All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 3, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
January 3, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, that's distressing.
You know, when I urge people to hold on, and I'm going to get to you, and I expect you to hold on.
I had this call up there from a lib who wants to say, hey, well, I disagree with you about here's side-by-side comparison of Iraq and Iran.
What's Bush doing about Iran?
Now I'm going to have to answer that without the benefit of a liberal asking me and without the benefit of a liberal hearing my answer to respond to it.
Such is life.
Well, greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
El Rushbo here, the cutting edge societal evolution.
I am America's anchorman, America's truth detector, America's doctor of democracy, all combined in one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Telephone number if you'd like to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I wish you could have seen the collective faces of my trusted and loyal staff down here when I asked the question, you think buying a home is more expensive now than ever before?
You're wrong.
You should have seen their faces.
You know why this attitude exists?
I will.
No, no, no.
Snurdy, just hang on here.
See, everything's about you, but you live in an expensive part of the country.
You live in a very expensive.
South Florida is.
It's a growing country.
There's a lot of demand down here.
You live in an expensive part of the country.
The financial news, like most other news in this country, is written by people who live in very expensive places.
The news on the economy is written by people who live in high cost of living places.
San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Washington.
And so the national reporting on the economy is skewed by their own personal experiences.
Remember the story before the break, this poor journalist writing in slate about how you don't make enough in journalism anymore to live in New York.
And so if you're assigned to cover certain financial types or whatever, you don't have the money.
You can't hobnob with them because you can't afford to live in Manhattan.
And they made this case that a couple, two journalists, man and woman, living together, making $250,000 a year, couldn't afford to live in Manhattan.
And they listed all the reasons.
Well, you've got school tuition, you have real estate prices, and high New York state taxes.
To which I said, yeah, and you and the same people are never for a tax cut.
So live with it.
They're complaining about having to live in Park Ridge, Slope Park, Park Slope, Bay Ridge, Baytown, Bayonne.
They're all upset about this.
They're upset they have to take the subway in when the people they cover are riding in in car services.
Well, it's the same thing when you get to reporting on the housing market.
We're a bit of a housing bubble, right?
Well, look at where the people who write about this live.
They can't, because they're journalists, they can't afford these places.
So they're hoping for a bubble so they can finally get into a house that they want real estate prices to come down.
So you get jaundiced coverage about the economy at large, about real estate price, any time the focus of the reporting comes from a high cost of living area of the country.
But here's a story.
This was in the New York Times back on December 29th, just last week.
Despite a widespread sense that real estate has never been more expensive, families in the vast majority of the country can still buy a house for a smaller share of their income than they could have 25 years ago.
Small, and this has been statistically studied now and proven.
The key here, families in the vast majority of the country.
Now, I went home to see my family for Christmas.
My brother has a huge house.
He has huge acreage.
He lives in the outskirts of Cape Girard.
Huge house, huge.
You see his backyard.
He's got a baseball field, soccer field, jungle gym.
It's huge.
It's absolutely huge.
The house is huge.
You put that house here.
I'm not going to tell you what his house is worth because I don't want to give up his privacy, but I have that much money in my pocket.
But if you put that house and it's huge, if you, well, just, I'm just trying to be descriptive here, but you put that house here and you're talking 10 million with that much acreage and the size of his house, you're talking $10, $12 million.
Look at Tiger.
Tiger Woods just buys this place up at Jupiter Island.
Jupiter Island is north of where we live.
It had a population of 2,700 people.
He paid $30 million, $40 million for 10 acres.
You can get 10 acres in Missouri for a million bucks.
You can get 10 acres and a house on it for a million bucks in Missouri if you want.
Now, who buys that?
So the key here is families in the vast majority of the country can still buy a house for a smaller share of their income than they could have a generation ago.
Now, I tell you that, and you just don't believe it.
Because you watch all the news about how high housing costs are, and they are in lots of the country, but where the people who write these stories live, look at these are the same people that would need a visa to leave Washington or New York to go to Missouri to do some reporting because to them it's another country.
It's flyover country.
They fly over and they look down and say, thank God I don't live there.
If they did, they would have a far more enjoyable life than where they wouldn't be writing stories about how they can't afford to do all they want to do on a $250,000 a year income.
So it just, it makes sense.
And this story, when you read it, I'm not going to spend a whole time reading the whole thing to you here, but it focuses on positive news in the economy.
It talks about, it has to.
If you can buy a house today for less of a bite of your income than you could 25 years ago in the vast majority of the country, the economy has to be good.
