All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
February 5, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, Rudy Giuliani has made it official.
He has filed the necessary papers to signal his candidacy for the presidency of the United States as a Republican.
So there's now a new breathlessness out there, as yet another hat has been tossed into the Republican ring.
And of course, I don't do Sunday morning TV shows, but I still appear on them, ladies and gentlemen.
Grab cut seven.
If you would, Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
Proving that all you have to do as a conservative to get on a Sunday shows is to be un-Republican.
Here is Chris Matthews talking to Michael Duffy at Time Magazine.
With all these guys angling for the job of Mr. Conservative, the base is underwhelmed.
Here's conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh.
There's nobody out there that revs me up, so why should I pretend that there is?
Limbaugh, it isn't impressed by Brown back, by Huckabee, but by any of the things that makes me nostalgic.
It used to be if you were a conservative Republican in the premise, you've backed a loser.
You got behind a loser.
That was part of being a conservative Republican, but ever since 2000 when they backed Bush.
Now they expect to back someone who could win.
But they don't like McCain.
They're not crazy about it, of course, Rudy Giuliani.
So, of course, if they nominate Giuliani, they're gonna call him a conservative.
Well, you know, this is interesting.
We got behind Reagan twice, Reagan lost.
What is this we support losers?
Uh that's wishful thinking on these guys' part.
Let me tell you something about Giuliani.
Uh he's a smart cookie.
Fox Fox is running a poll that says that uh it's either 83 or 87%.
I'm not, and I'm not sure which I remember seeing.
One of those two numbers of Republicans, 83 or 87% comfortable with the notion of Rudy Giuliani in the White House, and not as a visitor, but as president.
Uh and here's the here's the thing about Julian.
I everybody's got problems with him.
Conservatives have problems with him on the social side.
Uh pro-gay marriage, pro-gay rights, pro-uh uh abortion, uh uh pro-choice, whatever, uh, these kinds of things.
But when you start polling him on judges, uh strict constructionist, he's out there saying this.
Uh they like Scalia, likes Clarence Thomas, likes John Roberts.
Uh that'll count for quite a bit.
He can fix the abortion thing if he goes out there and says, Look, look, uh, I actually think this ought not be something decided by courts.
I think this should be decided by the people.
Uh, the democratic fashion at the state level.
Um and he can ameliorate uh some of that.
So he's got I think he's got potential, particularly, folks.
We're still gonna be at war somewhere in 2008 during that campaign, and the Democrats are still gonna be who they are, and they're still gonna be acting as they are, if not worse by then.
I mean, Mrs. Clinton, I will get us out of a rock.
Uh whatever they're saying that they're gonna do, there's they're still gonna be who they are.
And uh somebody like Rudy, who has a huge advantage in competence during crises, uh, when you pull that, uh he he could he can overcome some of the shortcomings that conservatives have.
Uh Duckfee saying rather smugly, well, even if Giuliani gets a nominee, he's not a conservative, but they'll call him the conservatives will call him a conservative.
That's not how conservatives work, Michael.
Um, he's he's potentially good on economics.
I I think that one of the uh that there's been obviously here has been a lot of strategy going on here with Rudy and whoever advising him on various ways to ameliorate some of these problems uh that he is said to have with social conservatives that would surface uh during a uh a primary appearance.
So anyway, it's still way early.
And at this point, I'm not revved up.
Now what?
Old Ditto Cam bars.
Sorry about the ditto cam bars.
I thought I'd hit the button and miss the button.
Real panic out there.
Just an unfortunate accident for ditto cameras.
They've been watching the bars, not me, for the last five minutes.
And that infuriates them.
Anyway, uh no refunds.
It was an honest mistake.
Now, where was I before I was rudely interrupted about the bars?
Oh yes.
I'm still not revved up, but let me be more specific.
I I'm I'm there isn't a Reagan out there, and I'm I'm a purist and an idealist, and I know there's not going to be a Reagan.
Because there was only one Reagan.
By that I mean I don't see somebody willing to lead a conservative movement as president in our ranks.
