All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
July 13, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, you're part of the fastest three hours in media, folks.
The fastest week in media, the Rush Limbaugh program.
No matter how much we do on this program, no matter how often we're here, it's never enough.
The audience always craving and demanding more.
We operate on the philosophy of always leaving them wanting more.
So it's a good mix.
Happy to be back.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
Here we are meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
All right.
These little nannies are back.
These people that have in such a prosperous country, they've got nothing better to do with their time than sit around and worry about what everybody else is doing.
And Lord help you if you're enjoying yourself.
If you're having a good time, no matter what it is, if you're having a good time eating popcorn, if you're having a good time drinking soda pop, if you're having a good time, you need to be targeted because there's so much suffering in the world out there.
How dare you?
And so we have guardians of misery.
The guardians of misery who make sure that as many people are as miserable as possible because that's how they define equality.
And these people are typified by the lame brain, Michael Jacobson and his gang at the Center for Science and the Public Interest.
You can hear the anxiousness and worry in his voice, says Emily Kagan from ABC News.
You can hear the anxiousness and worry in Michael Jacobson's voice as he goes over the figures.
Childhood obesity and diabetes are on the rise.
Funding for physical education programs is being cut from screw budgets.
And then there's the soda problem.
I am not making this up.
This is the actual lead to a story that I just got in the ABCNews.com website.
Now, why does the press care about Michael Jacobson?
All Michael Jacobson is and whoever else in his organization, they sit in some dingy little room in some back alley somewhere, but they created a logo.
They put on a piece of fax paper.
They fax it out to the media and the media goes, wow, look at this group.
Look at what they're saying.
Why give this guy the time of day?
What has it meant?
Because they're all libs and they all have the same mindset.
And that is you don't know what's good for you.
You don't have the sense to live your life the right way.
And they're going to make sure that you live it the way they want you to live it because you're such a bunch of doofuses.
And that's how we get from major American news organizations an opening sentence like that which I just read.
Want to hear it again?
You can hear the anxiousness and the worry in Michael Jacobson's voice as he goes over the figures.
So, okay, picture this.
This bald-headed little twerp sitting in his office with papers and figures.
And he's quivering as he reads what is happening to citizens he doesn't even know.
And the figures involve childhood obesity and diabetes said to be on the rise.
And then he notes that evil conservatives who want kids to get diabetes, who want to pollute the planet, who want obesity on the rampage are cutting funding for physical education programs from school budgets.
Despite all that, the real bad news is the soda problem.
Michael Jacobson said the extremes are just astronomical, he said, pointing to the fact that many boys and girls are downing five to seven cans of sugary beverages a day.
What business is it of yours, sir?
Who are you?
Who elected you?
What government agency do you work in to monitor public health, Zip Zeronada?
Whose business is it of yours whether anybody's kids are doing anything?
Most kids aren't drinking that much, says ABC, but they still have two to three cans of soda per day.
So what?
Whose business is it?
And those two to three cans of soda per day make up about 15% of those children's daily caloric intake.
Jacobson, the head of the Center for Science and the Public Interest, calls these drinks liquid candy and said they are the largest factor behind the American obesity epidemic.
But even though study after study has shown the connection between sugary drinks and childhood obesity, there's no consensus on how to get children to pass.
It's none of your business!
It's like tobacco.
If it's so bad, ban it.
We suggest that you ban Coca-Cola, that you ban Pepsi, that you ban 7-Up, that you ban A ⁇ W root beer because we're being told this stuff is killer.
Now, my friends, yes, you've got it.
It's time to go after big pop, big soda.
Jacobson and his group are taking an aggressive, some say misguided approach to limiting kids' soft drink consumption.
They're asking the FDA to put warning labels about obesity on soda containers.
Question?
Warning labels?
I mean, kids?
You do this, Mr. Jacobson, and I'm going to accuse you of fostering an obesity epidemic in this country because you know kids, Mr. Jacobson, you tell them they can't have it and what are they going to want?
It.
You put a warning label on it, tell them it's even more dangerous, their parents don't like it.
What are they going to do?