The economy has to be doing well.
And the story also admits that news on housing prices and the economy is skewed because most people writing about real estate live in places like New York and LA and they don't understand what it's like in other parts of the country.
I mean, it is starkly different.
It is incredibly different from where they live and breathe and work and moan and whine and complain.
But it does form the basis of their reporting.
So Snerdley has sent me this little note.
What about your old New York Times philosophy that whatever you read in the Times, your first question is, hmm, what if this is true?
Well, this is in the real estate section of the Times, not the news pages, number one.
And number two, I happen to know this is true from actual experience of traveling around the country.
Look at, can I be personal for a moment?
I know what housing and real estate costs where I live.
And everywhere I go, I am astounded at how let's put it this way.
I am astounded at how cheap it is elsewhere.
I am astounded by even in certain parts of Beverly Hills and Bel Air, California, you can get more house, more property for what you can get it here.
In some cases, I've looked, I've checked around.
I'm not because I want to move.
I've just checked it out.
I'm interested in these kinds of things.
Speaking of the New York Times, I don't know if you people saw this.
This was in the Sunday magazine, New York Times magazine.
Some reporter, it's the most incredible.
I don't even know if I printed this out.
You may want to take the kids away from the radio if they haven't gone back to school yet.
But I mean, this is in the New York Times Sunday magazine.
This was published as an enlightened, elitist, ahead-of-the-curve story.
I think the writer's name is Daphne Merkin.
And her whole story was about how difficult it is getting in touch with your vagina these days.
It's the most absurd thing.
I will see if I can find it.
I will see if I printed this.
I can't do it justice, trying to paraphrase it.
And all I'd really do is need to read the first two sentences to you.
But that's in the New York Times, as though women are running around concerned with, and it's all about the appearance of, and plastic surgery, too.
T-O, plastic, the appearance of and plastic surgery on, let me say, because it's tough these days dealing with the appearance of and dealing with, well, first we had the vagina monologues, monologue, and now it's given us this.
So when you read that in the New York Times, yeah, I wonder if this is true.
But in that case, I know it's true because I know that there are oddball, kooky, liberal women who are totally self-absorbed with that kind of thing.
But they've, if you read the story, you would think this, this is something Larry Flint needs to touch.
Or, I mean, Larry Flint needs to do this.
This belongs in smut.
Or what is the name of his magazine?
Hustler, whatever.
Yeah, I just, stunning.
At any rate, a quick timeout here, ladies and gentlemen, try this headline, by the way.
This is New York Times from December 30th.
U.S. growth may hinge on businesses.
That's about as strange as Time magazine's cover story, men and women are actually born different.
You believe this, folks, that U.S. growth may hinge on businesses?
Why, who would have ever thought of that?
What kind of money did we spend researching this?
What an earth-shattering development that the U.S. economy and its growth may actually hinge on businesses.
Why, we always thought it depended on government.
A quick timeout, ladies and gentlemen.
Back in just a second.
All right.
Well, this gets even better here, folks.
Welcome back, El Rushball, the Excellence in Broadcasting Networks.
I don't think I printed the story out, so I went back to the website here, the New York Times, and I found it.
And I just showed the Ditto cameras out there a close-up it, close-up of the first page.
It is by Daphne Merkin, and the headline is, Our vaginas, comma, ourselves.
And here's how the story begins.
These are cruel times for vaginas.
Lately, as if I don't have enough to worry about, I've begun obsessing about various aspects of my genital appearance.
And I'm not going to read it any further.
But we get an in-depth description of her.
So I'm told during the break, this story has to be a joke, Rush.
Do you know what Merkin means?
M-E-R-K-I-N.
I said, no.
Well, go look it up.
So I went and looked it up.
The authorette is Daphne Merkin.
Merkin, an artificial covering of hair for the pubic area.
It's a pubic wig.
The woman's last name means pubic wig.
Hello, New York Times.
You have to.
I'm not even going to try to analyze it and put it into any context.
It doesn't need that.
Where's William Sapphire?
Give us the etymology of the word.
And I've known people named Merkin.
I mean, there's no question.
I'm sure it's her real name.
I wonder she even knows.
I wonder she even knows that.
She probably does now if she didn't.
I mentioned earlier Iran in a side-by-side comparison, Iraq, Iran, how we're dealing with both, which would you think is going to provide fewer problems in that region based on our policies?
Thomas Soule, syndicated column, has an interesting point.
He said, serious or suicidal?
He said, when you're boating on a Niagara River, there are signs marking the point at which you have to go ashore or else you'll be sucked over the falls.
