How many "Bush is Hitler" references would you like? I mean, come on, here.

This coming from someone who can hardly mention Obama's name without working in a Hitler reference...

How many "Bush is Hitler" references would you like? I mean, come on, here.

Different Bush.

How is "Liberals want to force people to live in cities so they all become liberal" a non-vague accusation?

Put it that way, of course it's vauge. But there were a few other details you kinda glossed over there, wasn't there?

I think he would, Bush Sr. was far more liberal, by today's definition, than his son.

I dunno about FAR more, but I do agree that he was more liberal than 43, yes. Apparently Anjin agrees with you, too, given...

He was a mediocre president, but hardly a train wreck

But that he would do it without leftist pressure I don't accept, particularly in light of the shadow of Reagan, bold as it was at the time. Sorry, I just don't.

And people usually cast him as indecisive and incompetent, not Hitleresque

How many "Bush is Hitler" references would you like? I mean, come on, here.

It took GW almost 8 years to revoke the executive order

Yeah, he waited until even the rank and file Dmeocrats were screaming for domestic drilling. Hasn't that connection sunk in, yet?

no.. I have said on several occasions... at least one of them here, that was go-along to get along.

You certainly have become enamored of the sound of your own voice. I can say the moon is made of green cheese, does not make it so. It took GW almost 8 years to revoke the executive order. One thing Bush has been really, really consistent about is that he does not give a flying f__k about what the left thinks or placating them.

Reality is, if the Saudis don't own the Bush family, they are certainly leasing them. Not to hard to figure who's interests they were serving here.

Do you really think, Anjin, that absent pressure from the left, 41 would have imposed that ban? If you really think so, then he's not the Hitleresque guy the left would love to cast him as.

I say this not as a put down. You really need to take a look at your paranoia. The left thinks 41 is "Hitleresque"?? 41 is a fairly decent guy who is pretty much completely removed from the reality of Americans who are not wealthy blue bloods. I voted for him in '88. He was a mediocre president, but hardly a train wreck. What on earth are you talking about?

Again, Mike, hardly vauge.

How is "Liberals want to force people to live in cities so they all become liberal" a non-vague accusation?

It was obviously specific enough for you to take offense

Don't get too cocky, it takes a lot more than that to offend me.

Do you really think, Anjin, that absent pressure from the left, 41 would have imposed that ban? If you really think so, then he's not the Hitleresque guy the left would love to cast him as.

I think he would, Bush Sr. was far more liberal, by today's definition, than his son. And people usually cast him as indecisive and incompetent, not Hitleresque. I don't think he's much been described as an evil master-mind.

Well, Michael has tonight's edition of "rebut the rube" well in hand

Please stop referencing me when you insult people. If I wanted my name attached to an insult, I'd supply it myself.

I do note that bit continues to run from the fact that the Bush family blocked drilling for almost 2 decades

You keep bring that up like it means something, but it doesn't.

As for Anjin;

I do note that bit continues to run from the fact that the Bush family blocked drilling for almost 2 decades

Ummm... no.. I have said on several occasions... at least one of them here, that was go-along to get along. He was placating liberals, particularly those from SouCal. I've also stated that kind of thing has always been Bush's problem...(Either of them fits this statement) neither one is a conservative. they are at best, centrists.

Do you really think, Anjin, that absent pressure from the left, 41 would have imposed that ban? If you really think so, then he's not the Hitleresque guy the left would love to cast him as.

Give me something more to work with, and I will give you more.

What's needed here is some thinking effort on your part, apparently. Example:

Another non sequitur, the fact that the majority of Americans now support drilling isn't evidence that they think the price of oil is artificially high because of the government.

Really? Support of drilling because f high prices and supply issues, in this case, means telling the government to remove the ban on it. Who are they blaming for supporting that ban? Bush? Or the Democrats running Congress? You don't really think this stuff through, do you?

