All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
January 9, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying because the views expressed by the host on this program are rooted in a relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
It's great to have you with us, ladies and gentlemen.
I am America's real anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations every day.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I don't want to scare you people, but as I listen to the Democrats, I can't help but thinking, ladies and gentlemen, we may be living in a period of time where our tax rates are as low as they are ever going to be.
With no real Social Security reform planned and with the only medicine that we appear to be offered for Social Security reform is more taxes.
And with the Democrats bellyaching and whining and moaning about deficits as far as the eye can see, the only thing that's keeping us, the only obstacle to massively high taxes is George W. Bush, and he's out in two years.
If the Democrats win the White House, then it's all bets are off on tax increases.
It's almost a foregone conclusion.
And to that end, I don't mean to scare you.
I'm just, I continue to marvel at this last election in November.
Here we're in the stem cell debate.
There they go right ahead with it.
The judges and all these things that were supposedly so important never even made it into the campaign.
And now I have a theory that many of the people who ended up voting for Democrats without any concern for policy, just because they were mad over certain things Republicans had or hadn't done, are going to wake up one day and beat themselves on the side of the head.
What happened?
How did this happen?
They're not going to know that they are the culprits for empowering these people.
And by the way, another CI told you, actually, this is Thomas Soules.
Have you seen any of these moderate Democrats in positions of power?
The ones, these conservative Democrats in the House that secured Nancy Pelosi her speakership.
Have you seen any of these people?
I mean, they're nowhere to be found.
Who is it running this party?
Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha is the same old usual suspects.
They are the old war horses, the old liberals, and they are running this party.
The idea that moderates swung this election, that may be the case, but I remain to be convinced that moderates voted the way they did because they want full-fledged liberalism back in charge running the country.
I just refuse to believe it.
There's no poll ever that indicates that or has indicated that.
That's not going to stop the Democrats.
Polls only matter when they are beneficial to them.
But to illustrate what a real hero Ronald Reagan was, I have posted a link at rushlimbaugh.com to the National Taxpayers Union and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.
And what this is, is a table, and it's very easily read.
I can't go through the whole thing here because it's number after number after number, but when you get a chance, you ought to visit RushLimbaugh.com.
We posted this before the show, so you can get up there and see it now.
And it's a history of federal individual income, bottom and top bracket rates.
Now, I have gone, now there's Kennedy right now with his prequel at the National Press Club in Washington.
We're rolling on this, but what is he going to say that we haven't heard before?
So we're not going to jip this.
This is not the Ted Kennedy show, and it's not going to become the Ted Kennedy show, but cookies rolling on it.
Anything noteworthy we'll have for you as excerpts later on in the program.
I've been blue in the face telling people in 1980 when Ronald Reagan took office, the top marginal tax rate was 70%.
The bottom tax rate was 14%.
In 1989, when Ronald Reagan left office, the top marginal tax rate was 28%.
So it had fallen from 70 to 28%.
And the bottom tax rate was 15%.
That had gone up, that went up only 1% over the course of the Reagan presidency.
And then if you go to 1991 through 1992, the rates are 31% at the top.
They bumped three points and 15%.
Then you go to 93 and Clinton, and here we go, the top rate from 28 to 39.6.
And it stayed that way all the way through 2000.
This, of course, the top rate is now 35%.
But this is where the chart ends is at 2000.
But you'll see that the ceiling on these top rates changed dramatically.
In 1980, the top marginal tax rate of 70% was paid on income over $212,000.
When Reagan left office, the top marginal tax rate of 28% was paid on an income of anything $30,950 or over.
But what's interesting at this is to look at tax rates starting at 1913, for example, 1913 to 1915, the top tax rate was 7% on income over half a million a year.
The bottom bracket was 1% of taxable income up to $20,000.
By 1913, it's 7%.
By 1916, the top rate's 15%.
By 1917, the top rate's 67%.
At 1918, it's 77%.
It stays that way through 1921, then it falls to 56%, then to 46% in 24%, back up to 79% from 1936 through 39, and on and on.
Got back in 1944 and 45, the top marginal tax rate was 94% in this country on income over $200,000 a year.
From 1946 to 49, it fell from 86 to 82, then back up to 91% through 1963, when John Kennedy proposed his massive tax cut program.