They're going to start scarfing the stuff just despite you, Mr. Jacobson, and their parents, and they're going to drink even more of it.
If you just leave things alone, if you just let their parents take care of them.
We can't, Mr. Limbaugh.
We can't lick the parents.
The parents are not controlling their children the way they should.
According to who, Mr. Jacobson?
Problem is that a lot of parents believe it is somebody else's job to take care of their kids because that's what the libs have been so successful at, generation after generation after generation.
We see public officials wringing their hands about the obesity epidemic, but what are they doing about it, Jacobson said.
He argues that pressuring the FDA can force the soft drink manufacturers to debate the merits of their product.
They've already come out with sugar-free drinks.
What else are they supposed to do?
It's a free country.
There's choice out there.
It's sugar for crying out loud.
Now, sugar is a deadly substance.
Everybody knows that some people have a problem metabolizing it, but whose business is this?
On what pretext or basis or premise does this man have the audacity to assume that he has the right to get the government to tell you what you and your kids can and can't have access to in the legal market.
But not all health experts believe soda can warning labels would help.
Dietician Keith Ayub, a professor of pediatric nutrition at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, said the labels might even cause a backlash.
He said, I think they've had it with people telling them what they can and can't do.
Hooray for this guy.
Two L18, 17-year-old Josh Stern, 18-year-old Marissa Verity, seemed unimpressed by the possibility of soda warning labels.
I probably wouldn't care that much, Stern said.
And Verity agreed, saying, I'm old enough to know what to eat.
Both thought it would have an effect on their parents, however.
The American Beverage Association, the groups representing soft drink manufacturers, has also urged, argued that warning labels would be ineffective.
Just putting a yuck sticker on it isn't going to work, said Connie Diekman.
This is absurd.
The whole thing is absurd, and it is classic.
Here's somebody who is a nobody, who has been elevated to a somebody by the mainstream press, who then deigns to tell you what you should and shouldn't do with your life and your kid's life based on his assumptions and beliefs of what's right and wrong.
And I'm telling you what undergirds this is his belief that you haven't the slightest bit of idea, competence, whatever, how to properly live your life or raise your kids.
Now, remember, over the course of this program's histoi, we've gone through this with oat bran, coffee, any number of substances are going to kill you.
Then later, oh, no, they're not so bad at all.
Our research was wrong.
And yet people are affected by this.
People, why don't they go to the supermarket?
Can't buy that.
Cholesterol is going to go up.
That's too high in content of fat.
You know, it affects all of us.
It affects you too.
Well, a story from Chicago here in the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
It's actually an AP story.
New research highlights a frustrating fact about science.
What was good for you yesterday frequently will turn out to be not so great tomorrow and vice versa.
This sobering conclusion came in a review of major studies published in three influential medical journals between 1990 and 2003, including 45 highly publicized studies that initially claimed a drug or other treatment worked.
Subsequent research contradicted results of seven studies and reported weaker results for seven others.
So 32% of the studies have been reversed.
That means that nearly one-third of the original results didn't hold up.
Contradicted and potentially exaggerated findings are not uncommon in the most visible and most influential original clinical research, said the study's author, who is a researcher at the University of Ionina in Greece.
Experts say the report's a reminder to doctors and patients that they shouldn't put too much stock in a single study and understand that treatments often become obsolete with medical advances.
The crazy part about science, and yet the exciting part about science, is you almost never have something that's black and white, said Dr. Catherine DeAngelis of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Yes, that's right.
We have a lot of nuance in science.
We have a lot of nuance in science, but by God, we're going to teach the science of global warming.
And by God, we're going to teach the science of evolution.
And by God, we're going to teach the science of economics as the liberals believe it.
And by God, we're going to rely on whatever science says, whenever it says it, as long as it proves what we liberals believe.
By God.
And yet in their own story, 33% of their research has had to be reversed.
Scientific research.
It's flawless.
People are led to believe science is science.
We can't rely on the Bible.
We can't rely on faith.
Science.
That's what we need to go by.
Yes, science.
Led by people like Dr. Michael Jacobson.