With Iran moving toward the development of nuclear weapons, we are getting dangerously close to that fatal point of no return on the world stage.
Yet there are few signs of alarm in our public discourse, whether among politicians, the media, or the intelligentsia.
There's much more discussion of whether government anti-terrorism agents should be able to look at the records of books borrowed from public libraries.
The Iranian government itself is giving us the clearest evidence of what a nuclear Iran would mean with its fanatical, hate-filled declarations about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
But send not to know for whom the bell tolls because it tolls for thee.
Just last year, before the American election, Bin Laden warned that those places that voted for the re-election of the president would become targets of terrorist retribution.
We could ignore him then, but neither we nor our children nor our children's children will ever be able to ignore him again if he gets nuclear weapons from a nuclear Iran.
We will live at his mercy, of which he has none, if he can wipe out New York or Chicago if we don't knuckle under to his demands, however outrageous those demands might be.
We could deter the nuclear power of the Soviet Union with our own nuclear power, but you can't deter suicidal terrorists.
You can only kill them or stop them from getting what they need to kill you.
We are killing them in Iraq, though our media seems wholly uninterested in that part of the story, just as they seem uninterested in the fact that the fate of Western civilization may be at stake, just across the border in Iran.
By the way, the Iranian version of Mohammed Al-Baradai, they've got their own Atomic Energy Commission inside Iran.
They've announced that they have figured out how to separate uranium from ore, which is what gives you yellow cake.
They don't need to call Joe Wilson to go to Niger to see if they can buy some.
They can make it themselves.
They just announced this.
Now they're the Iranians.
Do we believe them or not?
Well, can you afford not to base policy on the worst-case scenario here?
It is as if we're on the Niagara River, Sol says, and wanted to go ashore before it was too late, but we didn't want to turn on the motors for fear of disturbing the neighbors with excessive noise.
But at that point, the choice is between being serious or being suicidal, and that's where we are internationally today.
Many years ago, there was a book with the title The Suicide of the West.
It may have been ahead of its time.
The squeamishness, the indecision, the wishful thinking of the West are its greatest dangers because the West has the power to destroy any other danger, but it does not have the will.
Partly, this is because most of our Western allies have been sheltered from the brutal realities of the international jungle for more than 50 years under the American nuclear umbrella.
People insulated from dangers for generations can indulge themselves in the illusion that there are no dangers, as much of Western Europe has.
This is part of the world opinion that makes us hesitant to take any decisive action to prevent a nightmare scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of hate-filled fanatics.
So don't look for Europe to support any decisive action against Iran, but look for much of their intelligentsia and much of our own intelligentsia as well to be alert for any opportunity to wax morally superior if we do act.
They will be able to think of all sorts of nicer alternatives to taking out Iran's nuclear development sites.
They'll be able to come up with all sorts of abstract arguments and moral equivalents, such as other countries have nuclear weapons.
Why not Iran?
Debating abstract questions, it's much easier than confronting concrete and often brutal alternatives.
The big question is whether we are serious or suicidal.
And I think this, I think this is perfect because he has just described in the intelligentsia, the State Department, and the James Risen, New York Times crowd, and the whatever that guy's name, the chief of staff, Colin Powell.
Yeah, that's right.
Wilkerson, this Larry Wilkerson guy that was running around talking about how we've had a power grab.
Bush has understood the threat posed and has done something about it.
Now, people say, well, why did he do the same thing in Iran?
May I ask you a question?
Given what the Democrats have done in saying Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, Bush lied about chemical weapons, Bush lied about pre-war intelligence, what do you think the media and the Democratic Party would do if Bush were to give a speech on Iran, much like he gave on Iraq?
My friends, you know exactly what would happen.
There would be, I'm telling you, they would lose it totally.
They'd start jumping off cliffs.
They would start impeachment hearings.
Bush is insane.
It's not enough that he lied about Iraq.
Now he's got to lie about Iran.
So I think what's going on here is I don't think they've forgotten about Iran at all.
I don't think they're taking it lightly at all.
I think they're letting Iran make their own announcements.
They're letting AlBaradai get out there and say all these things, because he is about how dangerous we've got six, seven months.
But this is a crucial question.
When we get near that point where they're about to go active with fortifying nuclear weapons, will we do something or will we sit back and wait?
I don't know, but I have to think they are taking it seriously given the context.
Oh, me.
All right, back to the phones.
Philip, Glencove, New York, welcome to the EIB Network.
Yes, it's an honor to speak to you, Mr. Lindbar.