And the top rate from 91 in 1963 of 91% fell to 77%, then to 70% through 1967.
Kennedy leaves office and it jumps back to 75 to 77, then down to 71 and 70.
Then Reagan comes along and it goes to 50 and then 28.
And then you've got Clinton back in, jumps to 39.6.
Bush comes in, goes down to 35.
I mean, this just spells this out.
It illustrates it.
And you can print this out and have it to you.
Ronald Reagan was truly a hero.
By the way, I want to point out to you that during those eight years when the top marginal rate fell from 70% to 20%, and the bottom rate, just so you know, there are a whole bunch of rates here, but they calculate just the bottom rate and the top rate.
Throughout the Reagan years, the bottom rate, actually, it fell from 14 to 11, and then with tax reform in 86 by 80, it had gone back up to 15%.
So every rate fell during the Reagan years and then held steady.
And the income over which that income was paid increased as well because they factor in inflation and so forth.
It really is a fascinating illustration of just what a hero Reagan was.
And during those eight years, when that top marginal rate fell from 70 to 28, revenue to the Treasury doubled.
And during this period of time, the Democrats were talking just like they're talking now, deficits as far as the eye can see.
The deficit was portrayed as a monster.
It was horrible.
Everybody from Sam Donaldson to Tom Brokaw to Walter Cronka was, we are running up the bill, paying for a party.
Our grandchildren are going to have to pay.
So forth and so on.
Then we had a balanced budget in 1994 with Congressional 95, I think it was, when the Congressional Republicans took over the House of Representatives.
But of course, as we all know, the 80s was a boom time.
It was a boom economy.
The bottom didn't fall out.
The country didn't go into recession with these dramatic tax cuts because revenue increased, just like revenue has increased with the Bush tax cuts, particularly the reduction of capital gains to 15%.
People will report income all day long at 15%, and they'll go out and try to earn it.
But nobody is going to try to earn income when the tax rate on it is 70 or 77%.
It's not worth the trouble.
It just isn't worth the trouble.
See, you tax yourself out of revenue.
Lowering the rates made people more inclined to go ahead and report those dollars earned because, I mean, 50% is paying a lot less than if you had to pay 77.
28 is a lot less than 50, which is, I mean, in 10 years, stop and think of this, folks.
From 70% in 1980, and it was that way in 70%.
Actually, it was 70% from 71 through 80.
And in 10 years, it goes down to 28.
And look at what happened to all the revenue that started pouring into Washington.
And this the Democrats cannot afford for people to actually believe.
And I mention all this because I really do think that we're living in an era potentially where our tax rates are as low as they are going to be for the rest of our lives.
Particularly if the Democrats do win the White House in 2008.
All right, brief timeout.
We'll come back and continue right after this.
Elle, I've got a running transcript of Steve Jobs' keynote address at Macworld, the Mac World Expo out in San Francisco, and they've introduced what many people thought was going to be the big deal today, the iPhone.
It is an iPod.
It is a Blackberry-type device, and it is a telephone in one box.
Sleek box.
It's all touch screen, just like the Sony cameras that the digital cameras are very popular right now.
In demonstrating, in demonstrating the new iPhone, it's got a single button, a home button, and it's got one button.
You want to hit your voicemail, you hit the button, and it plays.
And there was a voicemail message to Steve Jobs from Al Gore, who is on the Apple board.
And isn't that cool?
Al Gore left jobs a message.
Al Gore part of the Mac World Expo today with a voicemail message on the new iPhone introduced by Steve Jobs.
I don't have a price for it or anything, and I've just had to scan this during the break at the top of the hour.
But they claim that they are going, this is reinventing the whole experience.
They think Jobs is saying that he's been more excited about this than anything the past two and a half years, that this will revolutionize the phone business, just as the Mac revolutionized computer business and the iPod revolutionized how people listen to music.
This device, which will connect to the Apple Store, obviously, and for music and video downloads, three and a half inch screen.
I think that wasn't right.
Let me check that.
Let me check that.
Is it yep, three and a half inch screen with 160 pixels per inch PPI?
So this is the, I don't have, as I say, an idea on price.
And this thing is still going on.
It just started about 20 minutes ago.
There's a lot of announcements still yet to come.
About get this, folks.
Frankly, it doesn't surprise me.
