeedaddy] [quote=dude]

Look, if conditions are soooooo bad in Cuba/South
America then why are US suicide rates higher?  There is not one South
American country where suicide rates are as high as the US. 

[/quote]

Are you counting the 1 million or so Cubans that have crossed the Florida
straits in home made boats? That's it...I'm outta here.
















Moron.

[/quote]

Thanks for the confidence Skee.......

between 1968 and 1978 over 400,000 americans left the states for Canada alone, not including other countries (only 50,000 were draft age males interestingly).  It is often the case that a country will have a dramatic increase in emmigrants during turbulent times (like Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union and contiunued economic sanctions).  People were starving and the Cuban economy shrank dramatically because they were sucking on Russia's tit which was no longer there for them.  Amazingly, the number of Cuban refugees has dropped dramatically since they have made the changes that I was speaking about in making a case that we might be able to learn something from them.  In addition the Evil Castro stopped patrolling beaches and made it easier for them to leave during the 1994 mass exodus.

http://www.culturalorientation.net/cubans/histo6.htm

It's often a good idea to judge based on more current info there Skee.

Excerpt:

Other findings in the annual WHO report include:
· In Europe, health systems in Mediterranean countries such as France, Italy, and Spain are rated higher than others in the continent. Norway is the highest Scandinavian nation, at 11th.
· Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, and Cuba are rated highest among the Latin American nations-22nd, 33rd, 36th, and 39th in the world, respectively.

http://www.internationalliving.com/qol06

Now, Skee Can you debate the WHO saying that Cuba is among the best quality of life countries in South America?   In fact they rank 39 out of 193. 

Sorry to rain on your parade bud.  But you are a dinosaur in your understanding of this issue.

It's nice being a moron.  Hugs 'n Kisses.

My whole case concerning Cuba is that the quality of life there is much better than most Americans are led to believe (as validated by the WHO mind you).  Our news dramatizes certain issues and presents them in a light that exagerrates the negative.

[quote=dude]

    The Saudi families, in Los Angeles and Orlando, requested the F.B.I. escorts because they said they were concerned for their safety in the wake of the attacks, and the F.B.I. - which was then beginning the biggest criminal investigation in its history - arranged to have agents escort them to their local airports, the documents show.

[/quote]

And the problem with that would be?

[quote=dude]

    But F.B.I. officials reacted angrily, both internally and publicly, to the suggestion that any Saudis had received preferential treatment in leaving the country.

    "I say baloney to any inference we red-carpeted any of this entourage," an F.B.I. official said in a 2003 internal note. Another F.B.I. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this week regarding the airport escorts that "we'd do that for anybody if they felt they were threatened - we wouldn't characterize that as special treatment."

[/quote]

That's the FBI laughing at you, dude.

  [quote=dude]  

    The Sept. 11 commission examined the Saudi flights in its final report last year, and it found that no Saudis had been allowed to leave before national airspace was reopened on Sept. 13, 2001; that there was no evidence of "political intervention" by the White House; and that the F.B.I. had done a "satisfactory screening" of the departing Saudis to ensure they did not have information relevant to the attacks.

    The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, with major passages heavily deleted, do not appear to contradict directly any of those central findings, but they raise some new questions about the episode.

[/quote]

Note the part in red, Dude. The 9/11 Commission report IS NOT contradicted.

[quote=dude]

    The F.B.I. records show, for instance, that prominent Saudi citizens left the United States on several flights that had not been previously disclosed in public accounts, including a chartered flight from Providence, R.I., on Sept. 14, 2001, that included at least one member of the Saudi royal family, and three flights from Las Vegas between Sept. 19 and Sept. 24, also carrying members of the Saudi royal family. The government began reopening airspace on Sept. 13, but many flights remained grounded for days afterward.

[/quote]

Again, what's the problem here?

[quote=dude]

    The three Las Vegas flights, with a total of more than 100 passengers, ferried members of the Saudi royal family and staff members who had been staying at Caesar's Palace and the Four Seasons hotels. The group had tried unsuccessfully to charter flights back to Saudi Arabia between Sept. 13 and Sept. 17 because they said they feared for their safety as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks, the F.B.I. documents say.

    Once the group managed to arrange chartered flights out of the country, an unidentified prince in the Las Vegas group "thanked the F.B.I. for their assistance," according to one internal report. The F.B.I. had interviewed many members of the group and searched their planes before allowing them to leave, but it nonetheless went back to the Las Vegas hotels with subpoenas five days after the initial flight had departed to collect further information on the Saudi royal guests, the documents show.

[/quote]

Once again, the problem here is? The FBI talked to them, they didn't leave before the ban was lifted....

[quote=dude]

    In several other cases, Saudi travelers were not interviewed before departing the country, and F.B.I. officials sought to determine how what seemed to be lapses had occurred, the documents show.

    The F.B.I. documents left open the possibility that some departing Saudis had information relevant to the Sept. 11 investigation.

[/quote]

And that possibility relates to your "Bush let the bin Laden family leave while all flights were grounded and before the FBI talked to them" fantasy?

 [quote=dude]

    Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, called for further investigation.

    "This lends credence to the theory that the administration was not coming fully clean about their involvement with the Saudis," he said, "and we still haven't gotten to the bottom of this whole affair."

[/quote]

As usual, Schumer talks out his, er, hat....

[quote=dude]

Special treatment of the Saudis by the FBI,

[/quote]

"Special treatment" of foreign citizens who feared for their lives. Wow, that's just horrible...the FBI should have told them "Hey, raghead, we couldn't care less"...

[quote=dude]

undisclosed flights out of Las Vegas (not in your holy 911 commission report),

[/quote]

Because they didn't involve the bin Laden family, which was the Micheal Moore smear you continue to try to sell...

[quote=dude]

Saudis allowed to leave while most flights were grounded

[/quote]

BZZZZZ, wrong, the airspace was open. The fact that they got off the ground before others did doesn't mean they violated a air flight ban.

[quote=dude]

all in the wake of the largest criminal investigation in the FBI's history (911 obviously). 

[/quote]

Right, the FBI should have kept all Arabs on the gorund until a body cavity search had been completed...

[quote=dude]

These are the folks that may have given us a head start on tracking down Bin Laden (the real enemy, not Saddam). 

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, say who? YOU?

[quote=dude]

Point is that these folks should have been more thoroughly questioned and it appears they were given red carpet treatment. 

[/quote]

I wasn't aware you ran the FBI and knew the details of the investigation.

[quote=dude]

You are a piece of work if you think that it's coincidence ...

[/quote]

Your tinfoil hat is slipping....

[quote=dude]

these folks were accomodated and helped by the FBI, instead of being grilled by the FBI. 

[/quote]

Those that the FBI wanted to talk to "grill" if it makes you happy, were. Others who felt at risk were assisted. I would expect the same would be done for Americans abroad who felt at risk.

[quote=dude]

 At minimum this speaks to major incompetence in the Bush administrations ability to supervise and direct activities concerning the most tragic crime to be committed on our soil.

[/quote]

Again, ROFLMAO.....

[quote=dude]

Frankly I don't believe it's a coincidence.  The Saudis shouldn't have been thanking us for our assistance, they should have left irritated at being grilled and interrogated. 

[/quote]

You're certifiable, Dude. They saw 3,000 people dead and weren't offended to be questioned about it and YOU make that into a conspiracy.

[quote=dude]

 If there was a possiblity that one of those who were swiftly escorted out of our country ...

[/quote]

Again, dude, you're dreaming. "Swiftly escorted", these people were questioned.

[quote=dude]

Whatever, your love for your idol is blinding you. 

[/quote]

Your conspiracy lunacy is really one for the books. In this entire, lengthy tirade you've yet to provide a single shread of evidence to support your assertion that "Bush let the bin Laden family leave while all flights were grounded and before the FBI talked to them". You even manage to carry your conspiracy theory to the point where the entire bi-partisan 9/11 Commission is in on it.

Really, dude, seek help....

[quote=dude]

You definitley think like a dumb broad.  [/quote]

Dude's entire "argument" summed up in a single sentence...

Maybe it would have been more accurate to say that the saudis were allowed to leave before being interrogated.   The point is the same MikeB.......No real due dilligence......incompetence.

Yes they were escorted out of the country without quality interrogation. 

You must not have read the article I posted, which clearly validates the position I take.

You on the otherhand are a spin doctor and not worthy of engaging with.

[quote=dude][quote=skeedaddy] [quote=dude]

Look, if conditions are soooooo bad in Cuba/South
America then why are US suicide rates higher?  There is not one South
American country where suicide rates are as high as the US. 

[/quote]

Are you counting the 1 million or so Cubans that have crossed the Florida
straits in home made boats? That's it...I'm outta here.
















Moron.

