BTW, it  hasn't been your point all along. Your point had to do with a claim that the Whitehouse interfered with the FBI, let bin Laden's family go while no one else could fly and before the FBI had a chance to talk to them. Your "point" is fiction.

Reply:

Again, lies and spin doctoring.  I never claimed that the White House interfered with anything.  My claim is that they are incompetent.  You are a joke.  And I'm a fool to keep getting sucked in.........

[quote=dude]

ROFLMAO, so it's "spin doctoring accusations" to point out that the website YOU OFFERED as proof that the 9/11 Commission was wrong about the bin Laden flight was the very same website that shouts the "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!".

Wrong again bud,  I put the link that showed that Richard Clarke admitted that High level Saudis and members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave while much of the US air infrastructure was still grounded. 

[/quote]

Now you're just getting sad, dude. Your link was to a "9/11 was an inside job" site. I was the one who pointed out that Bush critic Richard Clarke said HE was the one that approved the flight.

BTW, "while much of the US air infrastructure was still grounded" is some pretty lame spin. US airspace was OPEN. The fact that the bin Laden family left in their private plane while much of the airlines hadn't reorganized themselves to get in the air means NOTHING. It's an attempt to make some nefarious connnection that just isn't warranted.

[quote=dude]

I admit that there was some inaccuracy to the EXACT statment I originally made. 

[/quote]

"Some inaccuaracy"??? It was 100% false, and I've proved it often enough.

[quote=dude]

  I was quoting generalized knowledge that I've read in my travels and found the website in response to our debate. 

[/quote]

You were being the typical ill-informed liberal grasping onto a long disproved smear. Worse yet, you still cling to it.

[quote=dude]

 I have articulated time and time again Mike that I do not endorse that websites conclusions ...

[/quote]

The point wasn't whether or not you agreed with the website's conclusions, the point was wtf are you doing taking ANY info from there, much less info that says the 9/11 Commission was in error/part of a cover-up. BTW, your comments easily suggest you STILL doubt the 9/11 Commission.

Mike,

I don't have as much time as you do (althoug lately I've been spending too much time) to search out the entire internet for an article that illustrates what I've read in other publications and to research the websites.  I had no idea the website I linked to was a 911 inside job site, it was a quick search that resulted in info I was privy to so in the sake of time I just put a quick link.  Never the less the article is accurate and I don't care if it was Richard Clarke who approved the flights.  He was a member of the Bush Admin and therefore his actions reflect on the Bush Admin. 

Like I said over and over, it is an incompetent failure to supervise.   That is my point, period.   This is the sh*t that gets managers in trouble when one of their brokers makes stupid decisions and they are not on top of it.  Why not Bush?  I mean, he only happens to be the president of the US right?

Keep on spining bud.   

I don't have as much time as you do (althoug lately I've been spending too much time)

No kidding 

[quote=dude]

As far as Michael Moore, I have never seen Farenheight 911 or care much for Moore in general. 

[/quote]

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=882& KW=bin+laden+family&PN=0&TPN=39

Although I'm no Michael Moore fan, I applauded his movie Farenheight 911 (even though there were some of the expected biases). 

Why??  Well I knew early on about how the Bush Admin help the Bin Laden family leave the country while all air traffic was grounded (this was when I started to question Bush), and thought it was cool to make that info known to the world. 

from another post in the thread

Also, it was not a lie that high level Saudi's including Bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country while there was a freeze on travel, who knows why it was allowed to happen.

My belief about 911 commission is that it is incomplete, as validated by the additional info recently released (early 2005) and I don't expect that it should be a perfect document that completely reflects all new developments since ongoing research will inevitably uncover more details.  Therefore I don't rest on it as the bible. 

To you the above position = conspiracy theorist, wacko liberal.

Fine.  We should not continue the discussion because I have my doubts about your ability to stay rational.

[quote=dude]

  I had no idea the website I linked to was a 911 inside job site, it was a quick search that resulted in info I was privy to so in the sake of time I just put a quick link. 

[/quote]

Fine dude, but before you provide "proof" from somewhere, a quick look  at what they say would be wise. They came up with that "proof" as part of their "Bush was behind it" theory.