Not even a doctor.
Sorry.
Michael Jacobson, Center for Science and the Public Interest.
Who wants to get into your refrigerator and empty it of anything he doesn't approve of?
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
How about old Bernie Ebbers, 25 years in a slammer, the WorldCom CEO, founder, whatever, convicted of massive fraud, $11 billion or some such.
Judge said, you got to report in 72 hours, pal.
I mean, normally you get three months or two months or whatever.
72 hours and Bernie Ebers will go to jail.
Here is Bob in Conyers, Georgia.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, my pleasure to speak with you.
How are you doing today?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
I just, about the last topic you were talking about, I agree that regulation can be, or would be probably overreaching, and legislating it would be too much.
But I think you're minimizing a problem.
The United States leads the industrial world in diabetes, these kinds of degenerate diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease.
And certainly one of the symptoms of that is the obesity rates with kids.
Wait, wait, just a second.
Wait just a second.
See, we throw these things out.
The United States leads the world in, what did you say, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, all these things?
The life expectancy of the United States is higher than it is anywhere else in the world.
You can find country after country after country that's starving people that cannot clothe or feed or provide medicine for their people.
You know, all these doom and gloom statistics are very easy to believe, but I don't believe them.
You have to see a death certificate that says he died of obesity.
And I'm just to preface, I mean, I'm a longtime listener, and I don't disagree with you.
I'm not a seminar caller.
Feel free to disagree with me.
I don't care about that.
I will say this.
My emphasis in that first segment was not on obesity at all.
I don't think I downplayed it.
I don't think that I even commented on it.
I think I commented specifically on a bunch of nattering nabobs, a bunch of busybody nannies, a bunch of people who have no standing in anything, making it their business what everybody else is doing.
And I agree.
And this is sugar.
We're talking about sugar.
We're not talking about a killer substance here.
And I agree that them getting involved in a legislative way is too much.
It's overreaching.
But there is a problem.
Wait.
This is not the legislature.
This is not the legislature.
This is not the Congress.
This is a single citizen sitting in a back room of some dark office somewhere with a fax machine, telling everybody else what we ought to do and have our popcorn pop, whether we ought to eat Chinese food or not, sitting around because this economy is so prosperous.
This guy can earn a living raising money from the fear-mongered and the panicked over all this so he can sit out there and issue these faxes to the media, get his name in the news, and get a whole story published about this when there's not one official bone of substance to it.
Well, do you think Coke, if you drank three Cokes a day, the rest every day, would you be healthier after 10 years or more healthy or less healthy?
That's not the point.
No, I understand what you're saying.
I wasn't even commenting on that.
As a kid can certainly drink three cans of Coke a day.
That's when a kid can metabolize.
That's when a kid can do things.
I know people to this day who the first thing they do is get up and have a Coke.
And their health, I don't know how healthy or unhealthy they are.
All I know is it's none of my business.
I'm not going to round it when somebody says, when somebody gets up and drinks a Coke, I'm not going to sit there and take it away from them and say, you had no right to do that.
What do you think you're doing?
Drinking a Coke the first thing in the morning?
Are you stupid?
I don't care.
It's none of my business.
It's a Coke.
It's a soft drink.
It is Kool-Aid.
Orange juice has more sugar in it than a Coca-Cola or the same amount, equivalent amount.
And I don't want to hear about this vitamins business for crying out loud.
It's just over the top all this stuff is.
It's none of my business.
I couldn't care less what somebody else does.
It's their life.
Now, if they're in my family, if they come under my orb, sure, you're going to have some concern about things.
But adults are adults.
Kids are a different thing.
But that's the role of parents.
And it's not some single guy with a phony organization with a made-up name, Center for Science in the public interest.
And having him be able to dictate his own personal preferences and attitudes on the whole of society.
Now, if kids were falling over dead with Coke cans in their hands, if kids were holding up quick stops to get hold of Coca-Cola or Pepsi, don't want to leave anybody out here, if kids were stealing money from their parents, if the kids were, I can understand this.
It's soda pop.
It's soda pop.
Go to any ballpark.