I see some people who are conservative here and there and some other things.
Uh and not on others.
But more accurately, I should say that the process isn't revving me up yet.
And just to be specific about that, what is this?
It's February the 5th in 2006, 7, 2007.
And I know the campaign is going to be upon us very, very, very, very soon.
The Democrats are already, in fact, campaigning against each other and throwing darts and so forth.
I know it's there.
I just at that at this at this stage, it's just too soon for any of it to really matter.
What's going to happen more than anything else is these people are gonna make gaffes that get them out of the race, like Biden did, with his Barack Obama being the first clean, pure whatever African American mainstreamer.
Uh I that's the first eliminating.
There's always going to be.
There's going to be somebody that nobody thinks has a chance that's going to pop up out of nowhere and surprise people.
It could be somebody like Huckabee.
Uh it could be some other what they would call second-tier people right now.
Can't even think of all the names, but one of them's gonna surface as a surprise.
And when that happens, it's gonna change the dynamic of everything.
And so to look at polling data right now and to draw any substantive conclusion from it, to me is ridiculous.
So to get on the I mean, I'm I I I if I let me put it this way.
To succeed as a radio talk show host, one of the one of the requirements is to have empathy with the audience.
And I will tell you this.
My empathy tells me that if I start talking about the presidential race every day for a significant length of time every day, you are gonna get so sick of it for the precise reason it doesn't matter.
What when the primaries get going and the whole aucun cockeye and all that, uh, and the some of the polling data, you know, on the eve of some of these things.
Yeah, the fundraising is important, and that's a factor, but just in terms of the way the race is being discussed, to pick a guy, I guess, right now, to me, is uh is is not something I'm prepared to do, because I know one thing I'm not gonna do idiot Michael Duffy, I am not gonna back a loser.
Just for the sake of backing a loser.
Uh who knows who the nominee is going to be.
Maybe tough to support.
So it depends on what the Democrats do, what's happening.
So many things can happen between now and then.
Real life events.
Outs well, uh what if I don't like the nominee, then that's my problem.
If I don't like the nominee, and his too.
If I don't know.
I I'm not uh if I don't like the nominee.
I don't I'm not I can't I can't envision looking down the road and having no interest in the presidential race, so don't think that.
That's that's not the case here.
Uh it's just too soon.
Something else, folks.
I I am not, I'm not gonna get sucked in to the daily media bubble on the race for the White House in 08.
Uh and right now, that's who's primarily interested in this because they have this desire to get Bush out of there as quickly as possible, destroy the Republicans any which way they uh they can.
But I there's also a third reason I mentioned this Friday, somebody called well, it was last week's Morton Friday.
Somebody called, how come you don't talk about Brownback?
You can really help Brownbeck if you're talking about Brownback.
Well, look, Brownback's out there on the wrong side of the anti-war resolution.
Um is doing some things here that That have me scratching my head.
Not a thoroughbred conservative like uh I think he once was.
Uh but but point is it's up to these guys to get noticed themselves.
You know, I I'm not gonna sit here and and build these guys up for for what they gotta do it themselves.
Get you know.
Does that make sense?
I mean, I I I just let them I want to see if they can go out there and get themselves known and get themselves liked and get themselves uh uh some some some positive reaction and so forth, because the whole country's gonna vote on them, not just me.
And I've only got 20 million votes.
So we'll see, folks.
I just I'm just want to take some time to explain all this because every time I say I'm not revved up, I get on the Sunday shows.
Just like McCain does.
Back after this, stay with us.
By the way, you know, I'm in thinking even more here, but this this Michael Duffy of Time Magazine talking to Chris Matthews saying that uh conservatives only support losers.
What was John Carey?
I mean, the Democrats, how long is it?
You know, the the the they haven't held a White House in a long, long time.
Other than Clinton, it was you gotta go back to um and Jimmy Carter one term, they haven't had a two-term president in I don't know how long.
Talk about losers.
And as I look at the Democrat lineup right now, they look like a bunch of losers to me.
These guys are so smug and so arrogant and so Democrats are all natural winners and so forth.