[/quote]

Thanks for the confidence Skee.......

between 1968 and 1978 over 400,000 americans left the states for Canada alone, not including other countries (only 50,000 were draft age males interestingly).  It is often the case that a country will have a dramatic increase in emmigrants during turbulent times (like Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union and contiunued economic sanctions).  People were starving and the Cuban economy shrank dramatically because they were sucking on Russia's tit which was no longer there for them.  Amazingly, the number of Cuban refugees has dropped dramatically since they have made the changes that I was speaking about in making a case that we might be able to learn something from them.  In addition the Evil Castro stopped patrolling beaches and made it easier for them to leave during the 1994 mass exodus.

http://www.culturalorientation.net/cubans/histo6.htm

It's often a good idea to judge based on more current info there Skee.

Excerpt:

Other findings in the annual WHO report include:
· In Europe, health systems in Mediterranean countries such as France, Italy, and Spain are rated higher than others in the continent. Norway is the highest Scandinavian nation, at 11th.
· Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, and Cuba are rated highest among the Latin American nations-22nd, 33rd, 36th, and 39th in the world, respectively.

http://www.internationalliving.com/qol06

Now, Skee Can you debate the WHO saying that Cuba is among the best quality of life countries in South America?   In fact they rank 39 out of 193. 

Sorry to rain on your parade bud.  But you are a dinosaur in your understanding of this issue.

It's nice being a moron.  Hugs 'n Kisses.

[/quote]

I'd like to add that that puts Cuba in the top 20% of countries as far as quality of life is concerned, which is the crux of the debate here. 

Hey MikeB,

Isn't the 911 commission report you keep on citing the same one that said there was no material link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

C'mon now, think quick.  Oops, I forgot it's hard to see straight when everythings always spinning.

You want <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Washington to “channel production”? Production is channeled by demand, not by government edict. It’s a far stronger incentive than anything Washington could do.  <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Gov’t channels technology all the time, and usually at the behest or in conjunction with the industry being effected-

Gov't sucks at innovation, the best they can do, and they often fail at it, is amend existing laws and regs in a timely manner to allow a new technology to go forward. I simply don't have the faith you do in gov't "channeling" (read: commanding) and industry.

Who wouldn’t buy a higher mileage version of the kind of car they wanted? The fact is the technology wouldn’t emerge as if by magic with a gov’t edict, and it hasn’t due to consumer demand. And why not? Again, the simpliest answer is because there’s simply no way possible, right now, to make a car people really want in large numbers that makes 50 mpg.

1. I’ve outlined why people partly don’t want smaller cars- its more complicated than “just because”

That wasn't my question, the question was why aren't others offering a high mpg version of the cars they do want. BTW, just what’s your theory on why people don’t consider a 505 sized car a “family sedan”? 

2. I’ve pointed out the technology is largely available and has been for a long time

Yeah, you've said that, but you've failed to point out an example of it in use anywhere in vehicles sized to the US market.

3. I’ve pointed out that retooling on a scale large enough to matter would cost Detroit BILLIONS of dollars

And you failed to notice that amount has already been spent in join gov't/Detroit research programs in the past 15 years.

4. I suggested that the BILLIONS would still be but a fraction of the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in cost to conquor countries to stablize the region, for what? Our high moral regard for democracy in the Mid-East? No its all about the oil in the sand-

Yeah, terrorism is about "oil in the sand"... I suggest you read what the terrorists themselves say it's about. Hint, it's about religion...

You wanted Washington to pass higher CAFÉ standards which would have resulted in a number of things, as it did last time. The first is the possibility of fines if a car maker’s average fuel economy is below a set point.

Not likely- Washington works w/ Big Auto to be reasonable and flexible-

The law's teeth are the fines for failing to hit CAFE standards. You're aware of this. Detroit knows how to use a calculator, at least well enough to know how to produce an average within the law.

Car makers get around this by offering just as many high mileage, low demand, death trap (see below) cars as it takes to increase their average so that they can offer the higher profit, lower mileage cars people demand. Second would have been lighter, smaller and more dangerous cars (again, see below).

No- this will be mandated on vehicles SOLD, not merely produced.

You figure there's a vast difference between the number sold and the number produced? Really?

Washington didn’t create HDTV or high-speed internet (in fact, they held up both with antiqued regulations).

Wrong- research it again- it was the INDUSTRY which sought out uniform standards from Washington-they stayed collectively involved as the technology evolved-

There's a world of difference between what the gov't does (helping set a uniform standard when an emerging technology meets a fork in the road) and creating a new technology. When HDTV designers felt that there needed to be a uniform standard o the ferquencies used for HDTV, gov't, which holds the frequencies, stepped in. That's far, far different than depending on gov't to innovate.

AFTER the public showed interest and AFTER the technology was available, Washington made (and very, very slowly) changes to existing laws and regulation to help those products and services blossom. Washington is anything, anything but the home of innovation.

You either forget or still don’t realize that the technology is largely already around-

Again, where's your example? With all the financial incentives in place, where's the 50 mpg US sized car produced by any maker from anywhere?

 Now you’re talking about a top to bottom realignment of the industrial world, from every vehicle driven to every manufacturing machine, etc, etc, etc on a technology you can’t even name. That may someday happen, but I find that placing the blame that it’s not happening now on the US automakers to be too far a stretch to be rational.

What I’m saying is already roundly accepted, non-controversial and pretty durn obvious- the US got behind b/c they didn’t guard against the worst case scenario-

Which might make sense if you could point to some technology that emerged and is in use from some area OUTSIDE the auspices of the Detroit/gov't  “failure to plan” group. If you were able, for example to say "See, the Japanese are selling a full sized sedan in the US that gets 50 mpg" you might have a point.

 Huh? The SUV wave began before 1990, if 16 years isn’t enough time for some manufacturer to come on line with a high mileage version, the simplest answer is because there’s no such available technology. If anything the europen/asian manufacturers have been in an economic situation for decades where there’s been massive incentive to produce these super high mpg vehicles, but they haven’t.

“…31 January 2006: The sales of diesel cars in Europe countinue to increase, according to a new survey by Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Diesels accounted for 49% of the total European car market at the end of 2005, a 7% increase compared to the prior 12 month period. Diesels are most popular in Belgium (72%), France (70%), Spain (68%), and Austria (66%); they are not popular in Sweden (9%) and Greece (1%).

Yeah, and a diesels aren’t selling much these days here because they disappeared from the US for years, because they pollute more than a gas engine. In fact, when Mercedes brought back the e320 ci in 2003, it couldn’t be sold in California, Maine, Maryland, New York, and Vermont because it couldn’t pass emissions tests there.

I’m hoping newer clean diesel technology catches on again. I’ve owned diesels in the past.

Instead, they’ve done what the technology allows, which is to stuff people into tiny cars the average American wouldn’t buy (when I lived in the UK the tiny 505 was referred to as a “family sedan” and my Volvo was a limo). Furthermore, their larger vehicles, the Volvos and Mercedes sedans, get no better mileage there, despite the incredible cost of fuel, than they do here (which is to say mid-sized SUV sort of mileage). If decades of great incentives based on the price of fuel hasn’t caused European/Asian makers to produce the 50 mpg “full sized” sedan, there’s a reason there, and it isn’t Detroit or Washington.

“….Mercedes-Benz unveiled two new diesel car models during the North American International Auto Show 2006 in Detroit: the E 320 BLUETEC and a full-size diesel SUV named Vision GL 320 BLUETEC. The E 320 BLUETEC will be launched this fall in the US market. The Vision GL 320 BLUETEC is still a concept vehicle with no market launch date.

Nifty. The CURRENT E320  CDI  gets 27/37,  the gas version gets  20/28. Where’s that 50 mpg car already in use again? Why are you quoting a source about something that isn’t even available yet here?

Again, the simple answer as to why is obvious, there just is no available technology to do beter, and the blame for that can’t be placed on the big oil/Detroit/gov’t trio.

It looks like you and you agree again….

Looks like you don’t have an answer, again…..

 That doesn’t explain why makers from abroad aren’t doing it now. That’s the hole in your theory that oil/Detriot/gov’t has been retarding advancements. BTW, you continue to ignore the massive amounts already spend in join gov’t/Detroit research on this subject for at least the last 14 years.

… but they are.

Name them. Where’s that 50 mpg sedan for sale in the US?

 Reread my post, “achieving anything other that forcing small, largely unwanted cars into the market place”. And what did Detroit do to get around CAFÉ, which forced them to produce low demand, low profit cars? They stopped building the family station wagon and started building minivans and SUVs which were in demand and didn’t count in the CAFÉ stats as they weren’t covered.

Just what I’ve been saying- they used loopholes that COULD have been closed, but were not. Why in the 9/11 era weren’t they?