I'm definitely a liberal, and I definitely have an opinion on our policy in the Middle East.
And what I think is we've supported these religious fanatics in Afghanistan.
In fact, Reagan, the late President Reagan, said that these were patriots.
The Mujahideen the Al-Qaeda.
We finance them.
And we financed them over a secular movement that was moving in Afghanistan prior to the Russians even going there.
The same thing in Iran.
Mossadegh was a secularist.
Women had rights and votes and everything.
And we put in the sharp.
We created this apartment.
As long as you're on this tack, let's not leave Bill Clinton out of this.
He went into Bosnia, Kosovo because of the ethnic cleansing of Muslims.
Absolutely.
Yeah, I agree.
And look at his policy.
His policy was to go against all the other UN representatives, against the Security Council, when he had these 17 resolutions.
The only people who were voting for the resolution was the United States.
And yet we said it was a UN resolution.
This is deception.
So the point is that we are creating terrorists.
Is that what your point is?
Well, if you look at it wasn't the communists that financed Hitler and Mussolini.
It was the industrialists that wanted a war with the Russians to promote their interests, which was their natural resources, and to get even with World War I for the killing of the Romanovs.
I mean, let's say that.
Well, yeah, it wasn't.
Well, who was it?
What great American industrialists financed Hitler?
Was it Henry Ford or was it?
Well, Mellon Ford.
In fact, DuPont had controlling interest.
Yeah, the DuPonts did.
Yeah, yeah.
And with building tanks and armored cars with I.J. Barber and the Hingam report, the Truman fascism in America.
The Mellons control the aluminum industry.
We're not even explaining to this country.
Well, yeah, Joseph Kennedy.
I mean, don't leave him out.
Joseph Kennedy Bigby.
Charles Lindbergh.
Great American heroes.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
All these were very wealthy people connected.
And in fact, they tried to create a dictatorship in this country when they tried to make General Smedley Butler a dictator in 3034.
And he exposed the plot.
And what do we have now?
We have a plutocracy run by the corporations and the World Bank for the exploitation of the natural resources of the world.
And we're using our military industrial complex to control the world.
We spend all our wealth.
And 31% of the world.
So you're leaving out, but you've left out a key ingredient here, and that's David Rockefeller and two things, the Trilateral Commission, a Council on Foreign Relations.
Of course.
Well, yes.
And then Pope Paul II, John Paul II and the Socialist International, nobody ever talks about that, but those people were invested in the same kind of dictatorships that you're describing here.
Absolutely.
The whole World War II idea was to exploit Europe, to get Europe on the side of the industrialists.
I mean, DuPont was making money.
We had plants.
General Motors had plants in Germany.
Yeah, well, you know something about all this?
Your understanding of this circumstance is rare, and I applaud you for it.
Where do you think Google and Microsoft fit into all this?
Because, you know, the industrialists of old are not the industrialists of today.
Because look at the manufacturing base.
We've destroyed that in this country.
We've got everything made from China and so forth.
But you look at Google and Microsoft and Apple.
I mean, who knows who they're behind in supporting?
Well, I think Google is really an international movement for information.
I think it's a wonderful thing.
But I have to tell you, if it wasn't for the Russians stopping Hitler in Moscow and in Stalingrad, they would have hooked up with the Japanese and we would have been surrounded.
So this whole Cold War, this whole war against communism, was created by the same pro-industrialist military-industrial complex.
And the communists had nothing to do with that.
Well, no, no, no, no.
And that's where we are now.
No, no, no.
Wait, you're half right.
The whole war against communism was started by David Rockefeller.
In fact, the Soviet Union could not support itself as a country or as a power were it not created as an enemy in the minds of the American people by the intelligentsia here, which continually led by Rockefeller and that bunch at the CFR.
It's the same thing.
Feminism in this country.
You know, feminism was created by these people just to get men and women at war with each other so we'd be distracted from what they were doing as you've described it.
Well, if you look at the situation in the Democratic Convention, you talk about democracy.
We're certainly not a democracy.
We're not even a republic.
In the Democratic Convention in 1944, Henry Wallace was voted on the first ballot to be vice president.
They wouldn't allow Claude Pepper to second the nomination.
There was a coup in this country, and we became a national security state under the thumb of the same industrialist that financed Hitler, that financed Bush, that financed Clinton, that financed all these radicals, and we're losing the flower of American youth in these ridiculous wars, and we have 20,000 nuclear.
We had 20,000, now we have 10,000.
The Russians have the same.