They continue to go bonkers over Barack Obama.
I mean, we played you a soundbite last week at Barack Obama's speech.
At the in fact, let's do that.
Let's do let me go into we're gonna find the numbers here.
It's uh I keep wanting to get to Assad, but I don't find my way to do it.
Here we're three and four.
We're gonna do four first.
Uh this is Obama.
This is last Friday in Washington, Democrat National Committee winter meeting.
This is the phenomenon that the Democrats are talking about.
This is fresh, this is new, this is a new way, this is unique.
We have not had somebody this electrifying or special or or different, fresh in politics in decades.
It's gonna be cynicism that we're fighting against.
It's the cynicism that's born from decades of disappointment, amplified by talk radio.
Stop the tech 24-hour news cycle.
There's nothing new here.
I mean, the talk radio and uh bit that that's a Clinton bit.
They've been good.
Go back to the top of this.
Uh Luton maintain the continuity on this.
There's nothing that my point is there's nothing new here.
This is not electrifying.
This is not unique, it's not fresh, it's not.
It's not what the image and the hype of Barack Obama has been.
It's gonna be cynicism that we're fighting against.
It's the cynicism that's born from decades of disappointment, amplified by talk radio and 24-hour news cycle, reinforced by the relentless pounding of negative ads that have become the staple of modern politics.
It's a cynicism that asks us to believe that our opponents are never just wrong, that they're bad, that our motives in politics can never be pure, that they're only driven by power and by greed.
It's a game.
It's a blood sport with folks keeping score about who's up and who's down.
At best, it's a diversion.
With such cynicism, government doesn't become a force of good, a means of giving people the opportunity to lead better lives.
It just becomes an obstacle.
Okay.
Now, nothing new there.
Uh it's rehash recycle.
Uh it's nothing fresh.
There's nothing remarkable about it.
Well, it was articulate and clean, I know, but it was, I mean, there's there's nothing here that that that says, wow, the hype is is accurate.
But I want you to listen to Donna Brazil.
She was on uh this week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday and said this about Obama's speech uh at the DNC winter meeting.
Barack is a phenomenon.
I mean, I've never seen anything like it in my life in terms of the type of appeal, the the broad support.
One of the things, being in the room is that you you're right.
It just everybody just hushed.
And he listened.
It was like having a church service without the choir.
Okay, so what we heard there was a church service.
He was I just heard didn't hear a whole bunch of energy.
But anyway, he's the broad-based appeal.
Mrs. Clinton's cleaning his clock in all these polls, even in Iowa now.
They can talk about all this broad-based appeal, but she's got twice or two and a half times the level of support he does, at least in these polls.
Uh right now.
One one of the things, you know, the the Senate is going to begin its debate here on all these resolutions.
And Mitch McConnell, if this holds, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate's done a good job.
Senator John Warner will join what I mean, this is weekend news, and it but it looks like it's still held.
Uh a unanimous Senate Republican caucus.
Forty-nine Republicans opposing a Senate vote on Warner's anti-Bush administration resolution unless competing resolutions are also voted on.
This is uh a spokesman here for Warner saying Senator Warner supports the Senate Republican leadership's effort to establish a free and open debate on Iraq on the Senate floor, including possible amendments.
Earlier in the day, and this goes back to I think this is Saturday.
Uh uh earlier in the day, Mr. Warner told colleagues during a closed-door strategy meeting at the Library of Congress that he opposes the manner in which Harry Reed is conducting debate on his resolution, which condemns the surge.
Senate Republicans are opposed to a vote on the Warner resolution unless they also get votes on two others.
One of those alternatives supports Mr. Bush's plan, and the other would prohibit cutting funds for the war.
Uh Republicans also want each resolution to require sixty votes to pass.
They're invoking the uh the filibuster rule here.
Mitch McConnell, uh the Kentucky Republican told reporters that he expects to have all 49 Republicans in the chamber, nine votes more than are needed for a filibuster to vote today to block the non-binding resolution unless le read lament uh uh uh uh relents and allows other resolutions to be voted on, one of which is a show of support.