Because no one is willing to force people into tiny cars that cost lives (your own source again) for minimal gains in oil usage efficiency.  IOW, they understand what “fungible” means. ;)

 Linking 9/11 to the world’s need for oil is to completely misunderstand the stated aims of the terrorists.

I may have overshot with the 9/11 / iraq invasion statement,

Fair enough.

 but EVERYONE (save you) can see that we need to do what ever possible NOW to wean off our over indulgence on oil--  

 I fully support the introduction of more fuel efficient, SAFE cars. What I find objectionable is your assertion that some nifty new technology would already be in use if only Detroit and gov’t not gotten in the way.

BTW, hydrogen cells require, you guessed it, oil.

This from the “…but its only a little tiny fraction of 10% of the global oil demand..” guy?

Is that your way of admitting that fuel cells require oil?

[quote=dude]

Maybe it would have been more accurate to say that the saudis were allowed to leave before being interrogated.   The point is the same MikeB.......No real due dilligence......incompetence.

[/quote]

Nope. The people on the specific plane that you've been talking about since day one were interrogated.

[quote=dude]

Yes they were escorted out of the country without quality interrogation. 

[/quote]

Wrong, yet again...

[quote=dude]

You must not have read the article I posted, which clearly validates the position I take.

[/quote]

You must be joking, that article says specifically that the 9/11 Commission report was not contradicted by anything.

[quote=dude]

You on the otherhand are a spin doctor and not worthy of engaging with.

[/quote]

yawn... dude, doing the knight with no arms and legs in the Monty Python flick "I'm not hurt".... 

[quote=dude]

Hey MikeB,

Isn't the 911 commission report you keep on citing the same one that said there was no material link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

[/quote]

Funny you should ask, no, it isn't. (BTW, your insistence that the 9/11 Commission is involved in some sort of conspiracy is, well, nevermind..  )

Enjoy....

From a piece by Christopher Hitchens<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton administration, when they attacked Khartoum (the infamous "aspirin factory) on the grounds that "Iraqi weapons-scientists" were linked to Bin Laden's factory and that the suggestive chemical EMPTA, detected at the site, was used only by Iraq to make VX nerve gas. At the time, Clarke defended the bombing in almost the same words, telling the press that he was "sure" that "intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Here's a bit more you might want to digest;

Both the Times and the Post based their reporting on a single paragraph, written by the staff of the September 11 Commission, which conceded a few ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda but said there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two. The findings, revealed in the commission's last hearing on June 17, were preliminary, and the apparent rush by some in the press to deny any Iraq-al Qaeda relationship left commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton baffled. "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this," Hamilton told reporters. "The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

Now, with the release of the commission's final report, it is clear what Hamilton and Cheney were talking about. The final report details a much more extensive set of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda than the earlier staff statement. It also modifies the original "no collaborative relationship" description, now saying there was "no collaborative operational relationship" (emphasis added) between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And it suggests a significant amount of contact and communication between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden.

The report describes a time in 1996 when bin Laden, newly arrived in Afghanistan, could not be sure "that the Taliban would be his best bet as an ally." In 1997, the report says, bin Laden began making his Taliban sponsors nervous with a number of flamboyant and militant statements. At the time it seemed possible that bin Laden, who had gone to Afghanistan after being forced out of Sudan, might find himself at odds with his new hosts. What then? The report says bin Laden appears to have reached out to Saddam Hussein:

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
Since Saddam wasn't interested, the report says, nothing came of the contacts. But by the next year, Saddam, struggling under increasing pressure from the United States, appeared to have changed his mind, and there were more talks:

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
The meetings went on, the report says, until Iraq offered to formalize its relationship with al Qaeda:

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.
The report goes on to say that the September 11 investigators found "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Nevertheless, top U.S. officials were so worried about the possibility of an Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration that they took care not to provoke bin Laden into a closer relationship with Saddam. In February 1999, for example, the CIA proposed U-2 aerial-surveillance missions over Afghanistan. The report says that Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, worried that the mission might spook bin Laden into leaving Afghanistan for somewhere where it might be even more difficult for American forces to reach him:

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.

From a CNN report

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's Capitol Report. "It goes back to the early 90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery. (Full story)

Commission chairman Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, downplayed any conflict at a news conference following Thursday's hearings.

"What we have found is, Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," Kean said.

Vice-chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, said that the reported differences "are not that apparent to me."

Commission member James Thompson told CNN on Friday that the controversy was "a little mystifying."

"We said that there is no evidence to support the notion that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein collaborated to produce 9/11," the former Illinois governor said. "President Bush said that weeks ago, he said it again yesterday. Vice President Cheney said it again yesterday."

He said that the report agreed with the administration's position that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.

"They may be in possession of information about contacts beyond those that we found." Thompson said. "I don't know, that wasn't any of our business. Our business was 9/11."

MikeB,

We are behind in this area (energy conservation) because most of our leaders are nearsighted fools (especially the current White House) with their heads in the sand (just like you), saying it's impossible......just like the oil lobby wants them to (but according to you, it's probably a conspiracy theory to think that politicians are influenced by the oil lobbies' $$$$'s).  There are many, many solutions to this problem that could have been solved if we had actually done something permanent back in the 70's, but oil got cheap in 1985 and it was easier to stick our heads in the sand (like you). 

You think it's impossible because you are uneducated on the alternatives (not just in energy but infrastructural and lifestyle changes that use less energy as well) and/or are an ignorant gluttonous American who is unwilling to change your behaviors to use less energy (unfortunately theres a lot of you's out there if that's the case). 

It will be a major change in lifestyle for all Americans to implement the necessary steps to greater (key word here) energy independence.  We have not been educated as a culture of conservers so there is a steep learning curve.  We seem to think we have a 'right' to our current lifestyle, unfortunatley it is unsustainable as it currently stands.

 
Sorry to say MikeB, but the wars we'll end up fighting (economic or military) over competing for resources in the future will have an exponentially higher cost than reducing the need NOW.  If you don't think that there is greater turbulence to come due to China, India and many other emerging economies insatiable thirst for oil than you are a fool indeed.

On boat people leaving Cuba

between 1968 and 1978 over 400,000 americans left the states for Canada alone, not including other countries (only 50,000 were draft age males interestingly).  It is often the case that a country will have a dramatic increase in emmigrants during turbulent times (like Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union and contiunued economic sanctions). 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

[/quote]

Nope. The people on the specific plane that you've been talking about since day one were interrogated.

[/quote]

I never addressed a specific plane (there were multiple flights).  The whole article is based on the premise that there is validity to the claims that the Saudis were not interrogated.  The article articulates that it seems the FBI was more of an escort service and did SOME questioning, but definitley not the kind of interrogation you would expect.  

Your above quote is another example of the spin master at work (claiming I was addressing a specific plane).

Your narrowness is worthy of applause.  You don't read anything to understand the full point, you're just interested in finding any miniscule ambiguity and exploit it to spin, spin, spin.  You're great at seeing the trees, but your missing the forest.  Out of everyone I have debated with, you take the cake for not being able to understand the meaning of what someone is trying to articulate. 

I find it entertaining that the conservative platform has been highjacked by suckers like you.  The modern conservative ideology is sooooo far from what true conservative values are, it's disgusting.  A whole bunch of double speaking vultures, scheming and manipulating to line their own pockets and feed their own ego's.  You make a great pawn MikeB; you're the consumate "company man".  Are you sure you never worked for Edward Jones?  I see more kool aid drinking from you than any other poster.

MikeB said:

Funny you should ask, no, it isn't. (BTW, your insistence that the 9/11 Commission is involved in some sort of conspiracy is, well, nevermind..  )

Reply:

Spin, Spin, Spin baby.  You never cease to amaze and/or flat out lie.  Never insisted that. 

But then again I wouldn’t put it past you to lie, it is consistent with your leader’s approach. 

That wasn't my question, the question was why aren't others offering a high mpg version of the cars they do want. BTW, just what’s your theory on why people don’t consider a 505 sized car a “family sedan”? 

I don't know which of you guys wrote this but here is why.  Most of the high mpg versions or even a V6 engine don't have enough horsepower to accomplish the functions that a V8 powered vehicle can.  People won't buy them so why should they offer something that will only drive the auto industry further into bankrupcy?   When they make a hybrid that can pull a loaded trailer or haul a boat up a hill, then it will sell.   If all you need a vehicle for is to commute on a urban crowded freeway in level terrain and don't need to have the power to pass a loaded semi truck on an uphill grade in the snow, then a prius or any other ugly sh*tcan will do.  Ugly is the other operative word.

As for a "family sedan": the seatbelt rules and car seat restrictions make it difficult if not impossible to have more than 2 adults and 2 children in a car. Try to shove 2 kids in carseats, a weeks worth of groceries and assorted toys or children's paraphanalia into your "family sedan". If your children have friends or you have more than 2 children you are S.O.L. or you need to take more than one car to transport everyone.  Kind of defeats the purpose of cutting back on mpg if you have to use more cars to accomplish the same function. That is why more people with families gravitate to SUV or van type vehicles.  