You'll see the sign, Coca-Cola, go to Disney.
It's the 4th of July.
It's hot dogs and soda pop and all this.
Next thing you know, pie and dessert.
It's just absurd.
The whole thing is petly absurd.
And I'll tell you something else.
I'll be damned honest with you here.
If the country, if a lot of people are getting obese, if they're getting diabetes, I am not going to sit here and wring my hands.
We have freedom.
They are free to do what they want.
If they want to live till they're 50, that's their prerogative.
If they want to live till they're 45 or 70, it's their prerogative.
I heard something, just put this in perspective.
A National Guard leader, I forget what state, maybe a National National Guard leader.
Maybe it was one state.
It's somewhere here in my stack.
I'll have to find this.
He loses more recruits, more members of the National Guard every year in automobile accidents than he loses on the battlefield in Iraq.
Where is that?
Texas, Oklahoma.
Where is this guy from?
You remember the story?
I'll find it here.
Now, come on, folks.
What are we talking about here?
If you're really, I've always used this analogy.
Here is this guy.
He's all concerned about soda pop and coke.
I just see this guy sitting there going over the figures.
And everything he sees, he gets outraged.
Let's ban the wheel, folks.
If we're really concerned about death, if we're really concerned, let's ban the wheel, get rid of the automobile, get rid of everything that uses the wheel to transport people, because that's the single biggest killer in the country every year.
Oh, no, we can't do that because then we would have to walk and then we wouldn't be obese.
And we wouldn't get as much business done.
And we wouldn't, because, of course, we can't ban the wheel.
I'm making a point here.
But people I don't know whose habits I haven't the slightest idea, I am not going to sit here and wring my hands and say it's any of my business.
And I'm not going to sit there and tell them what I think they ought to do because frankly, I don't think the way I live is a model for anybody else, nor do I think anybody else should think the way they live is a model for anybody else.
Nobody here is doing everything exactly right with no flaws.
It can say, follow me.
Michael Jacobson at the Center for Science and the Public Interest can't.
And when you add to this all these false alarms we've had from oat brand to coffee to caffeine to all these other things and then years later they reverse field because the research breaks down.
Why listen to them in the first place?
It's enough, sir, that you know that three Cokes a day isn't any good.
Why do you think nobody else has the sense to know it?
Why do you think you have to join a movement to tell them three cans of Coke a day?
And who's to say or somebody else that it's too much?
None of your business, nor mine.
Enough said.
Mr. Snerdley, I'll make you a bet.
I'll make you a bet.
I'll bet you, let me give you an amount that you could afford to lose without pain, okay?
Because I wouldn't want to wager something that you couldn't afford to lose.
I don't want to put pressure on you.
So I'll bet you a dollar that there will soon be a media poll asking whether Karl Rove should resign or be fired.
Nothing for a buck.
And I'll bet you that the same poll will not ask whether Judith Miller should stay in jail.
And I'll bet you the same poll will not ask, should Judith Miller say what she knows?
Should she reveal her source?
And should the New York Times lift any restrictions on her to do so?
But the poll will not say that.
Here's Eric in Mesa, Arizona.
Eric, welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Well, this might go against my better nature, but I've had it up to my neck with Democratic politicians and some members of the press and this Karl Rove issue.
It's only taken about two days, and I'm just sick of it.
They need to drop it.
This is not a big issue.
Rove is an assistant.
He's not the president.
He's not the vice president.
I don't know whether what he did was right or wrong, but this is not a big issue.
And they're making it into Watergate Volume 2 or Payback for Clinton.
And they just need to let it go.
I heard Nancy Pelosi say one more time that he needs to resign.
I'm going to throw up.
And I'm a Democrat, but I am just, this is what's wrong with the party.
They are just, I almost hate to say that I agree with you to a point, but some of them are just out of touch.
All right, well, I'm glad you called because I want to run something by you that I just found during the break on my RSS reader.
I get some RSS feeds from some liberal blogs, and I found one here on Wonkette, and I want to read it to you because it sounds like, without characterizing, I want to read it to you and get your reaction to it.