Imagine how could that read allowing a resolution which supports the surge is controversial.
And I can't help but think what if the Senate came out with a united resolution in favor of victory.
Wonder what that would mean to the troops.
Wonder what that would mean to their morale.
Wonder one wonder what it might mean for the country's morale.
It'll never happen, of course.
But I just thought that I would mention.
Let's go to Cincinnati.
Todd, uh, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Oh, Rush, how are you?
Fine, sir.
Congratulations on your nomination.
Appreciate that.
I was watching the Science Channel the other day about a new probe that they're gonna be sending to Mars.
And one of the things that they were talking about was that Mars is unable to retain its heat because its atmosphere is made of carbon dioxide.
Well, come on.
Not able to retain its heat because of its carbon dioxide.
Right.
All the heat is reflected right out into space.
That's not, you know, I uh this is this this is interesting because that's not what I hear about Mars at all.
What I hear about Mars is it's warming up too.
Uh and there aren't any SUVs there, and there aren't any power plants.
And there isn't any industrialization that's emitting CO2 in the form of uh human beings or so forth.
So how can Mars be warming up?
Uh and it is well, of course, the if if you've got uh sun activity uh that is responsible for it here, why wouldn't it be happening on Mars as well?
The sun's unusually hot, throwing off uh uh these blue X-rays, well, it's not that I'm having a mental block on the name, but uh that's what I've heard about Mars.
I have not heard this.
Well, the point that I was trying to make, I guess, is if it's unable to retain its heat because it's made of carbon dioxide, how is it more carbon dioxide is gonna make us warm up?
Uh well that that's see, that's not proved science.
This is let me tell you how this all was arrived at.
I I'll give some of these scientists credit.
They think the world's warming and they want to find out why.
You know, scientists, some of them are curious.
So they come out with a proposition, the world's warming up.
They can't prove that either, but they still want to try to.
And so they start looking for causes.
And they start somebody starts studying carbon dioxide.
Well, look at the look at the emissions.
Look at why industrialized life is uh causing no CO2.
It's like we've never seen it before.
That has to be a real.
So they've got to build a consensus around it.
Can't prove it.
So uh there what there have been some pretty powerful scientists defecting from the whole CO2 carbon footprint BS uh and recently, because it doesn't make any sense.
Water vapor is one of the largest causes of of the so-called greenhouse effect, but there's there's no proof that the greenhouse effect is responsible for global warming.
We'll be back in just a second.
Okay, back to the phones we go here having more fun.
And a human being should be allowed to have Nobel Peace Prize nominee Rush Limbaugh with talent on lawn from God, dug in Sacramento, my adopted hometown.
Hello, sir.
Hey, 60 degree global warming dittoes from Sacramento.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, my idea, Rush, was that I think the Democrats would happily and vigorously support a war that they could get credit for and could control.
Um nah, you know, you you think that everybody's tendency is to um is to make but but the behavioral pattern of Democrats is to oppose war.
Behavior you you might you might find instances where they started wars in Clinton's case, but he fought it for 15,000 feet.
He went in, by the way, without a UN resolution.
But he was going in for a noble cause, ethnic cleansing.
Yeah, remember how wistful they were, though, when he didn't get to handle 911?
Yeah, I mean, they they well, yes, they were upset that such a major event did not occur during Clinton's presidency so that he could uh show his his his toughness and his skills and his brilliance and his genius uh by dealing with it.
They were they were a little wistful, as you say, that it happened during the Bush administration.
But if you go to Vietnam, I mean I I read a New York Times editorial today from 1916.
And the New York Times editorial nineteen sixteen ripping the Democrats for sounding just like Germans in the uh pre-World War I days.
I mean, it was it was uncanny.
The only thing different about it was it was the New York Times was not with the Democrats then as they are now.
This was a scathing editorial, accusing them of propagandizing, not joining the war effort, uh, even challenge their patriotism because of their position on the war.
So Democrats, are you Democrats in a civil war wanted to lose.
I th d it's just something about these people.
