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 the 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 isn't impressed by Brownback, by Huckabee, by any means.
He 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 ever since 2000 when they backed Bush.
Now they expect to back someone who'd 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 going to call him a conservative.
Well, you know, it's interesting.
We got behind Reagan twice.
Reagan lost.
What is this?
We support losers.
That's wishful thinking on these guys' part.
Let me tell you something about Giuliani.
He's smart cookie.
Fox is running a poll that says that it's either 83 or 87 percent, I'm not sure which I remember seeing.
One of those two numbers of Republicans, 83 or 87 percent comfortable with the notion of Rudy Giuliani in the White House, and not as a visitor, but as president.
Here's the thing about Julian.
Everybody's got problems with him.
Conservatives have problems with him on the social side, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, pro-choice, whatever, these kinds of things.
But when you start polling him on judges, a strict constructionist, he's out there saying this.
They like Scalia, likes Clarence Thomas, likes John Roberts.
That'll count for quite a bit.
He can fix the abortion thing if he goes out there and says, look, look, I actually think this ought not be something decided by courts.
I think this should be decided by the people in a Democratic fashion, at the state level.
And he can ameliorate some of that.
I think he's got potential, particularly, folks.
We're still going to be at war somewhere in 2008 during that campaign.
And the Democrats are still going to be who they are, and they're still going to be acting as they are, if not worse by then.
I mean, Mrs. Clinton, I will get us out of Iraq.
Whatever they're saying that they're going to do, they're still going to be who they are.
And somebody like Rudy, who has a huge advantage in competence during crises, when you pull that, he can overcome some of the shortcomings that conservatives have.
Duffy saying rather smugly, well, even if Giuliani gets a nominated, he's not a conservative, but they'll call him.
The conservatives will call him a conservative.
That's not how conservatives work, Michael.
Yeah, he's potentially good on economics.
I think that one of the 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 that he is said to have with social conservatives that would surface during a primary appearance.
So anyway, it's still way early.
And at this point, I'm not revved up.
Now, what?
Oh, ditto cam bars.
Sorry about the ditto cam bars.
I thought I'd hit the button and missed the button.
A 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, 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.
There isn't a Reagan out there.
And 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 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, 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.
And I know it's there.
I just, at this stage, it's just too soon for any of it to really, really matter.
What's going to happen more than anything else is these people are going to 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.
That's the first eliminating thing.
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.
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 is going to surface as a surprise.
And when that happens, it's going to 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, let me put it this way.
To succeed as a radio talk show host, 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 going to get so sick of it for the precise reason it doesn't matter what when the primaries get going and the hall awkey cauckey and all that and some of the polling data 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 not something I'm prepared to do because, you know, one thing I'm not going to do, idiot Michael Duffy, I am not going to back a loser just for the sake of backing a loser.
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.
Well, if I don't like the nominee, that's my problem.
If I don't like the nominee and his two.
I don't know.
I'm not, if I don't like the nominee.
I'm not, I can't envision looking down the road and having no interest in the presidential race.
I don't think that.
That's not the case here.
It's just too soon.
And something else, folks, I'm not going to get sucked in to the daily media bubble.
On the race for the White House in 08.
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 can.
But there's also a third reason I mentioned this Friday.
Somebody, well, it was last week's Morning Friday.
Somebody called, how come you don't talk about Brownback?
You can really help Brownback if you're talking about Brownback.
Well, look, Brownback's out there on the wrong side of the anti-war resolution.
He's doing some things here that have me scratching my head.
Not a thoroughbred conservative like I think he once was.
But point is, it's up to these guys to get noticed themselves.
You know, I'm not going to sit here and build these guys up for what they got to do it themselves.
Does that make sense?
I mean, 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 some positive reaction and so forth because the whole country's going to vote on them, not just me.
And I've only got 20 million votes.
So we'll see, folks.
I 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've been thinking even more here, but this Michael Duffy of Time magazine talking to Chris Matthews saying that conservatives only support losers.
What was John Kerry?
I mean, the Democrats, how long is it?
You know, they haven't held the White House in a long, long time.
Other than Clinton, you've got to go back to Jimmy Carter one term.
They haven't had a two-term president.
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.
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 of Barack Obama's speech.
In fact, let's do that.
We're going to find the numbers here.