Young yuppie types with no children can get away with smaller vehicles.  Form follows function.

The article quoted clearly states:

The F.B.I. documents left open the possibility that some departing Saudis had information relevant to the Sept. 11 investigation.

This is the crux of the issue MikeB, that folks who were likely to have pertinent info were allowed to leave, this is either major incompetence or favorable treatment for "friends".  I have never claimed that I know which it is (slashing down your conspiracy accusations).  I tend to lean towards the major incompetence conclusion since there is much more evidence supporting that idea. 

I think Bush ultimately believes in what he's doing and don't think he was involved in orchestrating the 911 attacks (contrary to your spin doctoring accusations).  I just think he's a moronic puppet with a lot left to desire as far a a president goes.

I don't believe that oil companies are in some dark room trying to vie for world domination either.  I just think it's a natural outcropping of wanting to protect your primary business and leveraging whatever resources you can to achieve a desired outcome.  The problem is that it is unbalanced to think that every citizen in every developed and developing nation is entitled to drive a car and have all the luxuries that oil provides, since that is clearly unsustainable and would be very environmentally destructive.  That leaves us to question:  Why are we entitled to that luxury and not others?  Why are we entitled to consume exponentially more resources than other nations (many of the resources coming from those other nations)?  What is the result of strong arming other nations through unenlightened political or economic policies?

My conclusion is that the result is a lot of pissed off poor people who want us to leave them alone, hence 911.  More to come unless we realize that beating heads doesn't solve problems (although is sometimes necessary as in the pursuit of Bin Laden).

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

[/quote]

Nope. The people on the specific plane that you've been talking about since day one were interrogated.

[/quote]

I never addressed a specific plane (there were multiple flights). 

[/quote]

A complete and total lie. You repeated Michael Moore's lie about a specific flight of bin Laden's family. I gave you the 9/11 Commission's report on the subject, you've been howling ever since...

[quote=dude][

 The whole article is based on the premise that there is validity to the claims that the Saudis were not interrogated.  The article articulates that it seems the FBI was more of an escort service and did SOME questioning, but definitley not the kind of interrogation you would expect.  

[/quote]

spare me.... now you're an expert on FBI interrogation techniques....

<----- childish whining of a guy caught repeating a long disproved Micheal Moore lie snipped--------------------->

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

[/quote]

Nope. The people on the specific plane that you've been talking about since day one were interrogated.

[/quote]

I never addressed a specific plane (there were multiple flights). 

[/quote]

A complete and total lie. You repeated Michael Moore's lie about a specific flight of bin Laden's family. I gave you the 9/11 Commission's report on the subject, you've been howling ever since...

[quote=dude][

 The whole article is based on the premise that there is validity to the claims that the Saudis were not interrogated.  The article articulates that it seems the FBI was more of an escort service and did SOME questioning, but definitley not the kind of interrogation you would expect.  

[/quote]

spare me.... now you're an expert on FBI interrogation techniques....

<----- childish whining of a guy caught repeating a long disproved Micheal Moore lie snipped--------------------->

[/quote]

As far as Michael Moore, I have never seen Farenheight 911 or care much for Moore in general.  As far as your acusations of me not being truthful, you can go f*ck yourself.  I have never claimed that it was a one flight deal.  I did make a broad general statement about Bush letting the Saudis and Bin Laden family leave without questioning.  Certainly the statement is not 100% accurate if you are being a narrow literalist.  I think that the larger point of these saudis leaving without an interrogation is the key here and clearly has been my point all along.  But then again you only see trees. 

Sometimes I wonder if you're autistic MikeB. 

[quote=dude]

The article quoted clearly states:

The F.B.I. documents left open the possibility that some departing Saudis had information relevant to the Sept. 11 investigation.

This is the crux of the issue MikeB, that folks who were likely to have pertinent info were allowed to leave, ....

[/quote]

Spin, lie, blather, repeat.

Wrong, dude, you specificially repeated the lie about bin Laden's family being allowed, by the Whitehouse, to leave before the FBI talked to them and while US airspace was closed.  I've given you enough evidence to convince any rational person (that would be everyone but conspiracy consumed people like you) that that didn't happen.

NOW you try to come back with a pathetic attempt to weave the comment "the FBI left open" into something it isn't.

 [quote=dude]

I ..... don't think he was involved in orchestrating the 911 attacks (contrary to your spin doctoring accusations). 

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, so it's "spin doctoring accusations" to point out that the website YOU OFFERED as proof that the 9/11 Commission was wrong about the bin Laden flight was the very same website that shouts the "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!".

You're either a fool, liar or a mixture of the two...

[quote=dude]

My conclusion is that the result is a lot of pissed off poor people who want us to leave them alone, hence 911.  [/quote]

Typical deluded theory about "hence 9/11" from someone who's never studied what the people behind 9/11 say are their reasons and goals, BUT has spent an eternity swimming in the "blame America first" pool...

[quote=dude]

As far as Michael Moore, I have never seen Farenheight 911 or care much for Moore in general. 

[/quote]

Nah, it's pure accident that you quoted directly the smear from his movie....

[quote=dude]

  I did make a broad general statement about Bush letting the Saudis and Bin Laden family leave without questioning.  Certainly the statement is not 100% accurate if you are being a narrow literalist. 

[/quote]

"Not 100% accurate"????? How about 100% FALSE?????

[quote=dude]

 I think that the larger point of these saudis leaving without an interrogation is the key here and clearly has been my point all along. 

[/quote]

A point you STILL claim, and all based on "The FBI left open"???????

BTW, it  hasn't been your point all along. Your point had to do with a claim that the Whitehouse interfered with the FBI, let bin Laden's family go while no one else could fly and before the FBI had a chance to talk to them. Your "point" is fiction.

ROFLMAO, so it's "spin doctoring accusations" to point out that the website YOU OFFERED as proof that the 9/11 Commission was wrong about the bin Laden flight was the very same website that shouts the "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!".

Wrong again bud,  I put the link that showed that Richard Clarke admitted that High level Saudis and members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave while much of the US air infrastructure was still grounded. 

I admit that there was some inaccuracy to the EXACT statment I originally made.  Probably because I have a life and don't make it my hobby to know everything.  I was quoting generalized knowledge that I've read in my travels and found the website in response to our debate.  I have articulated time and time again Mike that I do not endorse that websites conclusions even though the reported story is accurate (about Richard Clarke, who was a member of Bush's administration at the time).

Frankly, mikeB I can see that you care about this sh*t way more than I do and I get tired of your completely fraudulent spin strategies.  I have no more interest in discussing this topic.

[quote=babbling looney]

That wasn't my question, the question was why aren't others offering a high mpg version of the cars they do want. BTW, just what’s your theory on why people don’t consider a 505 sized car a “family sedan”? 

I don't know which of you guys wrote this but here is why.  Most of the high mpg versions or even a V6 engine don't have enough horsepower to accomplish the functions that a V8 powered vehicle can. 

[/quote]

I was the one that asked and I agree with your points.

The point of my question was to have Tex explain why no other country's car makers, unaffected by the mistakes and oversights of Detroit/oil/gov't , has introduced a 50 mpg family car, since his point is that the only reason we don't have it now is the errors of the above trio.

If the technology was really currently possible, it would be in use by someone outside D/O/G's control as we speak, and they'd be selling them by the boatload right here. It isn't, and they aren't, which leads me to conclude that for all of D/O/G's sins, stopping a technology that would double the US car fleet's mpg isn't one.

BTW, it  hasn't been your point all along. Your point had to do with a claim that the Whitehouse interfered with the FBI, let bin Laden's family go while no one else could fly and before the FBI had a chance to talk to them. Your "point" is fiction.

Reply:

Again, lies and spin doctoring.  I never claimed that the White House interfered with anything.  My claim is that they are incompetent.  You are a joke.  And I'm a fool to keep getting sucked in.........

[quote=dude]

ROFLMAO, so it's "spin doctoring accusations" to point out that the website YOU OFFERED as proof that the 9/11 Commission was wrong about the bin Laden flight was the very same website that shouts the "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!".

Wrong again bud,  I put the link that showed that Richard Clarke admitted that High level Saudis and members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave while much of the US air infrastructure was still grounded. 

[/quote]

Now you're just getting sad, dude. Your link was to a "9/11 was an inside job" site. I was the one who pointed out that Bush critic Richard Clarke said HE was the one that approved the flight.

BTW, "while much of the US air infrastructure was still grounded" is some pretty lame spin. US airspace was OPEN. The fact that the bin Laden family left in their private plane while much of the airlines hadn't reorganized themselves to get in the air means NOTHING. It's an attempt to make some nefarious connnection that just isn't warranted.

