[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.