[quote=dude]

Never the less the article is accurate and I don't care if it was Richard Clarke who approved the flights.  He was a member of the Bush Admin and therefore his actions reflect on the Bush Admin. 

[/quote]

You say that as if that changes the fact that YOU accused the Whitehouse of allowing bin Ladin's family to leave before the FBI talked to them and while the airspce was closed. NONE of that was true. So WHAT if Clarke approved flights of people the FBI had spoken to and after the airspace was open? What's the scandle in that?

[quote=dude]

Like I said over and over, it is an incompetent failure to supervise.  

[/quote]

Yeah, you keep saying that, but your example was 100% fiction. At some point you'd think a rational person would admit that.

MikeB

I've never seen the movie.  But I have read reviews and heard others talking about it.  I definitley applauded creating awareness about the issue though at the time.  Since that post, my increased education on the specifics of the event has caused me to dislike Michael Moore's approach.  Never the less read the above post on where I'm coming from.  This is an issue of failure to supervise bro.

[quote=dude]

My belief about 911 commission is that it is incomplete, as validated by the additional info recently released (early 2005)

[/quote]

Name said info...

[quote=dude]

MikeB

I've never seen the movie.  But I have read reviews and heard others talking about it.  I definitley applauded creating awareness about the issue though at the time. 

[/quote]

So you quoted the movie, as I said (and you denied) , and the movie was in error, as I said.

[quote=dude]

 Since that post, my increased education on the specifics of the event has caused me to dislike Michael Moore's approach.

[/quote]

"Dislike" or now know it's lie?

  [quote=dude]Never the less read the above post on where I'm coming from.  This is an issue of failure to supervise bro.

[/quote]

Huh? You get from "the FBI left open" to being certain the FBI didn't talk to people they should AND that the White House is responsible for the actions of some field office?

Come on, this all started with your Moore smear and was twisted from there to infinity.

I like you, dude, if the subject is anything but this. Could we talk about something else?

Gov't sucks at innovation, the best they can do, and they often fail at it, is amend existing laws and regs in a timely manner to allow a new technology to go forward. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Just your vain way of agreeing with me—
I’ve never said Gov’t could innovate anything--

Yeah, you've said that, but you've failed to point out an example of it in use anywhere in vehicles sized to the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US market.

(rewind/play) “Due to lack of demand in other countries….”

And you failed to notice that amount has already been spent in join gov't/Detroit research programs in the past 15 years.

I’ve noticed- less than $2 billion a year for 5.5 yrs- baby steps in the right direction---yet, the budget requests from the White House for funding on energy efficiency has actually fallen 14 per cent in real terms since 2002—one report shows--

Yeah, terrorism is about "oil in the sand"... I suggest you read what the terrorists themselves say it's about. Hint, it's about religion...

I’ve studied diligently the Islamofacist’s and their agenda- have you noticed the millions of other very poor communists, socialist, pagans of other very poor countries and areas who equally would like to destroy us but can’t?
no oil reserves and they cannot export enough tshirts to generate Islamo-type-cash.
Meaningful terrorism takes: agenda and  wherewithal as Pres Bush said:
… "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Mr Bush said in his State of the Union address. "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

You figure there's a vast difference between the number sold and the number produced? Really?

Your inference was that “yeah they’d achieve CAFÉ standards by offering high MPG vehicles, but they’d sell the low MPG ones- I simply pointed out that it’s not as easy as just offering them- the standard will apply to those SOLD.

There's a world of difference between what the gov't does (helping set a uniform standard when an emerging technology meets a fork in the road) and creating a new technology. When HDTV designers felt that there needed to be a uniform standard o the ferquencies used for HDTV, gov't, which holds the frequencies, stepped in. That's far, far different than depending on gov't to innovate.

Again, just your vain way of agreeing with me—I never did say nor would I ever, ever say that Washington could even find its own ass with both hands and a map.

Which might make sense if you could point to some technology that emerged and is in use from some area OUTSIDE the auspices of the Detroit/gov't  “failure to plan” group. If you were able, for example to say "See, the Japanese are selling a full sized sedan in the US that gets 50 mpg" you might have a point.