I keep wanting to get to Assad, but I don't find my way to do it.
Here we go three and four.
We're going to do four first.
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 different, fresh in politics in decades.
It's going to be cynicism that we're fighting against.
It's the cynicism that's born from decades of disappointment, amplified by talk, radio.
Stop the 24-hour news cycle.
There's nothing new here.
I mean, the talk radio bit, that's a Clinton bit.
They've been go back to the top of this.
Maintain the continuity on this.
My point is there's nothing new here.
This is not electrifying.
This is not unique.
It's not fresh.
It's not what the image and the hype of Barack Obama has been.
It's going to 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, nothing new there.
It's rehash recycle.
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 nothing here that says, wow, the hype is accurate.
But I want you to listen to Donna Brazile.
She was on this week with George Stepanopoulos on Sunday and said this about Obama's speech 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 broad support.
One of the things, being in the room, is that you're right, everybody just hushed and they 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, right now.
One of the things, 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 has done a good job.
Senator John Warner will join what, I mean, this is weekend news, but it looks like it still held, a unanimous Senate Republican caucus.
49 Republicans opposing a Senate vote on Warner's anti-Bush administration resolution unless competing resolutions are also voted on.
This is 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.
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.
Republicans also want each resolution to require 60 votes to pass.
They're invoking the filibuster rule here.
Mitch McConnell, 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 Reed Relents and allows other resolutions to be voted on, one of which is a show of support.
Imagine how good that is.
Reed 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 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, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, 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 going to 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.
It's 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, 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.
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 human beings or so forth.
So how can Mars be warming up?
And it is, well, of course, if you've got sun activity that is responsible for it here, why wouldn't it be happening on Mars as well?
The sun's unusually hot, throwing off these blue X-rays.
It's not that.
I'm having a metal block on the name.
But 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 going to make us warm up?
Oh, well, that's, see, that's not proven.
It's science.
Let me tell you how this all was arrived at.
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 somebody starts studying carbon dioxide.
Well, look at the emissions.
Look at why industrialized life is causing CO2.
It's like we've never seen it before.
There has to be a reason.
So they've got to build a consensus around it.
Can't prove it.
So some pretty powerful scientists defecting from the whole CO2 carbon footprint BS and recently because it doesn't make any sense.
Water vapor is one of the largest causes of the so-called greenhouse effect.
But there's no proof that the greenhouse effect is responsible for global warming.
We'll be back in just a sec.
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, Doug in Sacramento, my adopted hometown.
Hello, sir.
Hey, 60-degree global warming dittos 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.
Nah, you know, you think that everybody's tendency is to make, but the behavioral pattern of Democrats is to oppose war.
You might find instances where they started wars in Clinton's case, but he fought it from 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 9-11?
Yeah, I mean, they well, yes, they were upset that such a major event did not occur during Clinton's presidency so that he could show his toughness and his skills and his brilliance and his genius by dealing with it.
They were a little wistful, as you say, that it happened during the Bush administration.
But if you go to Vietnam, I mean, I read a New York Times editorial today from 1916 and the New York Times editorial 1916 ripping the Democrats for sounding just like Germans in the pre-World War I days.
I mean, it was uncanny.
The only thing different about it was that 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, even challenged their patriotism because of their position on the wars.
Democrats in the Civil War wanted to lose.
It's just something about these people, and it really isn't unique.
And it would be a mistake to say that if the Democrats were in power now, they would want victory here if they could take credit for it.
If they wanted that, they could 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.
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 joining them as well.
Precarious, precarious position.
They've already got their minds made up.
The war is lost.
It's just a matter of finding a way to convince everybody else and bring the troops on.
But I'm telling you, if you're going to judge Democrats and you're going to 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.
Make no mistake about it.
Shreveport, Louisiana.
David, thanks for calling.
You're up next.
Hello.
Yes.
Mr. Limbaugh, pleasure.
My thought on this global warming issue was that I don't see that as being viable or having much proof.
But the other issue with the accumulations of these 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.
And you think I'm suggesting throwing the CO2 baby out with the bathwater?
Well, no, not completely, but people have a tendency to discredit science, different areas of science, and then not really maybe take their eye off the ball.
Are you basically saying 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 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.
If you've traveled, you can...