About one in three parents in the United States and Canada do not think that their methods of disciplining their children work well, according to a U.S. study.
Dr. Sherry Barkin, Chief of General Pediatrics at Tennessee's Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, found 31% of the 5,000 parents surveyed said they never or sometimes perceived their methods to be effective.
Many of those reported turning into their own parents when it came to discipline, with 38% using the same methods that their own parents used on them when they were crumb crunchers.
It was surprising to see how many parents felt that disciplining their children is ineffective.
Many are using the same techniques their parents used on them, but they don't think they really work.
The study was based on a survey of parents through community-based doctors in 32 states, Puerto Rico, and Canada.
It found the most common form of discipline was using timeouts, with 45% of parents using this.
Well, no wonder.
Timeouts as a disciplinary measure, the number one disciplinary measure?
No wonder they're not working.
Timeouts?
What is it?
Dawn, what's a timeout?
I mean, I know what actually is entailed in a timeout.
Okay.
Okay.
Can't just sit there and they can't play with their music, play with any of their stuff, can't talk to their friends, make them face the corner, or you just sit in their room or what have you.
And so while you're not in the room watching, oh, they can be doing all that stuff anyway, unless you take away the computer or the iPod.
Timeout.
It found that 41.5% of parents removed privileges, while 13% reported yelling at their crumb crunchers, and 8.5% reported the use of spanking often or always.
Well, even better, the one thing that works is the thing that's tried the least: corporal punishment.
Spanking.
You know, it's been said that parents do learn to parent from their own parents.
Well, what do we know about baby boomer parents?
They sucked.
So now kids really have a problem because they're not being taught how to discipline because they're not being disciplined.
Can you get time out?
I'm freaking out.
Uh, what's that?
What about one year for every...
Every year.
Okay, so if the troublemaking kid is 13, then the timeout is 13 minutes.
One year for every.
That's nothing.
I would have craved a timeout under those circumstances.
My gosh, you know what?
My punishment, cutting the yard, mowing the grass when it was 110 degrees.
105 degrees.
That's when I refuse to do it today.
Because it was all kinds of stuff like that.
Taking out the trash.
Well, that was a daily chore we had to do.
But man, timeouts.
At what age, Dawn, do you stop using timeouts on your kid?
Timeouts for five-year-olds, six or what?
Nine or ten, you stop using the timeouts, and then you really get tough, or you say, to hell with a discipline.
It's probably hell with a discipline.
By nine or ten, if they haven't gotten a message, you've lost control anyway.
They're grounded.
What's the difference between grounded and timeouts?
Grounded.
This is not discipline.
No wonder these parents think it isn't working.
John and Churchill, what is it, Tennessee?
You're next, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Megadittos, Rush.
Thank you.
You're reading of the New York Times editorial earlier?
Yes.
That last paragraph I caught, and as soon as I heard you read it, I thought of it's the Vietnam excuse paragraph.
They're saying that we should pull out desert everything, but make sure nothing happens like we did in Vietnam when 3 million people died because we cut off funding to the South Vietnamese.
And that's what Kennedy just said on the TV.
You know, we were going to cut, you know, do what we did like we did in Vietnam.
That clip you paid in the last hour.
Wait, Hold on a minute.
The paragraph that I read was a third to last.
Are you talking about that one or a different paragraph?
No, the third to last one where we're third.
Okay, here, let me read the third to last paragraph because this is the first item I brought up on the program from the New York Times lead editorial today.
Nor can America simply turn its back on whatever happens to Iraq after it leaves, with or without American troops, a nightmare future for Iraq is a nightmare future for the U.S. too.
Whether it consists of an expanding civil war that turns into a regional war or millions of Iraq's people and its oil fields falling under the tightening grip of more powerful Iran, what they're saying here is we've got to get out of there.
But after we get out, we've got to make sure that everything goes well.
We can't let Iraq turn into a cesspool.
We can't let the oil fields go to Iran.
How are we supposed to do this if we're not there?
Well, it's the Vietnam conscience.
Someone had a conscience from what we did in Vietnam.
We did the same thing.
We took off and left them to their fate.
And now we're saying we can't do that like we did in Vietnam.
That's what they're saying.
Somebody had a nasty conscience from way back in the day.
Yeah, right, right.
Okay.
Pole pot and a two million genocide in Cape.
A million.