And it really isn't unique.
And it was it would be a mistake to say that if the Democrats are in power now, they would want victory here if they could take credit for it.
If they wanted that, they could do what they're they can change what they're doing and secure victory, do what they could to secure it, raise morale, so forth, support the country.
They can't do it though, because they don't support the country, they don't support the president.
But and then if we emerge victorious, they can claim credit for it, or partial.
What they're doing now is the exact opposite.
Not only are they invested in defeat, they can't permit defeat or victory.
They cannot allow it politically, it will destroy them if this works.
And some of these Republicans that are that are joining them as well.
Precarious, precarious uh position.
I mean, they they've already got their minds made up, the war's lost.
It's just a matter of finding a way to convince everybody else and uh and bring the tubes home.
But uh telling you if you're if you're gonna judge Democrats and you're gonna roll the dice, always assume they are anti-war because they are, and their base clearly is.
Look, the Democratic Party is a party of liberalism, folks.
Think no mistake about it.
Shreveport, Louisiana.
David, thanks for calling your up next.
Hello.
Yes.
Mr. Limbaum, a pleasure.
Uh my thought on this global warming issue was and I I don't see that as um being viable or having much proof, but the other issue with the accumulations of these uh emissions in the atmosphere.
I do think those are a concern, and I just hate to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak, on that particular issue.
Um you think I'm suggesting throwing the CO2 baby out with the bathwater.
Well, no, not not completely, but people have a tendency to, you know, discredit science, uh, you know, different areas of science, and then not not really to maybe take their eye off the ball.
Well, you basically are you basically saying we we shouldn't forget our efforts to clean up pollution.
Definitely.
Yeah, well, I don't especially as more and more countries come online.
This this is what bothers me.
We do, we do the best job of cleaning up after our messes of any large industrialized nation in the world.
You if you've traveled, you can you can you can walk they we hear about there's just a story in the stack today.
Even though they contribute the least to global warming, they are going to be hurt the hardest, the nation's poor in the third world.
I'm gonna tell you, if you're worried about pollution, go to any country that does not have freedom.
You go to any socialist, uh uh non-real full market economy, particularly the Eastern block, the old Soviet bloc.
Take a look.
I i it it's it's devastating.
Uh you know, capitalism market economies depend on efficiencies, cleaning up messes and so forth.
We we do a bang up job.
This that's another thing that that bothers me about all this is that we're the primary culprits in all this pollution simply because of our size and so forth.
And uh and and the Chinese and others uh get off scot free.
Uh simply, well, they don't have the ability to deal with it, Mr. Limbaugh.
That's why we must pick up their flack.
Well, uh don't make don't make the mistake of assuming that I uh am a polluter and want to continue to.
I would only say that to irritate the left.
But what it the the the just because global warming may not be happening as a result of CO2, uh I'm I'm not in favor of massive CO2 emissions, but don't forget the primary context in which I am attempting to explain all of this.
And that is what we have here is an element of worldwide leftism attempting to co-opt and destroy capitalism on the basis that capitalism is destroying the planet, and the planet can only be saved if capitalism is dumped.
And they're doing this by imposing as much guilt on as many people as possible so that they will blame themselves and their lifestyles for this destruction.
And after such sufficient guilt has been uh implanted, if you will, or transferred, they will readily agree to higher taxes and being punished in terms of freedoms on their lifestyle as a means of uh making amends for their sin of destroying the planet.
And pollution, you know, I uh if if if these same people are going to start lying about pollution and blaming the wrong people for it, I'm gonna still attack them.
And I'm not gonna it doesn't mean I'm for pollution.
This this guy's point is exactly what I said earlier.
You gotta be very careful how you deal with these people because if you disagree with them at all, you're for pollution, you're for dirty water, you're for dirty air.
And don't let them bulldoze you into that, folks.
Don't don't it it's it's not the case whatsoever.
In fact, opposing liberalism in and of itself stands for continued progress and liberty and freedom and the improvement in the quality of as many lives as possible.