Good god—why would the jap’s produce a vehicle (or Europeans, Chinese, et al) that their public doesn’t want and can’t afford to fuel/own?

Yeah, and a diesels aren’t selling much these days here because they disappeared from the US for years, because they pollute more than a gas engine. In fact, when Mercedes brought back the e320 ci in 2003, it couldn’t be sold in California, Maine, Maryland, New York, and Vermont because it couldn’t pass emissions tests there.
I’m hoping newer clean diesel technology catches on again. I’ve owned diesels in the past.

This cleaner diesel dream is already happening in Europe where 51% of their cars sold are now this new/old improved technology- this is what I’ve been saying for 3 days.

Nifty. The CURRENT E320  CDI  gets 27/37,  the gas version gets  20/28. Where’s that 50 mpg car already in use again? Why are you quoting a source about something that isn’t even available yet here?

TRANSPORTATION
European Sensation
New day may be dawning for diesel automobiles
Michael Taylor, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, August 5, 2001

For the day-in, day-out, long-haul auto commuter, it would seem to be ideal: a peppy car that gets 40-plus miles to a gallon of fuel and, to boot, has an engine that could last half a million miles without an overhaul.
Sound interesting? Got your checkbook out? Well, you can have one if you live in Europe. But not here.
The big sensation in France, Germany, Switzerland and other nations in Western Europe these days is the new, cleaner diesel engine.
You see them in the popular Mercedes-Benz A-series cars (Mercedes' answer to the Honda Civic), the BMW 530d and the Renault Laguna -- none of them sold in North America. And unless you pop open the fuel filler door and see that it calls for diesel, you would be hard put to tell the difference between these cars and their gas-powered cousins.

Name them. Where’s that 50 mpg sedan for sale in the US?

The one above comes close- simply using clean diesel-
What has the US spent that $10 billion on w/ the research into this issue?
answer: lighter metals, more powerful hybrids, diesel-hybrids, replacing gears, ect with hydraulics--- all this will cost money but everyone, even Pres Bush see’s the importance-
sadly, you appear to have not received the memo-

Because no one is willing to force people into tiny cars that cost lives (your own source again) for minimal gains in oil usage efficiency.  IOW, they understand what “fungible” means. ;)

Really?
Bush has plan to end oil 'addiction'

< = =text/> Wednesday, <st1:date Month=“2” Day=“1” Year=“2006”>February 1, 2006</st1:date>; Posted: <st1:time Hour=“6” Minute=“32”>6:32 a.m. EST</st1:time> (<st1:time Hour=“11” Minute=“32”>11:32 GMT</st1:time>) <o:p></o:p>

 I fully support the introduction of more fuel efficient, SAFE cars. What I find objectionable is your assertion that some nifty new technology would already be in use if only Detroit and gov’t not gotten in the way.

Then you scoff at the American know how, and wherewithal that you otherwise glow about, simply to win an argument?
If Detroit, et al, had been forced (by their own responsible vision and with the help of Washington imposed standards crafted together with Detroit) to work and tweak on the available technology, innovation and ideas over these past 20+ years, due to real world standards and need-----I BELIEVE we would have had by now those vehicles – probably better.    

Is that your way of admitting that fuel cells require oil?

No – more my way of stating that if they do need oil (and my freakin’ vacuum cleaner needs oil for that matter) its not a relevant amount-

Gov't sucks at innovation, the best they can do, and they often fail at it, is amend existing laws and regs in a timely manner to allow a new technology to go forward. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Just your vain way of agreeing with me—
I’ve never said Gov’t could innovate anything--

You're calling for gov't to "channel production". It's the same thing.  Actually, you’re not calling for anything other than the gov’t demanding a new technology for higher mpg cars that they can’t point to and know, based on past events, will cost lives as car makers further the lightening of cars.

Yeah, you've said that, but you've failed to point out an example of it in use anywhere in vehicles sized to the USmarket.

(rewind/play) “Due to lack of demand in other countries….”

Rewind, HERE, why are they not selling it HERE. For many overseas car makers, the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US is their biggest market. There's every financial incentive in the world for them to produce a high mpg version of the size cars the US market wants. They haven't. They've had three decades of much higher fuel costs than the US, yet they haven't produced a technology to accomplish what you claim the US could have done.