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 going to tell you, if you're worried about pollution, go to any country that does not have freedom.
You go to any socialist, non-real full-market economy, particularly the Eastern bloc, the old Soviet bloc, take a look.
It's devastating.
You know, capitalism, market economies depend on efficiencies, cleaning up messes and so forth.
We do a bang-up job.
Another thing 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 the Chinese and others get off scot-free simply, well, they don't have the ability to deal with it, Mr. Limbaugh.
That's why we must pick up their thwack.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am a polluter and want to continue to.
I would only say that to irritate the left, but just because global warming may not be happening as a result of CO2, 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 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 making amends for their sin of destroying the planet.
And pollution, you know, if these same people are going to start lying about pollution and blaming the wrong people for it, I'm going to still attack them.
And I'm not, you know, it doesn't mean I'm for pollution.
This guy's point is exactly what I said earlier.
You've got to 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.
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 possible.
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.
And I think this ran at townhall.com.
She's a colleague.
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 onto 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, looked sufficiently showered and sounded sufficiently schooled.
For instance, Hardball's Chris Matthews had high words of praise for Michael Steele's ad campaign.
He said, 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 and look at the people at the top, look at the people at 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 condensation.
Condescension for people.
And so this is why this whole global warming business is the they, you 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, So 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 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, 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 any references to the Gavin Newsom story in San Francisco?
We had this last week.
He was having an affair with the wife of one of his campaign aides, and a campaign aide found out about it, went and confronted Gavin Newsome about it.
Gavin Newsome, yep, happened.
And EC apologized.
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 was still happening.
Who knew?
And then that they apologized for it just straight up without making any excuses or whatever, which straightforward, fine and dandy.
Now they're calling it a tragedy.
There are people who are calling this, writing letters to the editors out there calling it the Gavin Newsom tragedy.
Now, as James Lewis writes on the AmericanThinker.com, tragedies happen to people.
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 with the presence of this woman, and the next thing he knew, he had had coitus, and 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 powerless.
Anyway, Ralph, New Hope, Pennsylvania, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Rush Limboff, 2.9 trillion dittos from Bucks County Playhouse of State Theater of Pennsylvania.
Thank you, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Well, thank you.
I was listening to a science special 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 100% sure.
Discovery HD or Discovery?
HD.
Because we all, the technical conservatives here all have high-def TV.
Okay, good.
So they made the point that the moon at one point when it was established was 14,000 miles from Earth, and now it's 240,000 from Earth.
And as the moon continues to pull away at an inch and a half a year, that we're going to continue to wobble on our axis, and eventually the axis of the Earth won't exist, and there'll be catastrophic climate change.
Deserts will turn into lush rainforests and vice versa.
Well, and they also implied, although I don't think it was politically correct for them to do so, that this is one of the reasons that we're having climatary change right now.
Because the Earth is wobbling on its axis.
Correct.
And secondly, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Just a second.
Just a second.
Now, here I go.
I'm just going to 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 got to be a conservative plot.
An inch and a half a year.
Correct.
Moving an inch and a half a year.
Okay, if that's 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 afraid of that.
Scientists, I'm probably not even qualified to ask this stupid question.
Well, not since I am very much concerned.
I know you've got another point.
Hang on.
But since I'm very much concerned with sunset in the wintertime, 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 100 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 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 going to melt.
Nope, nope.
See, I've tried that too, but the wackos come back.
No, no, that's a mistake everybody makes.
The ice caps, most of the ice caps, the polar ice caps, are on land.
And so when they melt, oh, they've got every answer for you, folks.
They've got every answer.
I once asked a question: wait a minute, how in the world, if ice on the planet melts, the sea level is going to rise?
All we're talking about here is water displacement.
And of course, the wackos responding, this is why Limbaugh should get off the air and why he misleads people.
And this is why Limbaugh is not a scientist.
Because Limbaugh doesn't know that polar ice is on land.
That's what they say to this.
So melting ice, it will flood Manhattan and it will flood Chicago.
And it will flood, there won't be any Long Island and so forth.
This is, of course, in the next 40 to 100 years.
I'm not quite sure.
But we're going to wake up one day.
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 rated higher than Starbucks.
Have a great, great, great Monday, folks.
First day of football withdrawal for many of you.
▲
Export Selection