Liberalism is what depresses the expansion of the quality of life, because they don't think it's possible for people.
They don't think it's po there's where I've got to find this story.
I hope I printed this out.
Hang tough with me here, folks.
Oh, I think I got it.
Yes.
This is a piece by Mary Catherine Hamm.
Uh and I think this ran at Townhall.com.
She's a uh college.
Yes.
Liberals assume minorities are incapable of achieving.
She's right, but it's not just minorities.
They assume the poor in general are incapable of achieving.
They assume the average are incapable of achieving.
Let me give you some excerpts of her piece here.
This week, the political world is on fire with the news that the first tolerably clean, well spoken, non threatening black man ever has stormed under the American political stage, poised to take his rightful spot at the head of the pack of Democrat presidential hopefuls, or so Joe Biden tells us.
Others think the revolution had already begun.
To many candidates such as Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, Michael Steele in Maryland, Lynn Swan, both of whom vied smartly and competitively for U.S. seats in 2006, look sufficiently showered and sounded sufficiently schooled.
For instance, Hardball's Chris Matthews had high words of praise for Michael Steele's ad campaigns.
I love the ads, my wife loves the ads.
They're really funny, some of them, and very unthreatening.
An African American guy, it seems, has to run an ad that's so unthreatening.
He's almost childlike in his presentation, but it seems to be working, said Matthews.
So question, why is it always liberals who seem so genuinely overtly surprised when black candidates are viable candidates, and in their surprise evoke old, damaging stereotypes about them.
If you'll excuse a Bushism, I think it's because much of their political philosophy and existence depends on misunderestimating minorities.
Minorities are getting lower grades than other students, lower the standards.
Minorities aren't getting into colleges at the same rates as other students, give them special race-based admissions programs.
Minorities need help, give them expensive social programs of questionable worth.
The liberal solution to these problems has never been one that grants minorities the dignity of achieving success, which I have always said.
They look at the straight.
Look at the people at the top, look at the people the bottom, think it's unfair, people on the top should be there.
They lower the people to be in class, education, economics, socially, what have you.
They never seek to elevate people from the bottom.
Because they don't think the people at the bottom can do it.
Because they have arrogant contempt and condescond condescension for people.
And so this is this is this is why this whole global warming business is they they know capitalism versus socialism.
They don't think average Americans can achieve in the capitalistic system.
A capitalistic system is so unfair, and they're out to destroy it, because it'll put them in power when their blessed socialism arrives in as many places as possible.
And because you can't do it on your own, they think you're going to need a little help, and they want to be the ones to offer it so you keep voting for them and blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah.
So I uh this this whole business of global warming to me represents huge opportunity to illustrate what liberalism is really, really all about and how it contrasts with uh with conservatism.
Conservatism only wants the best for people, as many people as possible achieving, meeting their goals, setting lofty ones, utilizing ambition and drive and desire and passion to achieve those dreams and goals, and liberals smirk at that sort of thing.
And I'm just I I when when you go anywhere in the world and look at where socialism, extreme socialism, and communism rule, don't tell me that's the solution to any problem on the face of the earth, including pollution or global warming or economics or what have you, because it isn't, and there's no evidence that it is in the history of time.
Back in a sec.
Have you seen um any references to the Gavin Newsom story in San Francisco we had this last week?
He was having an affair with a wife of one of his campaign aides, and a campaign aide found out about it, went and confronted Gavin Newsom about it.
Gavin Newsom, yep, happened.
And uh apologize.
Everything you have read and heard about this is true.
Which was kind of remarkable in two ways to me.
It proved that heterosexual sex in San Francisco is still happening.
Who knew?
And then that uh they apologized for it, just straight up, without making any excuses or whatever, which was straightforward, fine and dandy.
Now they're calling it a tragedy.
There are people who are calling this it's writing letters to the editors out there calling it the Gavin Newsom tragedy.
Now, as James Lewis uh uh writes uh on the American thinker.com, tragedies happened to people.
You and the purpose, they use these words carefully.
Oh, yeah, he was just minding his own business one day, he became aroused.