And you failed to notice that amount has already been spent in join gov't/Detroit research programs in the past 15 years.

I’ve noticed- less than $2 billion a year for 5.5 yrs- baby steps in the right direction---yet, the budget requests from the White House for funding on energy efficiency has actually fallen 14 per cent in real terms since 2002—one report shows--

Show the "one report". It's 2 BILLION for the last 5.5 years and BILLIONS more for the 6 years prior. And for all that money and interest, very little results. Just an other crack in your D/G/O doesn't care, hasn't tried theory.

Yeah, terrorism is about "oil in the sand"... I suggest you read what the terrorists themselves say it's about. Hint, it's about religion...

I’ve studied diligently the Islamofacist’s and their agenda-

Once again you changed the subject. Yes, they have cash, yes we should become more self-sufficient, that doesn't mean that terrorism has it's roots in oil.

You figure there's a vast difference between the number sold and the number produced? Really?

Your inference was that “yeah they’d achieve CAFÉ standards by offering high MPG vehicles, but they’d sell the low MPG ones- I simply pointed out that it’s not as easy as just offering them- the standard will apply to those SOLD.

I meant, of course, "offer" as in have them on the lot and sell them.

There's a world of difference between what the gov't does (helping set a uniform standard when an emerging technology meets a fork in the road) and creating a new technology. When HDTV designers felt that there needed to be a uniform standard o the ferquencies used for HDTV, gov't, which holds the frequencies, stepped in. That's far, far different than depending on gov't to innovate.

Again, just your vain way of agreeing with me—I never did say nor would I ever, ever say that Washington could even find its own ass with both hands and a map.

Funny, you admit that gov't is a disaster on such issues, yet you want them to "channel production". Do you also want them to continue to fund billions to auto research? Just curious on that last one.

Which might make sense if you could point to some technology that emerged and is in use from some area OUTSIDE the auspices of the Detroit/gov't  “failure to plan” group. If you were able, for example to say "See, the Japanese are selling a full sized sedan in the US that gets 50 mpg" you might have a point.

Good god—why would the jap’s produce a vehicle (or Europeans, Chinese, et al) that their public doesn’t want and can’t afford to fuel/own?

Well, uh, other than the fact that for many of them the US is their largest market and they have known for 25 years of more that they could sell boat loads of larger, yet higher mpg cars IF THEY COULD PRODUCE THEM.

Yeah, and a diesels aren’t selling much these days here because they disappeared from the US for years, because they pollute more than a gas engine. In fact, when Mercedes brought back the e320 CDI in 2003, it couldn’t be sold in California, Maine, Maryland, New York, and Vermont because it couldn’t pass emissions tests there.

I’m hoping newer clean diesel technology catches on again. I’ve owned diesels in the past.

This cleaner diesel dream is already happening in Europe where 51% of their cars sold are now this new/old improved technology- this is what I’ve been saying for 3 days.

Diesel sales have ALWAYS been stronger in Europe than here. My folks had a diesel in Germany in the mid-50s. However, US EPA rules restricted imports here. You've been saying all along that super efficient clean diesels have been in service for a long while, but they haven't. Even your example of the MB E320 CDI is only  9 mpg better than the gas model (and with far less hp) and it’s BRAND NEW TECHNOLOGY.

Nifty. The CURRENT E320  CDI  gets 27/37,  the gas version gets  20/28. Where’s that 50 mpg car already in use again? Why are you quoting a source about something that isn’t even available yet here?

TRANSPORTATION
European Sensation
New day may be dawning for diesel automobiles

Note the important term DAWNING. The Technology doesn’t produce 50 mpg (which would still be short of doubling the average) and it’s BRAND NEW.

Name them. Where’s that 50 mpg sedan for sale in the US?

The one above comes close- simply using clean diesel-

Well, if 37 is close to 50, fine.

Because no one is willing to force people into tiny cars that cost lives (your own source again) for minimal gains in oil usage efficiency.  IOW, they understand what “fungible” means. ;)

Really?
Bush has plan to end oil 'addiction'

What part of his plan puts people in European sized cars against their will? You seem to gloss over the part where the major part of his plan is increased production in the US and Canada…..