And we're worried about this two-bit dictator over there.
The biggest threat to the annihilation of the human race is ourselves and our own capacity to destroy the planet by polluting it with nuclear waste, nuclear weapons.
I know we haven't even gotten a global warming yet, but that's a conspiracy in and of itself.
Now, Philip, you know, what you're saying is that Hugo Chavez has it right.
Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, is right on the button about this.
But we can talk about this all the time.
What is the solution to it?
Well, the solution is to expose ourselves, expose our evil, and expose the world that we have been wrong.
To admit we're wrong.
The whole point of admitting we're wrong and taking a whole new aspect about the planet Earth is there.
No, you can't just stand up and say we were wrong and then disempower the industrialists.
I mean, these people don't.
How are we going to disempower these people?
Well, we disempower them by letting them take their taxes, number one, and taking the and controlling the military-industrial complex, saying that we're not going to want to weapons.
We're going to take all those bases we have all over Uzbekistan and all over in Germany.
Bring the boys home.
Put them to rebuild a society here that the world will emulate and force these industrialists to do it.
You know, you're so right on.
I hadn't thought about raise taxes on the industrialists and that'll disempower them.
Just take their money away from them like we've already done for the American people for the most part.
Take their money.
Just raise their taxes.
Well, you've got to do more than that.
Well, but it's a good start.
I mean, you're on to something here.
Some good things down there when he raised the taxes.
But the whole point is that we say we're a democracy.
We say we're spending democracy.
That's a false image.
Then that we created a national security state.
Now, if we really were even a republic, we'd have what Europe has.
Like, they have Green Party representative.
They have Communist representatives.
We don't allow any Communist reports.
Well, we've got that.
If we really were a democracy.
We've got a Green Party here.
We've got a Communist Party.
They haven't been able to win elections yet.
It's a crying shame.
No, but if we had a republic, the 3% of the Green Party would have been a difference between electing Gore and Bush.
Because if out of 100%.
Well, wait a minute, though.
Gore is just as much a part of any industrialist complex as Bush is.
You know that whoever's president is going to be co-opted by these people.
You know this, though.
Exactly.
You're all right and right, Mr. Limbaugh, because they are all connected to the Bilderbergers.
And you know who the Bilderbergers are.
And the Rothschilds, you can't leave them out of this.
No, they're all in it.
And the Bill of Burgers, the first one was...
What about the Illuminati?
I mean, you know, they're still around.
And the Knights Templar.
All these people think these organizations are defunct, but they're not.
They're just secretly members of other organizations.
They're smart.
They're always a couple steps ahead of time.
They're not controlled of the World Bank.
Now, they make these loans to these poor African countries, and then we send our own companies over there to exploit the natural resources, and then these people are left with huge debts, and then they have wars, and then we supply them with all of them.
We manipulate the wars.
In the meantime, the planet is being destroyed.
It's like when we banned DDT, we guaranteed that Africans would suffer malaria and infectious diseases.
Well, that wasn't the main point we're over there.
The main point we're over there is to exploit the natural resources and to create debt for these countries and then prop up dictators to suppress them so we can sell our weapons to them and to create these dictators over there in Africa.
But South America has gone on to us.
Yeah, I know.
South Africa had, but I'll tell you something.
This is where Bono comes in handy because Bono's exposing all this.
He was one of the three people named the Man of the Year at Time magazine.
Bono understands Africa.
Bono, you know, I think it's a very tough thing.
Most people couldn't go to Africa and see the misery and suffering there, but Bono somehow has.
It must be the colored glasses that he wears because he goes over.
Well, no, you know, I mean, most people, when they went to Africa, they wouldn't see the misery and suffering.
It takes a special person to be able to see it over there.
And Bono deserves great credit because he's trying to call attention to this in his own way.
Now, as to exposing the industrialists and so, you know, that's a risky behavior.
Clinton exposed himself and it didn't work.
And back to the phones we go.
This is Al in New Jersey.
You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Rush, I want to tell you, I've been attempting to make calls in from the beginning.
I've never made it.
I've always been busy, but I got through today.
That last call was spectacular.
I just want to thank you for that.
That was beautiful.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much, Riff.
I appreciate that.
AJ in Miami.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, thanks for having me.
Hey, I wanted to talk about maybe the house prices issue.
I didn't read the article, but from your analysis of it, it seems like you might have missed something, perhaps.
Why should I miss something?
I'm only the host.
I've read it and you haven't.
What did I miss?
Well, it seemed like from the report that it was based on home prices as it relates to household income.