Unknown to him.
He became a with the presence of this woman, and and the next thing he knew he had had coitus, and it was a it was just tragic.
I mean, that's the way they want us to accept that this happened.
He was an innocent victim of his own hormones and stuff.
Minding his own business, trying to run the city of San Francisco, and look what happened.
This woman shows up and he was uh powerless.
Anyway, Ralph, New Hope, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Rush Limbaugh, 2.9 trillion dittoes from Bucks County Playhouse, the State Theater of Pennsylvania.
Thank you, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Well, thank you.
I was listening to a science special uh a couple of nights ago, and they were talking about the creation of the planets and the moons.
What network?
I think it was Discovery, I'm not a hundred percent sure.
Discovery HD or discovery?
Uh HD.
Because we all, the technical conservatives here all have high depth TV.
Okay, good.
So uh they made the point that the moon at one point when it was established was 14,000 miles from Earth, and now it's twenty uh two hundred and forty thousand from Earth.
And as the moon continues to pull away at an inch and a half a year, that we're gonna continue to wobble on our axis, and eventually the axis of the earth won't exist, and there'll be catastrophic uh climate change.
Uh deserts will turn into lush rainforests, and vice versa.
Well, and they also implied, although I don't think it was politically incorrect for them correct for them to do so, that this is one of the reasons that we're having climate change right now.
Because the Earth is wobbling on its axis.
Correct.
And secondly, well, now wait, wait, wait, wait, just a second.
Just a second.
Now here I go.
I'm just gonna be my normal ordinary average Joe guy.
Okay, moon was 14,000 miles at one point, now it's 240,000 miles.
Correct.
And it's still moving away?
It's still moving away at an inch and a half a year.
That's gotta be a conservative plot of it.
An inch and a half a year.
Correct.
Moving inch and a half.
Okay, if that's why why are sunrise and sunset at still the same times today as they were when I was born?
Sunrise and sunset.
You've got me there.
Well, if we're wobbling, that wouldn't be the case.
If we're wobbling, we would start seeing some change.
We would start seeing later sunsets in the winter and earlier sunsets in the summer.
Now I know I'm not a scientist, I'm probably not even qualified to ask this stupid question.
Well, not if it's wobble back.
Since I am very much concerned, I know you've got another point, hang on, but I since I'm very much concerned with sunset in the winter time, because the later the better, because you get to play golf.
I have gone, I've found a website.
I can check the sunset for any day in the next hundred years.
And you know what?
It's the same on January 20th X year as it is a hundred years from now on this website.
Now, if we are wobbling, how can that be?
It can't.
What is your second point?
Well, the second point is uh water is the only substance that I know of that expands when it goes from the liquid to the solid state.
And it's my understanding that the ice caps are primarily underwater.
Well, if they're gonna melt.
No, no, see, that I've tried that too, but the the wackos come back.
No, no, that's a mistake everybody makes.
Uh the ice caps, most of the ice caps, polar ice caps are on land.
And so when they melt, oh, they've got every answer for you, folks.
They got every answer.
I once asked a question wait a minute.
How in the world, if ice on the planet melts, the sea level's gonna rise.
All we're talking about here is water displacement.
And of course, the wacko's responding, this is why Limbaugh should get off the air, and why he misleads people, and this is why Limbaugh is not a scientist.
His limbaugh doesn't know that polar ice is on land.
That's that's what they say to this.
So melting ice, it will flood Manhattan, and it will flood uh Chicago.
And it will flood there won't be any Long Island so forth.
This is of course in the next 40 to 100 years.
I'm not quite sure.
But we're gonna wake up one day.
It'll Long Island will not be there.
It'll have happened overnight.
We'll be back, folks.
Stay with us.
I love this.
Consumer Reports rates McDonald's coffee over Starbucks.
Consumer Reports.
I'll have the details tomorrow, but that's really all you need to know.
Consumer Reports says McDonald's coffee is uh rated higher than Starbucks.
Have a great, great, great Monday, folks.
First day of football withdrawal for many of you.
▲
Export Selection