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....