I fully support the introduction of more fuel efficient, SAFE cars. What I find objectionable is your assertion that some nifty new technology would already be in use if only Detroit and gov’t not gotten in the way.

Then you scoff at the American know how,

I scoff at the idea that D/G/O could be producing right now a technology unavailable anywhere else in the world, despite all the financial incentives to do so, if only they hadn’t been colluding to stop it OR if gov’t had only passed a new law demanding it.

You're calling for gov't to "channel production". It's the same thing.  Actually, you’re not calling for anything other than the gov’t demanding a new technology for higher mpg cars that they can’t point to and know, based on past events, will cost lives as car makers further the lightening of cars.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

(rewind/play) Gov’t ALONG with the INDUSTRIES effected have historically very often worked together to set standards CHANNELING TECHNOLOGY in many different segments of industry.....

Show the "one report". It's 2 BILLION for the last 5.5 years and BILLIONS more for the 6 years prior. And for all that money and interest, very little results. Just an other crack in your D/G/O doesn't care, hasn't tried theory.

I have no idea who postulated that theory – maybe it was Dilbert, or Dogbert sending Catbert subliminal messages to trick Dilbert, who in turn, knew you read everything from that strip literally, so they were really after you.....

Once again you changed the subject. Yes, they have cash, yes we should become more self-sufficient, that doesn't mean that terrorism has it's roots in oil.

YES! You have officially agreed with something that I’ve written!
(gee, these “how to trick the unwitting” lessons by Evil Ratbert are finally starting to pay off)
by the way- I NEVER said that terrorism has its roots in oil.

Funny, you admit that gov't is a disaster on such issues, yet you want them to "channel production". Do you also want them to continue to fund billions to auto research? Just curious on that last one.

“channeling technology” only takes a senator or two with the time to listen to the INDUSTRY EFFECTED over steaks at the Palm and enact WITH THAT INDUSTRY reasonable standards to shoot at--- that Detroit didn’t do this earlier leaves them with an embarrassing small amount of relevant product to sell in the climate we’re now in-

Well, uh, other than the fact that for many of them the US is their largest market and they have known for 25 years of more that they could sell boat loads of larger, yet higher mpg cars IF THEY COULD PRODUCE THEM.

(rewind/play) It’d take BILLIONS to retool on that level- against a playing field not spending billions on retooling---

Diesel sales have ALWAYS been stronger in Europe than here. My folks had a diesel in Germany in the mid-50s. However, US EPA rules restricted imports here. You've been saying all along that super efficient clean diesels have been in service for a long while, but they haven't. Even your example of the MB E320 CDI is only  9 mpg better than the gas model (and with far less hp) and it’s BRAND NEW TECHNOLOGY.

You challenge me to find the vehicles and when I do you complain that they haven’t been out long enough to count—yet all I’ve said is that had GM/FORD been keeping up, they’d be rolling out w/ their hot stuff (hell, hotter stuff) coinciding w/ $3 per gallon gas-

Well, if 37 is close to 50, fine.

Hot Damn! This Ratbert crap is really workin’ now….

What part of his plan puts people in European sized cars against their will? You seem to gloss over the part where the major part of his plan is increased production in the US and Canada…..

Gee, mike—seems you’ve created another argument and attributed it to me, and its just so unlike you….

… "<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Mr Bush said in his State of the Union address. "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

I scoff at the idea that D/G/O could be producing right now a technology unavailable anywhere else in the world, despite all the financial incentives to do so, if only they hadn’t been colluding to stop it OR if gov’t had only passed a new law demanding it.

Colluding to stop it? Now you’ve really gone off the deep end----(even Ratbert thinks you’re crazy)

You're calling for gov't to "channel production". on past events, will cost lives as car makers further the lightening of cars.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

(rewind/play) Gov’t ALONG with the INDUSTRIES effected have historically very often worked together to set standards CHANNELING TECHNOLOGY in many different segments of industry.....

“Set standards” is true when you’re talking about a situation where private industry has developed HDTV  on several different formats and the question is what frequencies should we use to go forward. That’s not at all what you’re asking for in this case. In this case you’re asking for gov’t to establish fuel mileage requirements. The analogy would be gov’t establishing minimum picture sizes for HDTVs.