Okay, we admit it.
We were overthinking the whole Rove claim thing in speculating this wouldn't destroy him or the White House.
We had been hung up on how he didn't break the law.
What we realize now is that liberals finally have an issue where their headline hurts Republicans more than it hurts them.
And that headline, White House aide identified undercover CIA agent.
Now, here's the advice put out to Democrats on this blog.
Now shut up.
Zip it.
Be quiet.
Repress the natural urge to pedantry.
For once, allow American short attention span to work for you, liberals.
And whatever happens, do not let Michael Moore make a movie about it.
Let the Republicans shoulder the responsibility of having to explain how Rove didn't do anything illegal or how when he identified the agent, it was in a context that wasn't so bad or that it's Matt Cooper's fault or why this is all just a massive smear campaign.
Soon the Republicans will be debating the definition of is, and you can start rumors about Laura being a lesbian soon.
So that's to take off on how the Republicans have spread rumors about Hillary.
So this blog is advising its readers, shut up.
Hopefully the press shut up.
Okay, we've made the case now.
Rove identified a secret CIA agent.
Leave it alone.
What's your reaction to that advice?
Well, I agree with some of it.
There's no point to it.
There's no political gain in this because, frankly, he didn't name the name.
I don't see you.
But the best point you made is he's not the president.
He's not even elected.
At least the Republicans were going after Clinton.
Not chief of staff or, you know, we didn't go after McClarty or didn't go after Stephanopoulos or any of these people.
Clinton was the target in this case.
Bush has been the target.
I think it's an excellent point you made.
Rove, who cares?
I mean, in the big scheme of things.
I love Rove because he's so closely associated with Bush.
Well, they want a scalp.
They'll take anybody.
They're so desperate because they've been trying to get one since Florida 2000.
So anyway, I appreciate your call.
I'm not surprised to hear you say what you say.
I think it's so over the top, and it's missing a sense of proportion.
Rove hadn't killed anybody here.
Rove is not.
What's warranted here?
This is as big a frenzy as Watergate was in the early days.
They're trying to make it out to be.
Anyway, I appreciate the call, Eric.
Thanks very much.
Email.
Rush, I have to disagree with you on your rant against the latest from Michael Jacobson, Center for Science in the Public Interest.
What's wrong with somebody who thinks soft drinks are contributing to the poor health of our children saying so?
I don't allow my children to consume soft drinks on a regular basis, and I never allow them to consume soft drinks with caffeine and artificial sweeteners.
I agree soft drinks are like liquid candy for kids.
Most parents would cringe at the thought of their kids eating candy four or five times a day.
Most parents would celebrate if that's all they were eating.
Most parents would cringe at the thought of their kids being able to buy candy from a machine at school whenever they felt like it.
No, they wouldn't, especially if it's paid for by the government.
That combined with lack of exercise that a lot of kids are getting because they're spending hours upon hours in front of the TV or the computer leads me to think that the next generation is going to be very unhealthy.
Okay, this is from Mobile, Alabama, Mike Zimlich.
Mike, let me go back to your first sentence, where you say you have to disagree with me on my rant against Michael Jacobson.
You question what's wrong with somebody who thinks soft drinks are contributing to the poor health of our children saying so.
Nothing.
Nothing's wrong with it at all.
What's wrong with it is that this guy has been granted superpower status by a sycophant bunch of people in the media who agree with the concept of a big government, big nanny, big elites, elites telling you plebes how you can and can't live.
It's one thing for him to think it.
It's one thing for him to say it, but nobody has to hear it.
The First Amendment doesn't grant anybody a right to be heard.
You know, I could set up a little fax machine operation here, the Center for the Promotion of Safe Cigar Smoking, and I could send it out.
It probably wouldn't get past the first editor it went to.
I could try to do it seriously.
I ought to do this as a test.
Come up with some name of some organization that attempts to be acting in the public interest.
I'll figure out the issue and I'll send out a warning based on some research that my team has just completed.
We'll see if I can get it in the media.
This has happened.