How are we going to stop that with funding for crying out loud?
How are we going to stop things like that without boots on the ground?
This is absurd.
Pump up the value.
800 decibels.
Make sure you don't miss a single syllable.
We're here behind the Golden EIB microphone, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Here's the last quote from what's this name?
Barkin.
What is her first name?
Sherry Barkin.
Did the study on discipline of kids?
Disciplining is something we do daily as parents, but if this many parents think it is ineffective, it highlights the need to discuss other ways to teach children how to resolve conflicts.
Is that what discipline's for?
To resolve conflicts?
I thought discipline was to punish people.
But discipline is a, you know, discipline's a characteristic, a character trait, a good one.
Few people have enough.
I know I don't.
It wasn't the lack of trying, but, oh, well, the touchy fees are slowly taking over out there, folks.
I have here the latest on this new iPhone from Apple.
I'll listen to this.
This is the way the people transcribing Steve Jobs' remarks going on now in San Francisco describe it.
The iPhone's a communications device.
Rich HTML email on the iPhone works with any pop or IMAP email service.
It has the best web browser in the world, a fully usable Safari, which is the Macintosh or the Apple web browser on iPhone.
Google Maps on the iPhone.
Widgets, which is something Microsoft's going to steal these again from Apple and their new Vista software, but weather and stocks.
It'll communicate via Wi-Fi as well as Edge.
Automatically finds Wi-Fi and switches to it whenever you're in a Wi-Fi network, such as a coffee shop or a Starbucks or a bookstore where Wi-Fi is available.
IMAP options are Yahoo, MS Exchange, and .Mac.
It just goes on and on and on.
It describes this thing as virtually everything their computer is, plus a telephone.
Yes, it's with Singular.
This is with Singular Wireless Service.
Safari shows the entire website.
They demonstrated the iPhone web browser with the New York Times page.
You can pinch and zoom on text or use gestures to navigate the page.
If you double tap on a page, it zooms to that area of the page.
Or you can fully display the page on a three and a half inch screen.
It goes on and on and on.
Sounds like a pretty cool deal.
I haven't seen what it looks like, but that's the big announcement, and there's still more to come from San Francisco and the Moscone Center where the Mac Expo is going on, even as we speak.
Wesley in Newton, North Carolina.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Glad you waited.
Thank you, Rush.
How are you doing today?
Just fine, sir.
Question for you.
Actually, it's not really a question to begin with.
Probably about half an hour ago when you were talking about the stem cell research, you said that you said we wouldn't be able to swallow this when you said it, actually.
But you came across like this whole stem cell research debate is the Democrats' attempt to really push abortion.
But I don't really understand that because their whole technique at abortion is they like to come out as saying I'm pro-choice.
But I do not get how that can be transferred over to the stem cell research debate because I think it comes off like the only thing they're trying to do is kill the babies.
And that's the way it's coming off whenever you say it.
Like, do you understand what I'm saying?
Not quite.
Sounds like you're agreeing with me, but I don't think.
I am agreeing with you to a degree.
But what I don't get is I've always said that there's three different kinds of Democrats when it comes to abortion.
There's the ones that say, I'm pro-choice, where they tried to hide behind that.
And then there's ones that say, I'm pro-abortion.
And then there's ones that are like, kill the babies, kill the babies.
Well, no, no, wait, I don't know too many of them that are actually out there saying, kill the babies, kill the babies.
I mean, that's the outcome, but I don't know too many Democrats actually out there saying that.
Right, but that's how I think you came across when you just said.
No.
Oh, you're saying I came across that word.
Right.
No, you know, I like to cut to the chase.
I like to cut, what is abortion?
It's killing the baby.
Sorry.
The Democrats will never say that's what they're doing.
I will.
But come on.
If we can't, look, and if we've gotten to the point here where we can't honestly describe anything that's happening, whether it be a war or whether it be what happens in an abortion, then we're hopelessly mired in a quagmire of communication advancement.
And by the way, I don't think all Democrats, I have to stipulate this often.
I don't think all Democrats are pro-abortion, pro-choice, or however they hide it.
There are a lot of them that aren't.
I'm talking about the leaders.
I'm talking about the people who are going to make this happen.
The people who are talking about embryonic stem cell research.
If, look at, let me be blunt.
Find that works best.
It offends people.