Show the "one report". It's 2 BILLION for the last 5.5 years and BILLIONS more for the 6 years prior. And for all that money and interest, very little results. Just an other crack in your D/G/O doesn't care, hasn't tried theory.

I have no idea who postulated that theory – maybe it was Dilbert,

Yeah, that’s it, it wasn’t you saying

 “because (this is the good part) they had convinced their friends in DC to give tax breaks to customers for buying these same high profit Suburban’s and Hummer’s” a

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

 “..my context was that Detroit, should have been out in front of this enough to be able to give Joe consumer what he wants, and 25+ mpg” and   AGAIN, is my main point: That Washington/Detroit could have/should have collaborated for the greater good to produce BOTH vehicles that consumers want AND fuel efficiencies which are MUCH better than they were 20+ years ago in those vehicles”

 “This has been my (admittedly) conspirator theory all along—can I prove it?”

 “looks interesting- but its not the type of conspiracy i was referring to- no, mine was much more mundane- washington / detroit/ big oil, all doing what lobby’s do everyday in washington, on both sides of the aisle- ignoring the greater good for the quicker buck-“

Seems to me the above can fairly be summed up with “D/G/O doesn’t care, hasn’t tried”.

Funny, you admit that gov't is a disaster on such issues, yet you want them to "channel production".

“channeling technology” only takes a senator or two with the time to listen to the INDUSTRY EFFECTED over steaks at the Palm and enact WITH THAT INDUSTRY reasonable standards to shoot at---

I’m aware that that’s your theory, but that’s not how the world works. The industry is quite happy to produce what consumers want (you remember consumers, right?). They have a financial incentive to do just that.

Detroit obviously wasn’t always spot on with what they want, but Detroit was damned well sure they didn’t need to go to gov’t over steaks at the Palm to determine what to produce, or how, or wehat fuel mileage to offer. No, those steaks at the Palm were between Sierra Club board members and politicians (who always feel the need to “work” with industry) to determine what should be demanded in CAFÉ standards. Detroit’s response, as I outlined before, was to lighten vehicles to the point that many, many more people died in accidents. They did this primarily because that’s all the available technology allowed.

Well, uh, other than the fact that for many of them the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US is their largest market and they have known for 25 years of more that they could sell boat loads of larger, yet higher mpg cars IF THEY COULD PRODUCE THEM.

(rewind/play) It’d take BILLIONS to retool on that level- against a playing field not spending billions on retooling---

Huh? The other makers of the world, that lived in their home countries with fuel prices three times what they were here, and therefore had decades of financial incentive to produce super mpg technology, which they then could have imported here to sell the size cars Americans want with much higher mpg, didn’t do it because they didn’t want to retool???????  Retool what? All they had to do is place the technology they had (remember, 30 years of much higher fuel costs and no D/G/O bureaucracy to hold them back)  into what they sold here.

Diesel sales have ALWAYS been stronger in Europe than here

You challenge me to find the vehicles and when I do you complain that they haven’t been out long enough to count—

Because it was YOU that said, when asked by foreign car makers are doing it NOW in the US said “… but they are.” And as proof, you point to a vehicle not even available yet in the US. 

Well, if 37 is close to 50, fine.

Hot Damn! This Ratbert crap is really workin’ now….

I guess that means “short by 35%” equals “close”….

What part of his plan puts people in European sized cars against their will? You seem to gloss over the part where the major part of his plan is increased production in the US and Canada>…..

Gee, mike—seems you’ve created another argument and attributed it to me, and its just so unlike you….

Actually it was you getting caught trying to attribute to a Bush  an argument that isn’t his. He’s not calling for massive new CAFÉ standards to make the US break the “oil addiction”, he’s calling for more production.

I scoff at the idea that D/G/O could be producing right now a technology unavailable anywhere else in the world, despite all the financial incentives to do so, if only they hadn’t been colluding to stop it OR if gov’t had only passed a new law demanding it.