[quote=dude]

I admit that there was some inaccuracy to the EXACT statment I originally made. 

[/quote]

"Some inaccuaracy"??? It was 100% false, and I've proved it often enough.

[quote=dude]

  I was quoting generalized knowledge that I've read in my travels and found the website in response to our debate. 

[/quote]

You were being the typical ill-informed liberal grasping onto a long disproved smear. Worse yet, you still cling to it.

[quote=dude]

 I have articulated time and time again Mike that I do not endorse that websites conclusions ...

[/quote]

The point wasn't whether or not you agreed with the website's conclusions, the point was wtf are you doing taking ANY info from there, much less info that says the 9/11 Commission was in error/part of a cover-up. BTW, your comments easily suggest you STILL doubt the 9/11 Commission.

Mike,

I don't have as much time as you do (althoug lately I've been spending too much time) to search out the entire internet for an article that illustrates what I've read in other publications and to research the websites.  I had no idea the website I linked to was a 911 inside job site, it was a quick search that resulted in info I was privy to so in the sake of time I just put a quick link.  Never the less the article is accurate and I don't care if it was Richard Clarke who approved the flights.  He was a member of the Bush Admin and therefore his actions reflect on the Bush Admin. 

Like I said over and over, it is an incompetent failure to supervise.   That is my point, period.   This is the sh*t that gets managers in trouble when one of their brokers makes stupid decisions and they are not on top of it.  Why not Bush?  I mean, he only happens to be the president of the US right?

Keep on spining bud.   

I don't have as much time as you do (althoug lately I've been spending too much time)

No kidding 

[quote=dude]

As far as Michael Moore, I have never seen Farenheight 911 or care much for Moore in general. 

[/quote]

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=882& KW=bin+laden+family&PN=0&TPN=39

Although I'm no Michael Moore fan, I applauded his movie Farenheight 911 (even though there were some of the expected biases). 

Why??  Well I knew early on about how the Bush Admin help the Bin Laden family leave the country while all air traffic was grounded (this was when I started to question Bush), and thought it was cool to make that info known to the world. 

from another post in the thread

Also, it was not a lie that high level Saudi's including Bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country while there was a freeze on travel, who knows why it was allowed to happen.

My belief about 911 commission is that it is incomplete, as validated by the additional info recently released (early 2005) and I don't expect that it should be a perfect document that completely reflects all new developments since ongoing research will inevitably uncover more details.  Therefore I don't rest on it as the bible. 

To you the above position = conspiracy theorist, wacko liberal.

Fine.  We should not continue the discussion because I have my doubts about your ability to stay rational.

[quote=dude]

  I had no idea the website I linked to was a 911 inside job site, it was a quick search that resulted in info I was privy to so in the sake of time I just put a quick link. 

[/quote]

Fine dude, but before you provide "proof" from somewhere, a quick look  at what they say would be wise. They came up with that "proof" as part of their "Bush was behind it" theory.

[quote=dude]

Never the less the article is accurate and I don't care if it was Richard Clarke who approved the flights.  He was a member of the Bush Admin and therefore his actions reflect on the Bush Admin. 

[/quote]

You say that as if that changes the fact that YOU accused the Whitehouse of allowing bin Ladin's family to leave before the FBI talked to them and while the airspce was closed. NONE of that was true. So WHAT if Clarke approved flights of people the FBI had spoken to and after the airspace was open? What's the scandle in that?

[quote=dude]

Like I said over and over, it is an incompetent failure to supervise.  

[/quote]

Yeah, you keep saying that, but your example was 100% fiction. At some point you'd think a rational person would admit that.

MikeB

I've never seen the movie.  But I have read reviews and heard others talking about it.  I definitley applauded creating awareness about the issue though at the time.  Since that post, my increased education on the specifics of the event has caused me to dislike Michael Moore's approach.  Never the less read the above post on where I'm coming from.  This is an issue of failure to supervise bro.

[quote=dude]

My belief about 911 commission is that it is incomplete, as validated by the additional info recently released (early 2005)

[/quote]

Name said info...

[quote=dude]

MikeB

I've never seen the movie.  But I have read reviews and heard others talking about it.  I definitley applauded creating awareness about the issue though at the time. 

[/quote]

So you quoted the movie, as I said (and you denied) , and the movie was in error, as I said.

[quote=dude]

 Since that post, my increased education on the specifics of the event has caused me to dislike Michael Moore's approach.

[/quote]

"Dislike" or now know it's lie?

  [quote=dude]Never the less read the above post on where I'm coming from.  This is an issue of failure to supervise bro.

[/quote]

Huh? You get from "the FBI left open" to being certain the FBI didn't talk to people they should AND that the White House is responsible for the actions of some field office?

Come on, this all started with your Moore smear and was twisted from there to infinity.

I like you, dude, if the subject is anything but this. Could we talk about something else?

Gov't sucks at innovation, the best they can do, and they often fail at it, is amend existing laws and regs in a timely manner to allow a new technology to go forward. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Just your vain way of agreeing with me—
I’ve never said Gov’t could innovate anything--

Yeah, you've said that, but you've failed to point out an example of it in use anywhere in vehicles sized to the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US market.

(rewind/play) “Due to lack of demand in other countries….”

And you failed to notice that amount has already been spent in join gov't/Detroit research programs in the past 15 years.

I’ve noticed- less than $2 billion a year for 5.5 yrs- baby steps in the right direction---yet, the budget requests from the White House for funding on energy efficiency has actually fallen 14 per cent in real terms since 2002—one report shows--

Yeah, terrorism is about "oil in the sand"... I suggest you read what the terrorists themselves say it's about. Hint, it's about religion...

I’ve studied diligently the Islamofacist’s and their agenda- have you noticed the millions of other very poor communists, socialist, pagans of other very poor countries and areas who equally would like to destroy us but can’t?
no oil reserves and they cannot export enough tshirts to generate Islamo-type-cash.
Meaningful terrorism takes: agenda and  wherewithal as Pres Bush said:
… "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Mr Bush said in his State of the Union address. "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

You figure there's a vast difference between the number sold and the number produced? Really?

Your inference was that “yeah they’d achieve CAFÉ standards by offering high MPG vehicles, but they’d sell the low MPG ones- I simply pointed out that it’s not as easy as just offering them- the standard will apply to those SOLD.

There's a world of difference between what the gov't does (helping set a uniform standard when an emerging technology meets a fork in the road) and creating a new technology. When HDTV designers felt that there needed to be a uniform standard o the ferquencies used for HDTV, gov't, which holds the frequencies, stepped in. That's far, far different than depending on gov't to innovate.

Again, just your vain way of agreeing with me—I never did say nor would I ever, ever say that Washington could even find its own ass with both hands and a map.

Which might make sense if you could point to some technology that emerged and is in use from some area OUTSIDE the auspices of the Detroit/gov't  “failure to plan” group. If you were able, for example to say "See, the Japanese are selling a full sized sedan in the US that gets 50 mpg" you might have a point.

Good god—why would the jap’s produce a vehicle (or Europeans, Chinese, et al) that their public doesn’t want and can’t afford to fuel/own?

Yeah, and a diesels aren’t selling much these days here because they disappeared from the US for years, because they pollute more than a gas engine. In fact, when Mercedes brought back the e320 ci in 2003, it couldn’t be sold in California, Maine, Maryland, New York, and Vermont because it couldn’t pass emissions tests there.
I’m hoping newer clean diesel technology catches on again. I’ve owned diesels in the past.

This cleaner diesel dream is already happening in Europe where 51% of their cars sold are now this new/old improved technology- this is what I’ve been saying for 3 days.

Nifty. The CURRENT E320  CDI  gets 27/37,  the gas version gets  20/28. Where’s that 50 mpg car already in use again? Why are you quoting a source about something that isn’t even available yet here?

TRANSPORTATION
European Sensation
New day may be dawning for diesel automobiles
Michael Taylor, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, August 5, 2001

For the day-in, day-out, long-haul auto commuter, it would seem to be ideal: a peppy car that gets 40-plus miles to a gallon of fuel and, to boot, has an engine that could last half a million miles without an overhaul.
Sound interesting? Got your checkbook out? Well, you can have one if you live in Europe. But not here.
The big sensation in France, Germany, Switzerland and other nations in Western Europe these days is the new, cleaner diesel engine.
You see them in the popular Mercedes-Benz A-series cars (Mercedes' answer to the Honda Civic), the BMW 530d and the Renault Laguna -- none of them sold in North America. And unless you pop open the fuel filler door and see that it calls for diesel, you would be hard put to tell the difference between these cars and their gas-powered cousins.

Name them. Where’s that 50 mpg sedan for sale in the US?