But why beat around the bush?
If another method for attracting the stem cells that you would get from embryos can be found, such as amniotic fluid, what's wrong with that?
Why would you cast that aside and say, nope, we got to have them from the embryos?
But what if they're the same thing?
Well, we still got to have them from the embryo.
Well, why do you want it from the embryo?
See, the abortion movement is in trouble.
It's not a massively supported movement right now.
And it's always a subject that's under debate.
And it's losing ground in a lot of places.
This was a way of keeping the debate alive without talking about it.
The whole embryonic stem cell research debate is really about abortion without using the word.
And I'm just, if you can get the same stem, forgetting for a moment that they show no promise yet, don't know if they will.
Some people are saying it's going to be 20 years.
Meanwhile, other stem cells are showing lots of process or progress and promise, adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells.
There's any number of stem cells you can get right now.
You don't have to kill the baby.
Sorry.
You don't have to abort the fetus.
But for some reason, killing the baby seems first and foremost at top of the list of what has to happen here.
And why?
To cure grandma's Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, of which there has been not one shred of evidence that embryonic stem cells do that yet.
It's all a bunch.
Yes, Russ, but you can't deny people their hope.
I know.
I know.
We can hope for the most ridiculous, irrational things.
And if somebody comes along to throw water on it with a little reality, they are the bad guys.
They are the meanies.
We are supposed to sit here and indulge people in their hope, even though there is none.
It's just, I don't know.
Folks, there are some days I think that I'm just too smart to live in this country and maintain sanity and happiness.
Carl in Cape Coral, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's great speaking to you.
Thank you, sir.
I wanted to chime in about the child disciplining.
I was never the type of person who could see myself putting my kid over my knee and lecturing them and giving them a spanking, but I had other methods that I used to employ to discipline my children.
What do you do?
Electroshock?
That would be nice, but no.
One of the things that I used to that I noticed worked very well is, you know, when you have a kid that's throwing a tantrum or they just don't stop singing or they're screaming and yelling or something like that?
I used to have an empty five-gallon spackle bucket.
A metal pail used to work better, but they're kind of tough to find.
But when the kid just doesn't want to shut up or they're throwing a tantrum, you have them put this thing on their head and have them just stand there with it on their head and they just listen to their own voice and they're screaming and yelling reverberate inside that bucket.
I like it.
Sounds cruel.
And they shut up eventually.
It just seems to work.
I was just kidding.
I guess you were kidding about the electric shock, huh?
Oh, no, not at all.
Seriously about that.
I hadn't thought of that.
I just got a plastic bucket would work well.
So you've got the little four-year-old.
Would you do this even for like a two-year-old infant just wailing away for no reason?
No, no, that gets a little ridiculous.
I mean, when they're old enough to understand right from wrong and that they shouldn't be doing this be this particular behavior.
And there was another one that we used.
It was my wife, myself, my kids, my brother and his wife in a restaurant one time, and the kids started acting up.
We happened to be in the back of the restaurant.
I eventually had three of them lined up against the wall with their hands against the wall like they were being searched, standing on their toes because they just wouldn't shut up.
They were screaming and yelling.
And we had our own little wailing wall back there, but they shut up pretty quickly and they eventually sat down and behaved themselves.
When I lived in Pittsburgh, which is one of the periods in my life where I deemed I was never going to have kids, I had a couple friends and they had kids and they were notorious for not doing anything about it when the kids did anything, when they were making noise, when they were throwing food on the floor.
I mean, I'd go over there and it drove me nuts.
And these parents, remember this, the early 70s, we can never say no, Ruth, to the children.
It scares them.
We must let them explore.
We must let them discover.
So we're over there having dinner and they gave the kids, I don't know what it was, a little spaghetti and meatball things out of a can.
And one kid didn't like it, picked the plate up, threw it on the floor.
And I'm watching, and the parents are laughing about this.
Oh, wasn't that cute?
And I'm saying, well, who's going to clean it up?
Oh, we will later.
And so when they got more food for the kid that the kid wanted, a four-year-old kid or three, whatever it was, didn't want the spaghetti and meatballs.
They had to go get something else for the kid.
This is not going to work out well.
So I'll tell you what I did.
After I saw this, after I saw no discipline, the kid then started screaming and started crying.
So I started crying.
And I made sure I was louder than the kid.