A phony group of doctors got the, you remember the food group pyramid or whatever that we've always been taught, eat that stuff at the bottom, don't eat the stuff at the top, whatever it is.
A group back in the mid-90s in Chicago came out and they called themselves the American Medical Associates Association or some such thing.
And they said research indicated that the old food group diagram that we'd all grown up with was wrong.
And so they sent it out to the media.
The media headlined it, big front page stories.
Official group says food diagram wrong.
AMA then said, who is this bunch?
They looked into it, found out they're just a bunch of freaks and charlatans with no standing whatsoever.
And the media had to eat crow.
They should have been sent some soda to drink.
So this can be done.
I have no quarrel with Michael Jacobson, private citizen, saying whatever he wants.
What I object to is just because he's Michael Jacobson saying it with this name, Center for the Science of the Public Interest, that people like you want to bow down and think whatever he says is right, and that you furthermore have to do whatever he says because he's an elite.
I hate this business.
I'm very frightened.
I'll tell you what, I'm frightened of average ordinary Americans falling prey to the elites in our society who claim to know what's better for everybody when they don't know what's even good for themselves.
It's just like inside the beltway, we have these the wise men.
And David Gergen is one of the wise men.
And Norman Ornstein at the American Enterprise, he's one of the wise men.
And Dan Balls at the Washington Post is one of the wise men.
And these guys travel around from think tank to think tank.
And you can see it on C-SPAN.
And they're doing seminars or meetings, actually.
And the people show up, all the press and everybody shows up to hear what these wise men have to think about the Rove situation or about whatever's going on in Washington.
And if you watch one of these things, you will hear these wise men say everything that you know already because it's just picked off the news or off the front page or whatever.
There's no insight.
There's no super duper secret information that's released.
There's no particular superior intelligence at work here.
There's just the fact that these guys have been anointed, the wise men.
And so when they say what everybody else is saying, it gets credibility because they're the wise men, even though they're saying nothing different than anybody else happens to be saying.
So it's all a game.
It's all a phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and roll.
Well, here comes Michael Jacobs.
Who the hell is he?
He may have a pedigree.
He may have a list of degrees from some university somewhere, a series of them.
So what?
So do a lot of people.
He can say whatever he wants to say.
What bothers me is when sponges like you think that you're listening to God talk when he's mentioning soda pops.
It just irritates me.
I want to say, shake your shoulders.
Where's your own mind?
You express in your letter, Mr. Zimlich, you don't need Michael Jacobson.
You're already doing it the way he suggests anyway.
You're already restricted.
And my point is, most parents are probably capable of this.
And that's whose business it is and not anybody else's.
But this devotion to elites and the surrendering of power as an individual to a bunch of elites to tell you how to live your life, not for me.
Especially when the subject is Chinese food, popcorn, and soda pop.
Back after this.
Stay with me.
All right.
God works in strange ways.
The Karl Rove story is over.
Ladies and gentlemen, Karl Rove has now just been taken off the lead item of the news.
Karl Rove is taken off the front pages of tomorrow's newspaper because the networks just stopped everything for breaking news to announce that Chief Justice William Rehnquist is in the hospital suffering from a high fever.
MSNBC is at this moment interviewing a reporter from the Washington Post on the meaning of this.
It won't be.
This is a plot.
We know that Rehnquist has no fever.
He is in the hospital, but Rove called and suggested he go as a diversion.
I don't doubt that this program was interrupted in some markets while I was on my anti-soda pop rant in order for you to be told that Rehnquist was in the hospital, probably in Baltimore.
That's our number one interrupted market.
Interrupt us more there.
If a flake of snow falls, they'll interrupt us in Baltimore.
So we probably were interrupted.
They're preempted there probably that's probably enough mentions.
But nevertheless, it is news, and I guess the threat level in Washington has now been raised to the panic level.
That would be yellow.
And if Rehnquist is not released from the hospital anytime soon, the panic threat level will be raised to orange, which is severe.
And we will get even, oh, look, now MSNBC is doing videotape of Rehnquist getting into a limousine sometime in the last 10 years on his way to work.