And I think that's we would expect that it would be houses would be cheaper related to household income because there are more two-income households now than there were 25 years ago.
So we get the cheaper houses for our household, but we have to give up something in the process.
We have to give up time with our families, and there are other, of course, other costs that go along with being a two-income household, and so on.
So I think if you look at the stats related with single-income.
I mean, I understand this, but let me ask you a question.
Seriously, what do you think is the greater of the two factors that I'm going to ask you about here in the two-income household being necessary?
Is it feminism or economics?
I play that, which is the greater.
We'll both play an influence.
That's a tough question.
Maybe feminism.
I actually think it's taxes.
I think high taxes have made it necessary for both couples to work.
But were it not for feminism, there wouldn't have been the compulsion to do it in the first place.
But you're right.
I mean, as things have settled down, your theory, what you're saying is that a generation ago or more, one income per family could afford a certain quality-style cost of a house.
Now you're saying it takes two incomes to buy the same house.
Therefore, it actually has gotten more expensive.
It could have.
That's right.
I mean, I don't have the stat for single incomes, but that's what I would expect.
And so if that's the case, then it's not all a rosy picture that houses are cheaper relative to household income because there's a sacrifice that we as families we go through when we get to income.
Okay, I understand because, yeah, that means you need daycare.
The kids are farmed out.
Expeditation costs, nannies and this sort of stuff.
Yeah, well, I know.
I understand that.
You got a point.
But in strict economic terms, household income today is up.
I mean, you can say, on the one hand, that be it feminism or taxes or whatever, cost of living, forced wives or second members of the family to go to work.
There's also a reality that you have to attach to that, and that is that this economy grew fast enough to provide all those jobs for those people that A, needed them and B, wanted them.
So it's, no matter how you slice it economically, to me, it is good news and positive news.
And don't forget the point of the story.
The point of the story is that most of the reporting on housing and economics is doom and gloom, negative.
We got a bubble coming.
It's horrible.
The economy is doing rotten.
We've got soup lines.
Can't buy a house anymore.
Starter house costs.
Yeah, a starter house where these people that write the stories live.
But a starter house in the vast majority of the country is nowhere near the $700,000.
Remember that.
I think the latest figure I saw is $700,000 is the average price for a starter house.
That's average.
That's average.
Doesn't it mean that it's the price?
Because it means there's a bunch of prices below that in order to get to the average.
AJ, I appreciate the call.
Thanks much.
When you talk about the economy, it's funny.
So much of the economy is doing well, but so much of liberal media isn't.
Newspaper circulation down, newspaper advertising down, Hollywood box office, it is plummeting.
They don't know what to do about it.
They're in big trouble out there.
I know what they'll do about it since they're libs.
But a lot of the liberal entertainment and media is not sharing in this economic revival and robustness.
Now, there's a – where was – where is it?
This ran at CNNMoney.com by Paul R. LaMonica.
Most movie studio executives are probably glad that 2005 is finally over.
Sure, some movies that were expected to do Monster Box Office, Star Wars 3, War of the Worlds, Batman Begins, they delivered, and there were a few surprise blockbusters, but a handful of hits was not enough to overcome the fact that people just didn't seem to be interested in going out to the multiplex as much as they once were.
What's ailing the movie industry?
Did rising ticket prices and overpriced tubs of popcorn keep people away?
Well, why?
They're not that much higher than they were during the heyday of the concession prices are.
I mean, you need to practically take out a loan if you take a family of four to go to a concession price.
But I think there are more factors than just that.
Yeah, overpriced tickets, don't even make that that big a deal.
Concessions are a ripoff, there's no question, especially since I took coconut oil out of the popcorn.
It's not worth even buying it.
But the story doesn't even examine seriously the quality of the product on the screen.
Just doesn't.
And then, of course, you've got these liberal actors alienating moviegoers by going out there making political statements from standpoints of sheer pure ignorance.
You've also now got the ability to get movies on DVD.
You have to wait too long to do that.
But the real problem, I think, for Hollywood folks is that they're just, and I hope they learn this.
There just are not enough movies with gay and homosexual-oriented themes.
It's great to be back with all of you people.
And I will look.
Oh, Brett, you got to save some of these calls for tomorrow.
I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to get to all of you today, but it just, you never know what's going to happen on the phones.
And when the right thing comes up, you just go with it, which happened here today.
So it shortchanged some of you, but we'll make it up to you tomorrow.
Be back, same time, same place tomorrow.
And look forward to it.
And see you then.
▲
Export Selection