The one above comes close- simply using clean diesel-
What has the US spent that $10 billion on w/ the research into this issue?
answer: lighter metals, more powerful hybrids, diesel-hybrids, replacing gears, ect with hydraulics--- all this will cost money but everyone, even Pres Bush see’s the importance-
sadly, you appear to have not received the memo-

Because no one is willing to force people into tiny cars that cost lives (your own source again) for minimal gains in oil usage efficiency.  IOW, they understand what “fungible” means. ;)

Really?
Bush has plan to end oil 'addiction'

< = =text/> Wednesday, <st1:date Month=“2” Day=“1” Year=“2006”>February 1, 2006</st1:date>; Posted: <st1:time Hour=“6” Minute=“32”>6:32 a.m. EST</st1:time> (<st1:time Hour=“11” Minute=“32”>11:32 GMT</st1:time>) <o:p></o:p>

 I fully support the introduction of more fuel efficient, SAFE cars. What I find objectionable is your assertion that some nifty new technology would already be in use if only Detroit and gov’t not gotten in the way.

Then you scoff at the American know how, and wherewithal that you otherwise glow about, simply to win an argument?
If Detroit, et al, had been forced (by their own responsible vision and with the help of Washington imposed standards crafted together with Detroit) to work and tweak on the available technology, innovation and ideas over these past 20+ years, due to real world standards and need-----I BELIEVE we would have had by now those vehicles – probably better.    

Is that your way of admitting that fuel cells require oil?

No – more my way of stating that if they do need oil (and my freakin’ vacuum cleaner needs oil for that matter) its not a relevant amount-

Gov't sucks at innovation, the best they can do, and they often fail at it, is amend existing laws and regs in a timely manner to allow a new technology to go forward. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Just your vain way of agreeing with me—
I’ve never said Gov’t could innovate anything--

You're calling for gov't to "channel production". It's the same thing.  Actually, you’re not calling for anything other than the gov’t demanding a new technology for higher mpg cars that they can’t point to and know, based on past events, will cost lives as car makers further the lightening of cars.

Yeah, you've said that, but you've failed to point out an example of it in use anywhere in vehicles sized to the USmarket.

(rewind/play) “Due to lack of demand in other countries….”

Rewind, HERE, why are they not selling it HERE. For many overseas car makers, the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US is their biggest market. There's every financial incentive in the world for them to produce a high mpg version of the size cars the US market wants. They haven't. They've had three decades of much higher fuel costs than the US, yet they haven't produced a technology to accomplish what you claim the US could have done.

And you failed to notice that amount has already been spent in join gov't/Detroit research programs in the past 15 years.

I’ve noticed- less than $2 billion a year for 5.5 yrs- baby steps in the right direction---yet, the budget requests from the White House for funding on energy efficiency has actually fallen 14 per cent in real terms since 2002—one report shows--

Show the "one report". It's 2 BILLION for the last 5.5 years and BILLIONS more for the 6 years prior. And for all that money and interest, very little results. Just an other crack in your D/G/O doesn't care, hasn't tried theory.

Yeah, terrorism is about "oil in the sand"... I suggest you read what the terrorists themselves say it's about. Hint, it's about religion...

I’ve studied diligently the Islamofacist’s and their agenda-

Once again you changed the subject. Yes, they have cash, yes we should become more self-sufficient, that doesn't mean that terrorism has it's roots in oil.

You figure there's a vast difference between the number sold and the number produced? Really?

Your inference was that “yeah they’d achieve CAFÉ standards by offering high MPG vehicles, but they’d sell the low MPG ones- I simply pointed out that it’s not as easy as just offering them- the standard will apply to those SOLD.

I meant, of course, "offer" as in have them on the lot and sell them.

There's a world of difference between what the gov't does (helping set a uniform standard when an emerging technology meets a fork in the road) and creating a new technology. When HDTV designers felt that there needed to be a uniform standard o the ferquencies used for HDTV, gov't, which holds the frequencies, stepped in. That's far, far different than depending on gov't to innovate.

Again, just your vain way of agreeing with me—I never did say nor would I ever, ever say that Washington could even find its own ass with both hands and a map.

Funny, you admit that gov't is a disaster on such issues, yet you want them to "channel production". Do you also want them to continue to fund billions to auto research? Just curious on that last one.

Which might make sense if you could point to some technology that emerged and is in use from some area OUTSIDE the auspices of the Detroit/gov't  “failure to plan” group. If you were able, for example to say "See, the Japanese are selling a full sized sedan in the US that gets 50 mpg" you might have a point.

Good god—why would the jap’s produce a vehicle (or Europeans, Chinese, et al) that their public doesn’t want and can’t afford to fuel/own?

Well, uh, other than the fact that for many of them the US is their largest market and they have known for 25 years of more that they could sell boat loads of larger, yet higher mpg cars IF THEY COULD PRODUCE THEM.

Yeah, and a diesels aren’t selling much these days here because they disappeared from the US for years, because they pollute more than a gas engine. In fact, when Mercedes brought back the e320 CDI in 2003, it couldn’t be sold in California, Maine, Maryland, New York, and Vermont because it couldn’t pass emissions tests there.

I’m hoping newer clean diesel technology catches on again. I’ve owned diesels in the past.

This cleaner diesel dream is already happening in Europe where 51% of their cars sold are now this new/old improved technology- this is what I’ve been saying for 3 days.

Diesel sales have ALWAYS been stronger in Europe than here. My folks had a diesel in Germany in the mid-50s. However, US EPA rules restricted imports here. You've been saying all along that super efficient clean diesels have been in service for a long while, but they haven't. Even your example of the MB E320 CDI is only  9 mpg better than the gas model (and with far less hp) and it’s BRAND NEW TECHNOLOGY.

Nifty. The CURRENT E320  CDI  gets 27/37,  the gas version gets  20/28. Where’s that 50 mpg car already in use again? Why are you quoting a source about something that isn’t even available yet here?

TRANSPORTATION
European Sensation
New day may be dawning for diesel automobiles

Note the important term DAWNING. The Technology doesn’t produce 50 mpg (which would still be short of doubling the average) and it’s BRAND NEW.

Name them. Where’s that 50 mpg sedan for sale in the US?

The one above comes close- simply using clean diesel-

Well, if 37 is close to 50, fine.

Because no one is willing to force people into tiny cars that cost lives (your own source again) for minimal gains in oil usage efficiency.  IOW, they understand what “fungible” means. ;)

Really?
Bush has plan to end oil 'addiction'

What part of his plan puts people in European sized cars against their will? You seem to gloss over the part where the major part of his plan is increased production in the US and Canada…..

I fully support the introduction of more fuel efficient, SAFE cars. What I find objectionable is your assertion that some nifty new technology would already be in use if only Detroit and gov’t not gotten in the way.

Then you scoff at the American know how,

I scoff at the idea that D/G/O could be producing right now a technology unavailable anywhere else in the world, despite all the financial incentives to do so, if only they hadn’t been colluding to stop it OR if gov’t had only passed a new law demanding it.

You're calling for gov't to "channel production". It's the same thing.  Actually, you’re not calling for anything other than the gov’t demanding a new technology for higher mpg cars that they can’t point to and know, based on past events, will cost lives as car makers further the lightening of cars.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

(rewind/play) Gov’t ALONG with the INDUSTRIES effected have historically very often worked together to set standards CHANNELING TECHNOLOGY in many different segments of industry.....

Show the "one report". It's 2 BILLION for the last 5.5 years and BILLIONS more for the 6 years prior. And for all that money and interest, very little results. Just an other crack in your D/G/O doesn't care, hasn't tried theory.

I have no idea who postulated that theory – maybe it was Dilbert, or Dogbert sending Catbert subliminal messages to trick Dilbert, who in turn, knew you read everything from that strip literally, so they were really after you.....

Once again you changed the subject. Yes, they have cash, yes we should become more self-sufficient, that doesn't mean that terrorism has it's roots in oil.

YES! You have officially agreed with something that I’ve written!
(gee, these “how to trick the unwitting” lessons by Evil Ratbert are finally starting to pay off)
by the way- I NEVER said that terrorism has its roots in oil.

Funny, you admit that gov't is a disaster on such issues, yet you want them to "channel production". Do you also want them to continue to fund billions to auto research? Just curious on that last one.

“channeling technology” only takes a senator or two with the time to listen to the INDUSTRY EFFECTED over steaks at the Palm and enact WITH THAT INDUSTRY reasonable standards to shoot at--- that Detroit didn’t do this earlier leaves them with an embarrassing small amount of relevant product to sell in the climate we’re now in-

Well, uh, other than the fact that for many of them the US is their largest market and they have known for 25 years of more that they could sell boat loads of larger, yet higher mpg cars IF THEY COULD PRODUCE THEM.