I don't know who this Washington Post reporter is, but he is an expert on the meaning of the chief justice being in the hospital with a fever.
I don't want to, I don't want to, it's dangerous to speculate about things, folks, but I can't help it.
With the Chief Justice in the hospital, I want you to know that it's just possible, and I don't know that anybody else has thought of this, so if I'm wrong about it, and if I go overboard, if I step over the line, I apologize in advance.
But if the Chief Justice dies, this could create another opening on the Supreme Court.
So I don't know if you'll hear that anywhere else.
I just want you to know this because that's well, somebody's got to say it.
Well, no, I don't want to speculate what Sandra Day would do, but I don't think too many people are thinking about this.
I mean, the Chief Justice in the Hospital, we're giving the meaning of that.
And I'm just telling you the meaning of this is that the Chief Justice may pass away.
And if that happens, that would create what is called a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
In which case, Bush could, if he wanted to.
I mean, the senators went up there and said, please don't nominate somebody from the appellate courts.
Let's get some diversity up there.
President could nominate Karl Rove to go to the Supreme Court.
Probably part of the plan anyway.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Jim in Lakewood, Ohio, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes.
Hello, Rush.
You know, I got to tell you, you know, the FDA at the top, FDA, it's an acronym for forget doing anything.
Because, you know, when you talked about the sugar and the pop, the one thing that you had a misconception on was there is a difference between the sugars.
Anything that ends in OSC is a sugar I'll agree with.
Pentose, hectose, sucrose.
But sucrose is a killer.
It's the worst kind for you.
My bone of contention here is how come you just can't look at it like it's a caveat in tour thing?
Just a little bit like this group is not shoving it down your throat, just warning you that this is not the thing to do.
Because I will tell you, it is not the thing to do.
I'm a healthcare professional, and I know that have you ever noticed that pop little by little started to, you know, you could get more for your bang for your buck.
They're shoving it at you.
Wait, I missed that.
Do what to get more bang for your buck with pop?
You can get more.
You can get two liters for less money than you did 10 years ago.
Oh, they're selling it cheaper?
Yes, they are.
It's a plot.
Aha.
It's a plot.
I agree with you.
I mean, I'm not kidding you.
I've watched my own kids.
They played basketball on the neighborhood courts and things like that.
There was a time when I would have a 12-ounce pop when I was younger, and that was good enough for me.
They would drag two liters to the court with them and then drink more afterwards.
Wait a minute.
Were you drinking sucrose?
Yes, I was.
Wait a minute.
You're alive to tell this story.
Yes, I am, but I didn't drink as much as what they're doing today.
So I'm alive, and I'm also very healthy for my age.
So now the kids in the neighborhood call me, they call me pop for a lot of reasons because I am an overseer.
I'm a guardian.
And they listen to what I say, and they're very healthy.
But what I'm saying is that that watchdog group, I don't care what the guy's name is, how much notoriety they get.
I don't care.
All I can say is good for them that they're telling everybody that this is the thing to do because it is the thing to not do.
You know, not to drink so much pop.
It is a killer.
It does contribute markedly to obesity, not just.
I understand.
Don't you understand what all this is a precursor for?
This is just a precursor for the trial lawyers to move in and start filing suit, inventing all kinds of medical problems brought on by years and years of consumption of this stuff without proper warning.
We didn't know.
I can just see the endless parade of fat kids being dragged into court, waddling in there, barely able to breathe.
I drink, I drink, and dies on the witness stand, and there goes Coke and Pepsi.
I don't know, but I think we need to investigate what other items have come down in price in the last 10 or 20 years, and then we'll find out who the real culprits are.
Want to kill us all.
We'll be back after this, folks.
Stay away.
Hey, folks, I note that Hillary wrote an op-ed the other day in the New York Daily News with advice about juvenile obesity.
And I'll tell you what, I say anybody who wears pantsuits as attractively as Hillary does has to be an expert on the subject.
How about a new business?
Safe Soda.
Soda sipped through leaky condoms.
Thinking of going into a business here.
Well, something has to be done.
Somebody needs to do something.
▲
Export Selection