Colluding to stop it? Now you’ve really gone off the deep end----(even Ratbert thinks you’re crazy)

 Yes, colluding to stop it, as you suggested with “

“because (this is the good part) they had convinced their friends in DC to give tax breaks to customers for buying these same high profit Suburban’s and Hummer’s”

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

 “AGAIN, is my main point: That Washington/Detroit could have/should have collaborated for the greater good to produce BOTH vehicles that consumers want AND fuel efficiencies which are MUCH better than they were 20+ years ago in those vehicles”

 “This has been my (admittedly) conspirator theory all along—can I prove it?”

 “looks interesting- but its not the type of conspiracy i was referring to- no, mine was much more mundane- washington / detroit/ big oil, all doing what lobby’s do everyday in washington, on both sides of the aisle- ignoring the greater good for the quicker buck-“

I doubt there’s much more to cover here. You have your unshakable belief that if only gov’t had “channel production” (READ: demanded arbitrary mpg standards, disconnected from what the technology allowed to be delivered safely) Detroit would already have 50 mpg sedans. And your happy to ignore the contradictions to your theory, like the billions spent by D/G in serch of this technology and that fact that no one else has produced it.

I’m pretty well attached to my belief that 1) The Senate passing an arbitrary, grandstanding regulation serves to produce nothing. Gov’t is more often the problem than the solution.  2) IF such a technology was possible it would have been produced (in US sized vehicles) by car makers not part of the D/G/O trio, where market forces induced by high fuel costs have had decades to spur innovation but have failed to provide the answer (again, in US sized vehicles).

BTW, I don’t know about you, but these posts are making me color blind 

Seems to me the above can fairly be summed up with “D/G/O doesn’t care, hasn’t tried”. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Again- your words not mine- seems patently unfair to argue both sides of the discussion- but then again, you obviously like hearing yourself talk- to hell what the other guy actually says, eh? 

I’m aware that that’s your theory, but that’s not how the world works. The industry is quite happy to produce what consumers want (you remember consumers, right?). They have a financial incentive to do just that.

It is exactly how it works- w/ HDTV, internet, ect

Huh? The other makers of the world, that lived in their home countries with fuel prices three times what they were here, and therefore had decades of financial incentive to produce super mpg technology, which they then could have imported here to sell the size cars Americans want with much higher mpg, didn’t do it because they didn’t want to retool???????  Retool what? All they had to do is place the technology they had (remember, 30 years of much higher fuel costs and no D/G/O bureaucracy to hold them back)  into what they sold here.

Yeah..all they had to do was insert an engine made for a sedan into a suburban, very wise……and you’re telling me how the real world works?

 Yes, colluding to stop it, as you suggested with “

I wrote nothing about trying to stop anything—but you knew that.

I doubt there’s much more to cover here.

What good would it do?
you simply take what I say and after twisting into a strawman, whack it out of the park—one day try to actually understand what the other side is saying- you may end up learning something, even if it does tarnish your “I’m still batting a 1000,  I’ve never lost a debate against myself, yet” image-

You have your unshakable belief that if only gov’t had “channel production” (READ: demanded arbitrary mpg standards, disconnected from what the technology allowed to be delivered safely) <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />

I said nothing of the sort—but there you go again…

Detroit would already have 50 mpg sedans. And your happy to ignore the contradictions to your theory, like the billions spent by D/G in serch of this technology and that fact that no one else has produced it.

Because neither one of those tidbits effects my theory an iota..
---you later argue that “…Gov’t is more often the problem than the solution…” yet here you use Gov’t spending billions to try and shoot my side down-
yep, you’ve covered all the bases here—to hell with reasoning with anyone, or actually making sense.

I’m pretty well attached to my belief that 1) The Senate passing an arbitrary, grandstanding regulation serves to produce nothing. Gov’t is more often the problem than the solution.

Excellent! We agree again— that’s why I never said anything like this--building strawman arguments seems to be your strong suit-- 

 2) IF such a technology was possible it would have been produced (in US sized vehicles) by car makers not part of the D/G/O trio, where market forces induced by high fuel costs have had decades to spur innovation but have failed to provide the answer (again, in US sized vehicles).

Apparently, “why they would even try when their markets do not ask for these products” will forever be a mystery to you.