(rewind/play) It’d take BILLIONS to retool on that level- against a playing field not spending billions on retooling---

Diesel sales have ALWAYS been stronger in Europe than here. My folks had a diesel in Germany in the mid-50s. However, US EPA rules restricted imports here. You've been saying all along that super efficient clean diesels have been in service for a long while, but they haven't. Even your example of the MB E320 CDI is only  9 mpg better than the gas model (and with far less hp) and it’s BRAND NEW TECHNOLOGY.

You challenge me to find the vehicles and when I do you complain that they haven’t been out long enough to count—yet all I’ve said is that had GM/FORD been keeping up, they’d be rolling out w/ their hot stuff (hell, hotter stuff) coinciding w/ $3 per gallon gas-

Well, if 37 is close to 50, fine.

Hot Damn! This Ratbert crap is really workin’ now….

What part of his plan puts people in European sized cars against their will? You seem to gloss over the part where the major part of his plan is increased production in the US and Canada…..

Gee, mike—seems you’ve created another argument and attributed it to me, and its just so unlike you….

… "<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Mr Bush said in his State of the Union address. "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

I scoff at the idea that D/G/O could be producing right now a technology unavailable anywhere else in the world, despite all the financial incentives to do so, if only they hadn’t been colluding to stop it OR if gov’t had only passed a new law demanding it.

Colluding to stop it? Now you’ve really gone off the deep end----(even Ratbert thinks you’re crazy)

You're calling for gov't to "channel production". on past events, will cost lives as car makers further the lightening of cars.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

(rewind/play) Gov’t ALONG with the INDUSTRIES effected have historically very often worked together to set standards CHANNELING TECHNOLOGY in many different segments of industry.....

“Set standards” is true when you’re talking about a situation where private industry has developed HDTV  on several different formats and the question is what frequencies should we use to go forward. That’s not at all what you’re asking for in this case. In this case you’re asking for gov’t to establish fuel mileage requirements. The analogy would be gov’t establishing minimum picture sizes for HDTVs.

Show the "one report". It's 2 BILLION for the last 5.5 years and BILLIONS more for the 6 years prior. And for all that money and interest, very little results. Just an other crack in your D/G/O doesn't care, hasn't tried theory.

I have no idea who postulated that theory – maybe it was Dilbert,

Yeah, that’s it, it wasn’t you saying

 “because (this is the good part) they had convinced their friends in DC to give tax breaks to customers for buying these same high profit Suburban’s and Hummer’s” a

“….the Detroit answer to that: gerri-rigged, turbo-Chryslers that got 20+ mpg to the “I want my turbo-hummer” today- don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between who ignored the Monte-Carlo analysis and instead went to Monte Carlo on the sheik’s turbo-yachts wining and dining and basically dropping the ball-“

 “..my context was that Detroit, should have been out in front of this enough to be able to give Joe consumer what he wants, and 25+ mpg” and   AGAIN, is my main point: That Washington/Detroit could have/should have collaborated for the greater good to produce BOTH vehicles that consumers want AND fuel efficiencies which are MUCH better than they were 20+ years ago in those vehicles”

 “This has been my (admittedly) conspirator theory all along—can I prove it?”

 “looks interesting- but its not the type of conspiracy i was referring to- no, mine was much more mundane- washington / detroit/ big oil, all doing what lobby’s do everyday in washington, on both sides of the aisle- ignoring the greater good for the quicker buck-“

Seems to me the above can fairly be summed up with “D/G/O doesn’t care, hasn’t tried”.

Funny, you admit that gov't is a disaster on such issues, yet you want them to "channel production".

“channeling technology” only takes a senator or two with the time to listen to the INDUSTRY EFFECTED over steaks at the Palm and enact WITH THAT INDUSTRY reasonable standards to shoot at---

I’m aware that that’s your theory, but that’s not how the world works. The industry is quite happy to produce what consumers want (you remember consumers, right?). They have a financial incentive to do just that.

Detroit obviously wasn’t always spot on with what they want, but Detroit was damned well sure they didn’t need to go to gov’t over steaks at the Palm to determine what to produce, or how, or wehat fuel mileage to offer. No, those steaks at the Palm were between Sierra Club board members and politicians (who always feel the need to “work” with industry) to determine what should be demanded in CAFÉ standards. Detroit’s response, as I outlined before, was to lighten vehicles to the point that many, many more people died in accidents. They did this primarily because that’s all the available technology allowed.

Well, uh, other than the fact that for many of them the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US is their largest market and they have known for 25 years of more that they could sell boat loads of larger, yet higher mpg cars IF THEY COULD PRODUCE THEM.

(rewind/play) It’d take BILLIONS to retool on that level- against a playing field not spending billions on retooling---

Huh? The other makers of the world, that lived in their home countries with fuel prices three times what they were here, and therefore had decades of financial incentive to produce super mpg technology, which they then could have imported here to sell the size cars Americans want with much higher mpg, didn’t do it because they didn’t want to retool???????  Retool what? All they had to do is place the technology they had (remember, 30 years of much higher fuel costs and no D/G/O bureaucracy to hold them back)  into what they sold here.

Diesel sales have ALWAYS been stronger in Europe than here

You challenge me to find the vehicles and when I do you complain that they haven’t been out long enough to count—

Because it was YOU that said, when asked by foreign car makers are doing it NOW in the US said “… but they are.” And as proof, you point to a vehicle not even available yet in the US. 

Well, if 37 is close to 50, fine.

Hot Damn! This Ratbert crap is really workin’ now….

I guess that means “short by 35%” equals “close”….

What part of his plan puts people in European sized cars against their will? You seem to gloss over the part where the major part of his plan is increased production in the US and Canada>…..

Gee, mike—seems you’ve created another argument and attributed it to me, and its just so unlike you….

Actually it was you getting caught trying to attribute to a Bush  an argument that isn’t his. He’s not calling for massive new CAFÉ standards to make the US break the “oil addiction”, he’s calling for more production.

I scoff at the idea that D/G/O could be producing right now a technology unavailable anywhere else in the world, despite all the financial incentives to do so, if only they hadn’t been colluding to stop it OR if gov’t had only passed a new law demanding it.

Colluding to stop it? Now you’ve really gone off the deep end----(even Ratbert thinks you’re crazy)

 Yes, colluding to stop it, as you suggested with “

“because (this is the good part) they had convinced their friends in DC to give tax breaks to customers for buying these same high profit Suburban’s and Hummer’s”

“….the Detroit answer to that: gerri-rigged, turbo-Chryslers that got 20+ mpg to the “I want my turbo-hummer” today- don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between who ignored the Monte-Carlo analysis and instead went to Monte Carlo on the sheik’s turbo-yachts wining and dining and basically dropping the ball-“

 “AGAIN, is my main point: That Washington/Detroit could have/should have collaborated for the greater good to produce BOTH vehicles that consumers want AND fuel efficiencies which are MUCH better than they were 20+ years ago in those vehicles”

 “This has been my (admittedly) conspirator theory all along—can I prove it?”

 “looks interesting- but its not the type of conspiracy i was referring to- no, mine was much more mundane- washington / detroit/ big oil, all doing what lobby’s do everyday in washington, on both sides of the aisle- ignoring the greater good for the quicker buck-“

I doubt there’s much more to cover here. You have your unshakable belief that if only gov’t had “channel production” (READ: demanded arbitrary mpg standards, disconnected from what the technology allowed to be delivered safely) Detroit would already have 50 mpg sedans. And your happy to ignore the contradictions to your theory, like the billions spent by D/G in serch of this technology and that fact that no one else has produced it.

I’m pretty well attached to my belief that 1) The Senate passing an arbitrary, grandstanding regulation serves to produce nothing. Gov’t is more often the problem than the solution.  2) IF such a technology was possible it would have been produced (in US sized vehicles) by car makers not part of the D/G/O trio, where market forces induced by high fuel costs have had decades to spur innovation but have failed to provide the answer (again, in US sized vehicles).

BTW, I don’t know about you, but these posts are making me color blind 

Seems to me the above can fairly be summed up with “D/G/O doesn’t care, hasn’t tried”. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Again- your words not mine- seems patently unfair to argue both sides of the discussion- but then again, you obviously like hearing yourself talk- to hell what the other guy actually says, eh? 

I’m aware that that’s your theory, but that’s not how the world works. The industry is quite happy to produce what consumers want (you remember consumers, right?). They have a financial incentive to do just that.

It is exactly how it works- w/ HDTV, internet, ect

Huh? The other makers of the world, that lived in their home countries with fuel prices three times what they were here, and therefore had decades of financial incentive to produce super mpg technology, which they then could have imported here to sell the size cars Americans want with much higher mpg, didn’t do it because they didn’t want to retool???????  Retool what? All they had to do is place the technology they had (remember, 30 years of much higher fuel costs and no D/G/O bureaucracy to hold them back)  into what they sold here.

