Which people? Where? Example? - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 16/03/2011 06:50:17 PM
If he's going to accuse "environmentalists" in general of something like that he should provide an example; you may not hold them all responsible for things alleged without evidence, but Rush explicitly has, and that was the complaint.
Undeniably; I'd already noted Wikipedia is already quoting a "Carnegie Endowment associate"s statement that "This was a wake-up call for anyone who believed that, after 50 years of nuclear power in this world, we have figured it out and can go back to business as usual." That's from an even more alarmist USA Today article best summarized at the end of its opening paragraph: "When the radioactive steam and smoke have cleared, engineers, regulators and policymakers in the United States and across the globe will have a new reference point in the debate over how to build and operate nuclear power plants — or whether to have them at all. " It&squot;s TMI all over again--but not in the way they think. Had Limbaugh taken issue with THAT I&squot;d have been forced to agree with him; instead he chose to claim "environmentalists" in general are blaming the tsunami on global warming (again, do we have any examples of anyone doing that, or did he pull it out of thin air?) and ask if they&squot;ll be glad to see Japanese autoworkers suffering or "pretend" to be saddened by the death of thousands. I have an equally "legitimate" question for Rush: Did you beat your wife again last night?
Its a short official statement, nothing in it is 'in passing'
You quoted several paragraphs calling for global solidarity during this crisis, of which, what, two sentences? suggested that be directed toward global warming as well. That brief suggestion was a clumsy and rather opportunistic call for action on global warming because it makes the effects of the tsunami worse for some areas, but in no way was it "environmentalists" trying to "blame this on global warming", so Limbaughs question remains not so much "legitimate" as "begged". I have no more patience with his mendacity than he has with that of welfare queens.
Tangent, not interested in Huckabee, bring it up elsewhere, it's unrelated and I've asked you to try to avoid tangents with me, you know it leaves me either having to defend whatever it is and going into a Joel-Isaac fifty page dialogue or I have ignore it and let you score some point.
It's another example of a Republican icon knowingly misrepresenting the facts to smear opponents, just as Limbaugh did here. If I started a new thread every time one of them did that it would crash the site, so perhaps your reproofs would be better directed at the allies making absurd, false and irresponsible statements than at people who call them on it. The rest of us will stop thinking people like this represent the Republican Party when Republicans stop giving them a platform and accepting their leadership--but only then.
They are undeniably a small number of lunatics and I don't hold groups accountable for those, anymore then I did when Danny Glover blamed the Earthquake in Haiti on it, but under the 'Never Let a Good Crisis Go To Waste' theory a lot of people have already started pressing anti-nuclear agendas, those people are certainly fair game, as are others who will use this tragedy to feed their own political goals.
Undeniably; I'd already noted Wikipedia is already quoting a "Carnegie Endowment associate"s statement that "This was a wake-up call for anyone who believed that, after 50 years of nuclear power in this world, we have figured it out and can go back to business as usual." That's from an even more alarmist USA Today article best summarized at the end of its opening paragraph: "When the radioactive steam and smoke have cleared, engineers, regulators and policymakers in the United States and across the globe will have a new reference point in the debate over how to build and operate nuclear power plants — or whether to have them at all. " It&squot;s TMI all over again--but not in the way they think. Had Limbaugh taken issue with THAT I&squot;d have been forced to agree with him; instead he chose to claim "environmentalists" in general are blaming the tsunami on global warming (again, do we have any examples of anyone doing that, or did he pull it out of thin air?) and ask if they&squot;ll be glad to see Japanese autoworkers suffering or "pretend" to be saddened by the death of thousands. I have an equally "legitimate" question for Rush: Did you beat your wife again last night?
Despite Limbaughs claiming otherwise for the sake of questions he ludicrously calls "legitimate". The EESC President merely called for global solidarity, and noted in passing that climate change is another case where this is advisable,
Its a short official statement, nothing in it is 'in passing'
You quoted several paragraphs calling for global solidarity during this crisis, of which, what, two sentences? suggested that be directed toward global warming as well. That brief suggestion was a clumsy and rather opportunistic call for action on global warming because it makes the effects of the tsunami worse for some areas, but in no way was it "environmentalists" trying to "blame this on global warming", so Limbaughs question remains not so much "legitimate" as "begged". I have no more patience with his mendacity than he has with that of welfare queens.
since the tsunamis impact on some islands has been exacerbated (but not CAUSED) by global warming. While American conservatism and internationalism have never gotten on well, the formers case against the latter should be made without raising questions illegitimately based on invented facts. Speaking of invented facts, I was rather disappointed to see Huckabee quoted in the marquee at the link saying, in regard to the President, that most of us grew up going to boy scout meetings rather than madrasas. I'd have thought that beneath him (Huckabee, I mean) and regret that it seemingly isn't.
Tangent, not interested in Huckabee, bring it up elsewhere, it's unrelated and I've asked you to try to avoid tangents with me, you know it leaves me either having to defend whatever it is and going into a Joel-Isaac fifty page dialogue or I have ignore it and let you score some point.
It's another example of a Republican icon knowingly misrepresenting the facts to smear opponents, just as Limbaugh did here. If I started a new thread every time one of them did that it would crash the site, so perhaps your reproofs would be better directed at the allies making absurd, false and irresponsible statements than at people who call them on it. The rest of us will stop thinking people like this represent the Republican Party when Republicans stop giving them a platform and accepting their leadership--but only then.