And it became a contest between me and the kid.
And the parents of the kid looked at me and said, what's wrong with you?
And I said, nothing.
I'm trying to shame your kid into shutting up because there's nothing to cry about here.
He doesn't wear a diaper anymore.
He hadn't wet his pants.
There's nothing to cry about.
So I just, and the kid finally looked at me like I was the biggest idiot in the world, but never made a sound the rest of the night till I got out of there.
After I left, I don't know.
I was very tempted to take my plate, throw it on the floor in front of the kid.
See, there are methods then.
Just to, well, yeah, well, just to illustrate, I mean, if they're old enough to be able to learn these kind of things by doing them and so forth, and they're old enough to be shamed.
And look, all that is desperately crying out for attention.
So if you start competing with the kid for attention and you get it yourself, kids are not used to competition.
Well, they're used to it.
But it's natural human trait, but they don't really know what's going on.
But I was this close to picking up my own plate, throwing it on the floor.
There are many days past.
I wish I had done it.
So I could then look to the parents and say, you clean it up.
I don't like what you serve me.
I want something else.
One of those moments in time, I wish I had done something different.
One of the few regrets that I have in my life.
Back in a sec.
And in more nanny state news, ladies and gentlemen, the Banger Maine City Council approved a measure yesterday that prohibits people from smoking in their automobiles when children are present.
When the law goes into effect next week, Banger Maine will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law.
Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.
People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanquette, who is a smoker.
Let's step up to the plate and lead.
Our children are worth the fight, she said.
The ordinance was approved by a six to three vote, applies to any motor vehicles on public roads within the city.
Violators face fines up to 50 bucks.
So if you think killing your kids worth 50 bucks, go for it.
And if you want to, find a road that's not a city road or a state road and drive on that.
And then they can't do anything to you.
Of course, that might be problematic unless you build your own road.
Deliberately trying to kill children.
Deliberately trying to kill.
May as well.
It's insanity.
This is just total.
Don't you think, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to start banning the product?
Isn't it time to just take this product off the market for crying out loud?
Secondhand smoke in a car is murder?
That's intentional murder.
That's a first-degree murder.
That's exactly what they're saying it's doing.
Cigarette smoke kills this, kills that.
Secondhand smoke kill your cat.
I mean, it's causing all that.
You know, I was in California over the weekend.
You know, you've seen these billboards out there all over the country back when the deficit was supposedly scaring us all to death, the national debt that had these running totals, national debt.
And of course, it was always moving, going up like a million dollars an hour or some such thing.
There's a billboard out.
I think it's on Santa Monica Boulevard or Wilshire.
I'm not sure which, but as a running tally of the number of smoking-related deaths year to date.
It was when I got there on Friday, it was in the 5,000s.
When I left on Saturday night, it was in the 7,000s.
Smoking-related deaths.
And as I drove by, I was like, what is the purpose of this?
I said, do the people behind this billboard, are they really concerned about people dying?
Because if they are, ban the product.
And if they are, let's talk about other ways you can die in this country.
I mean, cigarettes may kill you, but it's going to take decades for it to happen.
You can die today behind the wheel of your four-door family sedan.
If you decide to cross the street, you can get hit and killed.
That's instantaneously.
What is behind this?
Is it really a concern for people's health?
Why don't we just take these smokers out and shoot them?
I mean, everybody's telling us that they.
There was a proposal the other day somebody made, if you are a smoker and you get sick and need surgery, you go to the back of the line because you brought it on yourself.
Let people who don't smoke have first dibs.
This is Britain in their socialized health care system.
It's gotten to the point, ladies and gentlemen, that it's irresponsible.
In fact, it's murder on the part of elected officials to continue to allow tobacco to be sold.
That's what's murder.
They've told us for so many years that tobacco kills.
It's murder.
Why don't they ban the product?
And what's really behind these billboards tabulating smoking-related deaths?
Is it really about preserving life?
They really want you to stop smoking so that you will live?
I refuse to believe that that's their motivation.
I don't think that's what's behind this at all.
I know the libs, and they don't care about you.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Heard about these naked, these nude parties going on in Ivy League schools, ladies and gentlemen.
I first saw the news on this yesterday.
I waited until I could read about it last night.
I'll have details.
Oh, another smoking story, too.
▲
Export Selection