I do note that bit continues to run from the fact that the Bush family blocked drilling for almost 2 decades and in the 27 years McCain has been in DC, most of which in the GOP dominated the political landscape, he did not accomplish spit on drilling.

Well, gee, there's a convincing argument.

Hey, it had as much support as yours did. If you want to do this right, I'm all for it, just don't expect detailed rebuttals to vague accusations.

Of the parties, which thinks more of the UN?

Non Sequitur, just because one party claims to dislike the UN, doesn't mean the other party agrees with every position the UN may take.

Assertion is all I see here.

Again, that's all I got to start with. If you want to start over with specifics, that's fine with me.

The polling data does that for me, where 75% of Americans polled now support drilling.

Another non sequitur, the fact that the majority of Americans now support drilling isn't evidence that they think the price of oil is artificially high because of the government. If anything, it is evidence that they think the high price is mostly a symptom of low supply, as there is no reason to think that oil from off shore drilling won't be taxed as much as our current sources are.

Again, you offer assertion, and naught more.

Give me something more to work with, and I will give you more.

Once again, you present a single example as proof of a rule. All it proves is that you engage in sloppy thinking and cherry pick facts to try and support your arguments.

Laughable, Anjin. My purpose in offering that little tidbit was to poke a hole in that balloon of yours. Given your response I'd say it hit home.

No, it doesn't. Not by any feat of logic that I'm aware of anyway.

..
1.) the great wet dream for the left is herding people back to the cities - Wrong

Well, gee, there's a convincing argument.

When the UN started pushing the idea of concentrating population in the cities, it was to minimize man's footprint on the planet for environmental reasons. Of the parties, which thinks more of the UN?

Wrong on both assumption and conclusion.

Assertion is all I see here. No backing fact whatever. Ironic, given your responses here:

That's not been my experience, perhaps you have a study that will back you up?

Don't need to. The polling data does that for me, where 75% of Americans polled now support drilling. WHich is why the Democrats are making a show of changing their minds on the issue.

Wrong in pretty much every way possible.

Again, you offer assertion, and naught more.

Surely they're witches, their denial is proof of it.

Same here. You're batting .1000 so far.

One word:
Orange.

Once again, you present a single example as proof of a rule. All it proves is that you engage in sloppy thinking and cherry pick facts to try and support your arguments. I could just as easily argue that Austin Tx. proves that Texans are deeply concerned about global warming and America's aggressive military actions in the middle east.

Mike has it occurred to you that all this I'm talking about comes under the guise of 'saving the planet'?

No, it doesn't. Not by any feat of logic that I'm aware of anyway.

What, of what I've said doesn't mesh with well known and often stated objectives of the left, and their recent actions?

All of it.

Point by point, please.

If I must:
1.) the great wet dream for the left is herding people back to the cities - Wrong

2.) All this is exactly why we see the left cheering the recent spike in oil prices and why we see the reluctance to drilling for oil domestically...the desire, in fact to keep the prices high, and keep suburban freedom away fromas many Americans as possible... - Wrong on both assumption and conclusion.

3.) Suburbanites have correctly identified the high cost of fuel as an artifical thing, caused directly by government policy. - That's not been my experience, perhaps you have a study that will back you up?

4.) Which, of course, is precisely why the left is trying so desperately to control them. Let’s be honest here; this has never been about the environment. It’s about control. And cars and trucks are the perfect target for such people because so central are they to our society, that if you control them you control our society. It’s really that simple - Wrong in pretty much every way possible.

5.) In context, I add that Gore lives in a suburban setting. So to, the eminantly unlikeable John Edwards. - Surely they're witches, their denial is proof of it.

Mike has it occurred to you that all this I'm talking about comes under the guise of 'saving the planet'?

And what was it Nancy Pelosi said she was trying to do the other day?

What, of what I've said doesn't mesh with well known and often stated objectives of the left, and their recent actions?

Point by point, please.