Active Users:425 Time:18/04/2025 01:02:34 PM
At best, it shows he was joking about something he believes to be fact despite lacking evidence. - Edit 1

Before modification by Joel at 18/03/2011 05:35:28 PM

Both statements were given within moments of each other so you can not judge the second statement without keeping in mind what he had said in the first. You don't have to like what he said but the fact remains that the quote posted was misleading and taken out of context. I am not defending Rush and I don't particularly like the man and you will never find me using him as a source. He was making jokes about Chelsy Clinton when she was still a teenager living in the White House and that crosses any reasonable line of decency. It doesn't change the fact that his quote was taken out of context. It was clear to anyone willing to be honest with themselves that it was meant as hyperbole and not as a real claim that they were actaully doing it. He was claiming it was the kind of thing they would do. And lets be honest almost any national disaster from flooding to rain to drought to hurricanes to snow storms to heat waves has been blamed on global warming in the last few years. He was poking fun at that.

By the way I am still not convinced the other guy was not implying that Mother Nature was literally sending us a signal but I do accept that I don't have enough context to make that judgment and I am not going assume that is what he meant simply because it fits my view of reactionary environmentalist.

His later comments only provide the "context" that he knew no one is blaming the tsunami on global warming, but sincerely considers environmentalists guilty of making them anyway. ECO-LIBEL!!! Now if an environmentalist leader (instead of, say, a B movie actor... ) comes along and makes such a claim his prediction will be vindicated, but until then he's just talking out his rear, untroubled by the total lack of facts to support HIS claims.

Return to message