BTW, I don’t know about you, but these posts are making me color blind  <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

Color blindness would prevent you from noticing any differences at all—but I’m sure you could find a way to debate that one with yourself as well-
happy spring break, and let the wife win an argument for once- it’ll make you wildly popular-

[quote=mikebutler222]

Actually it was you getting caught trying to attribute to a Bush  an argument that isn’t his. He’s not calling for massive new CAFÉ standards to make the US break the “oil addiction”, he’s calling for more production.

[/quote]

BTW- you had better keep a better eye on Bush, it's not just production he is calling for--

Posted on Tue, Feb. 21, 2006

AUBURN HILLS, Mich. – From the largest maker of old-fashioned lead-acid batteries to a company producing solar energy panels, President Bush toured plants in the nation’s manufacturing heartland Monday, advocating technological solutions to wean the country from its reliance on oil.

Embarking on a two-day trip to focus attention on the sort of experimental projects that are at the heart of the energy program he introduced three weeks ago, Bush said the nation is “addicted to oil” and that it needed to develop alternatives.

With the nation importing about 60 percent of its oil, and large amounts of that from countries with unstable governments, the president said, “The dependence upon oil is a national security problem and an economic security problem.”

The president’s first stop was in Milwaukee, where white-coated technicians instructed him on the advances being sought in car batteries. He visited a laboratory at which Johnson Controls Inc. is working to develop a lithium ion battery for use in hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles, which now use heavier and larger nickel metal hydride batteries.

The company makes 110 million conventional lead-acid batteries a year and is the world’s largest producer of vehicle batteries, selling them under a variety of brand names, said Monica Levy, a company spokeswoman.

The company said it hoped to produce lithium ion batteries for hybrid vehicles by 2010.

With such advances in mind, the president said, “we have a chance to transform the way we power our economy and how we lead our lives.” He read from a text, with little of the energy and passion he often shows when the topic is Iraq and fighting terrorism.

Bush said hybrid vehicles were “a good deal for consumers, and the American people have begun to figure it out.”

He said he looked ahead to the day when solar panels are built into roofing materials, providing protection from the elements as well as electricity, and houses can send to the electrical grid the power they create but do not use.

“We want solar power to be competitive by 2015,” Bush said.

Later, he flew to suburban Detroit to tour United Solar Ovonic LLC, where a 100-yard-long machine turns out solar panels no thicker than 1 micron, or about a tenth of the width of a human hair, to turn sunlight into direct current electricity.

“Solar technology is commercial,” Bush said. “This technology right here is going to help us change the way we live in our homes. ... The role of the government at this point is to continue to spend research dollars to help push technologies forward.”

Critics have said the president has put too much emphasis on technology and not enough on conservation.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., praised Bush for addressing the nation’s energy problems but said in a written statement, “We need more than just rhetoric from a president who let Big Oil write our energy policies.”

The trip marks the most public attention Bush has devoted to energy issues since he announced in last month’s State of the Union address a new focus on federal energy research to develop technologies that might reduce dependence on fossil fuel years. These include solar and wind energy, and – returning to a subject that caught his interest several years ago – hydrogen fuel cells and “cellulosic ethanol.”

Put Billery Clinton in power and we will see innovation. How to spend more money on social programs to save the poor. Maybe we should go with Kerry, Feingold or Dean. The future is so bright under these obstructionist.

Have a nice day...

[quote=7GOD63]

Put Billery Clinton in power and we will see innovation. How to spend more money on social programs to save the poor. Maybe we should go with Kerry, Feingold or Dean. The future is so bright under these obstructionist.

Have a nice day...

[/quote]

innovation of this sort will not come from elephants or donkeys-- only patriots--
maybe McCain?

[quote=TexasRep][quote=7GOD63]

Put Billery Clinton in power and we will see innovation. How to spend more money on social programs to save the poor. Maybe we should go with Kerry, Feingold or Dean. The future is so bright under these obstructionist.

Have a nice day...

[/quote]

innovation of this sort will not come from elephants or donkeys-- only patriots--
maybe McCain?

[/quote]

Looking for innovation from politicians is like looking for virtue among whores. Gov'ts don't create, they don't innovate, be best they can do is get out o the way.