Yeah..all they had to do was insert an engine made for a sedan into a suburban, very wise……and you’re telling me how the real world works?

 Yes, colluding to stop it, as you suggested with “

I wrote nothing about trying to stop anything—but you knew that.

I doubt there’s much more to cover here.

What good would it do?
you simply take what I say and after twisting into a strawman, whack it out of the park—one day try to actually understand what the other side is saying- you may end up learning something, even if it does tarnish your “I’m still batting a 1000,  I’ve never lost a debate against myself, yet” image-

You have your unshakable belief that if only gov’t had “channel production” (READ: demanded arbitrary mpg standards, disconnected from what the technology allowed to be delivered safely) <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />

I said nothing of the sort—but there you go again…

Detroit would already have 50 mpg sedans. And your happy to ignore the contradictions to your theory, like the billions spent by D/G in serch of this technology and that fact that no one else has produced it.

Because neither one of those tidbits effects my theory an iota..
---you later argue that “…Gov’t is more often the problem than the solution…” yet here you use Gov’t spending billions to try and shoot my side down-
yep, you’ve covered all the bases here—to hell with reasoning with anyone, or actually making sense.

I’m pretty well attached to my belief that 1) The Senate passing an arbitrary, grandstanding regulation serves to produce nothing. Gov’t is more often the problem than the solution.

Excellent! We agree again— that’s why I never said anything like this--building strawman arguments seems to be your strong suit-- 

 2) IF such a technology was possible it would have been produced (in US sized vehicles) by car makers not part of the D/G/O trio, where market forces induced by high fuel costs have had decades to spur innovation but have failed to provide the answer (again, in US sized vehicles).

Apparently, “why they would even try when their markets do not ask for these products” will forever be a mystery to you.

BTW, I don’t know about you, but these posts are making me color blind  <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

Color blindness would prevent you from noticing any differences at all—but I’m sure you could find a way to debate that one with yourself as well-
happy spring break, and let the wife win an argument for once- it’ll make you wildly popular-

[quote=mikebutler222]

Actually it was you getting caught trying to attribute to a Bush  an argument that isn’t his. He’s not calling for massive new CAFÉ standards to make the US break the “oil addiction”, he’s calling for more production.

[/quote]

BTW- you had better keep a better eye on Bush, it's not just production he is calling for--

Posted on Tue, Feb. 21, 2006

AUBURN HILLS, Mich. – From the largest maker of old-fashioned lead-acid batteries to a company producing solar energy panels, President Bush toured plants in the nation’s manufacturing heartland Monday, advocating technological solutions to wean the country from its reliance on oil.

Embarking on a two-day trip to focus attention on the sort of experimental projects that are at the heart of the energy program he introduced three weeks ago, Bush said the nation is “addicted to oil” and that it needed to develop alternatives.

With the nation importing about 60 percent of its oil, and large amounts of that from countries with unstable governments, the president said, “The dependence upon oil is a national security problem and an economic security problem.”

The president’s first stop was in Milwaukee, where white-coated technicians instructed him on the advances being sought in car batteries. He visited a laboratory at which Johnson Controls Inc. is working to develop a lithium ion battery for use in hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles, which now use heavier and larger nickel metal hydride batteries.

The company makes 110 million conventional lead-acid batteries a year and is the world’s largest producer of vehicle batteries, selling them under a variety of brand names, said Monica Levy, a company spokeswoman.

The company said it hoped to produce lithium ion batteries for hybrid vehicles by 2010.

With such advances in mind, the president said, “we have a chance to transform the way we power our economy and how we lead our lives.” He read from a text, with little of the energy and passion he often shows when the topic is Iraq and fighting terrorism.

Bush said hybrid vehicles were “a good deal for consumers, and the American people have begun to figure it out.”

He said he looked ahead to the day when solar panels are built into roofing materials, providing protection from the elements as well as electricity, and houses can send to the electrical grid the power they create but do not use.

“We want solar power to be competitive by 2015,” Bush said.

Later, he flew to suburban Detroit to tour United Solar Ovonic LLC, where a 100-yard-long machine turns out solar panels no thicker than 1 micron, or about a tenth of the width of a human hair, to turn sunlight into direct current electricity.

“Solar technology is commercial,” Bush said. “This technology right here is going to help us change the way we live in our homes. ... The role of the government at this point is to continue to spend research dollars to help push technologies forward.”

Critics have said the president has put too much emphasis on technology and not enough on conservation.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., praised Bush for addressing the nation’s energy problems but said in a written statement, “We need more than just rhetoric from a president who let Big Oil write our energy policies.”

The trip marks the most public attention Bush has devoted to energy issues since he announced in last month’s State of the Union address a new focus on federal energy research to develop technologies that might reduce dependence on fossil fuel years. These include solar and wind energy, and – returning to a subject that caught his interest several years ago – hydrogen fuel cells and “cellulosic ethanol.”

Put Billery Clinton in power and we will see innovation. How to spend more money on social programs to save the poor. Maybe we should go with Kerry, Feingold or Dean. The future is so bright under these obstructionist.

Have a nice day...

[quote=7GOD63]

Put Billery Clinton in power and we will see innovation. How to spend more money on social programs to save the poor. Maybe we should go with Kerry, Feingold or Dean. The future is so bright under these obstructionist.

Have a nice day...

[/quote]

innovation of this sort will not come from elephants or donkeys-- only patriots--
maybe McCain?

[quote=TexasRep][quote=7GOD63]

Put Billery Clinton in power and we will see innovation. How to spend more money on social programs to save the poor. Maybe we should go with Kerry, Feingold or Dean. The future is so bright under these obstructionist.

Have a nice day...

[/quote]

innovation of this sort will not come from elephants or donkeys-- only patriots--
maybe McCain?

[/quote]

Looking for innovation from politicians is like looking for virtue among whores. Gov'ts don't create, they don't innovate, be best they can do is get out o the way.

I’m baaaaaaack!



FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS NOW, critics of the Bush administration

have warned that the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is

fueling the Muslim street’s hatred of America. The purportedly

unwarranted detention of hundreds of Muslims, coupled with the

allegedly unjustified invasion of Iraq, these critics argue, will only add to

the rage that leads to terrorist attacks.



Following this line of thinking, you might suppose that an Iraqi national at

Gitmo would be especially angry. And thanks to the March 3 release of

more than 5,000 pages of documents from Gitmo, we can now hear the

story of one such Iraqi detainee. His name is Ali Abdul Motalib Hassan al-

Tayeea. Or, if you prefer, “Pimp Daddy”–a nickname Gitmo’s guards gave

him, for reasons that become obvious from the transcript.



Ali was brought before the military tribunal that is determining whether

he and the several hundred other Guantánamo detainees should continue

to be held as enemy combatants. At the outset of his hearing, Ali thanked

America for getting rid of Saddam’s “cruel regime,” which he said killed

one of his uncles. Ali claimed he had escaped service in Saddam’s

Republican Guard and decried the Butcher of Baghdad’s poor treatment of

his fellow citizens. He even professed a desire to become an "American

person."



So far so good. But then, something odd happened. Ali launched into an

obscenity-laden rant that takes up much of the 24-page record of his

tribunal proceeding.



He is clearly a very angry man. But why? Is it the occupation of his native

Baghdad? His detention at Gitmo?



No. Ali explains:



My problem isn’t just that I am poor, or that Saddam’s government killed

my second uncle. My problem, I’m sorry to say in front of the two ladies,

but I want the Judge to know everything about me. I was never a "homo"

or gay, but I have a problem. I can’t get married because my penis is

small-sized. I went to the doctor and they said there is no help. They said

I couldn’t have an operation or surgery of any kind because I’m poor. I

want to get the operation or drugs in America or Europe. Who can help

me? . . .

This problem has taken all of my life and my thinking. For example, when

I was in school, a lot of my friends were married. I look at my friends and

say they have a good life. I can’t stay in my house, because my father and

mother are waiting very anxiously for me to get married. She says she has

a nice girl for me to marry, because she says this is my goal in life. I run

away from these questions from my mom. I told her that I want to go to

college and be a good person. My family said it was a bulls–reason and

that I’m Arab and I can marry and complete my life. I can’t stand the sight

of my mom, because she says, “my son, I want to see your kids.” I just

kiss my mom and I say "maybe someday."

In America this is only a little problem, but in my home and in my life, it’s

very difficult when the days get dark, because I hate running from my

people. I feel someday I’ll go back to my home and I’m sure that all of my

friends are married now. This is not just me in my family; it’s also my

younger brother. He was born in 1980. He’s big and is a nice guy, but has

the same problem. I know about my brother, but my family doesn’t.

I just added “Paradise Now” to my queue at Netflix.