All Episodes
Previous Next
April 9, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:08
April 9, 2007, Monday, 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.
Trust me, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, I am America's real anchorman, America's truth detector and doctor of democracy, all combined as one harmless, lovable, little fuzzball.
We're here at 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, I went to the Dow Chemical website, ladies and gentlemen, after learning here that a consortium of Middle Eastern investors from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, I'm sorry, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, including Dubai, and Oman are investing along with Kohlberg, Kravis, and Roberts to take Dow Chemical over at $50 billion.
We have Arab dictatorships investing in Dow Chemical.
Take it out.
I just remember all of your reactions to the Dubai ports deal.
So I went to the Dow Chemical website.
Let me read to you what the Dow Chemical website says.
Among many other things, this is what it says.
Our modern society and global economy depend on substances that, if not handled, stored, transported, or secured properly, comma, could cause harm.
These substances serve as critical components for medicines, plastics, automobiles, and building materials, to name just a few.
In today's world, there is concern that chemical facilities could be attacked by, or chemicals could be used by, those who wish to intentionally cause harm, disrupting our way of life.
I think it's pretty accurate.
And Dow Chemical has a pretty good assessment there of the pitfalls, the dangers, the risks involved in being a chemical company.
So the obvious question would be, what systems will these Arab dictatorships put in place, or do they have in place, to secure the stuff that they will own?
Just a little question.
As I said before the previous hour came to a conclusion, I'd like to know any of you libs out there particularly who think we need to get out of Iraq and we don't need to be messing around with Iran.
I just know you think that.
What your thoughts are on these Arab countries ending up owning Dow Chemical.
And if any of you want to call and tell me what you think of this, feel free to look because I just have a question for you.
Again, the number is 800-282-2882.
You know, I've often told you of a philosophy that was explained to me by a good friend of mine when I lived in Sacramento, B.T. Collins, a Vietnam vet who sadly has passed away, but he wrote a letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee one day.
This was, I guess, the Contra Wars were going on.
Something was going on, and he was frustrated at all the leftist, limp-wristed philosophies he was reading in letters to the editor.
So he wrote one himself and basically said, you people need to understand the purpose of armies.
The purpose of armies is to kill people and break things.
And I thought, yep, that pretty much sums it up as briefly as it can be summed up, as succinctly as it can.
And the fewest words required to make a point, the more powerful the point.
And I thought that really did it.
The purpose of armies is to break things or kill people and break things.
Well, there's a new yardstick that has evolved now.
Nathan Hale, writing AmericanThinker.com.
Now, this is a pseudonym for a professional whose firm serves many liberal clients.
That's what it says in the slugline as to who Nathan Hale is.
But basically, his point is, well, let me just read some of the couple quick passages from his piece here.
This ran on, I think, April 5th or April 6th.
At a very young age, I had the good fortune to learn a life lesson that appears not to have taken hold among the Democrats' elite, nor much of the legacy media, and only scarcely among academics.
As a very young child, I was fascinated by all things military.
And in my free time, I read of the great campaigns, the famous generals, and the development of military technology.
And in reading the histories of wars, I noticed a consistent pattern.
There always seemed to be many more wounded than killed in combat.
In World War I, for example, some 204,000 Americans were wounded and around 53,000 were killed.
In World War II, 292,000 killed versus 670,000 Americans wounded.
Now, if I may pause for a moment, I often speak to young people, and actually everybody, about their historical perspective.
Here we are in Iraq, and we've got, what, 3,300 deaths now, something like this.
And I don't know what the wounded numbers are.
They're higher than that.
But everybody's having a fit.
He's blowing a gasket.
This is unacceptable.
Boy, this is outrageous.
We've got to bring the troops.
We've got to keep them safe.
670,000 wounded in World War II.
292,000 killed.
Something's changed in our culture.
We're more concerned about the future of polar bears than we are our own country.
It's absurd.
By the way, I got a great global warming stack.
You know, it is so cold in Alaska.
Not only are the fire hydrants freezing and cracking, the otters cannot get in their little playgrounds of water because they've frozen over and otters are being eaten left and right by other predators that they can normally escape by going in the water.
The cute little sea otters, you know, they get back on their backs and they wave their paws at us and we think, oh, they're trying to say how much they love us.
They're being devoured because of all this freezing up there in the midst of these threats of global warming.
And an MIT professor, by the way, has come out and said that there's no such thing as a perfect temperature.
So to say the earth is always warming and cooling, as I have always said, this guy's going to be run out of MIT before the week's out because he's going against the grain.
I got it at the top of the global warming stack.
But anyway, something's happening here.
We're more concerned about all these nebulous things over which we have no control than we are over things that really matter things affect us.
So now we've got in this war at Iraq 3,300 deaths, a few more than that wounded, and people can't deal with it.
And it goes right to the point here that this Nathan Hale guy is making.
He says, Korea, Vietnam saw similar stats.
Roughly three times as many men were wounded as killed.
If the objective of war is to slaughter the opponent, wouldn't it make sense to destroy their ambulances and their medical support and their hospitals so that the wounded will die?
That way, those who were merely wounded would die and the casualty counts would be higher and victory for our side assured.
My uncle, something of a scholar and intellectual who went to the war college, said something that was significant.
He said, the U.S. military does not target medical resources because the objective of an army is not to slaughter the opponent, but rather to break his will to fight.
The objective of military action is not to kill the enemy, but rather to break his will to fight.
Years later, in an academic study of conflicts other than war, terrorism, and low-intensity conflict, I learned that this principle is actually taught at all levels of our military.
From the lowest-level squad tactics to the curriculum of the war college, military people are repeatedly taught and seem to simply understand their job is to break their opponent's will to fight.
Now, if this thought is so obvious to our military leadership, it extends to the lowest-level Marines and soldiers stuck in Iraq, as John Kerry would say, why is this concept so foreign to the leadership of the Democrat Party?
How can our media experts fail to understand this simple thought mastered by privates and corporals who didn't attend Ivy League J schools?
Any rugby fan who's seen the Maori dance performed by the New Zealand All Blacks or any sports fan who's witnessed the trash talking before a big game or boxing match understands intuitively that the concept of beating your opponent mentally is often as important as beating him physically.
The reason why this stood out to me is I just asked you point blank, have we lost our will to fight?
Have the terrorists broken our will to fight?
Have they broken the Britons' will to fight?
You'd have to say yes.
I mean, I don't know, but I'm talking here about a majority of Americans, but clearly this guy is dead on the money.
The Democrat Party has no will to fight, and they never have had the, well, since World War II and FDR, it seems to me, frighteningly so, more and more Americans have simply lost the will.
Oh, this is not worth it.
We've lost the will to fight.
And instead, we now focus on saving the polar bears and the otters, and we get all involved in these things that we really can't affect.
And most people know this, but it makes them feel like they matter.
It makes them feel important.
And it also fulfills the need for people to think they actually can be destructive, because that is a perverted sense of having power or feeling that you have power.
Imagine some 10-year-old comes out of Al Gore's movie, a 10-year-old.
My gosh, I matter.
My mommy and daddy are destroying the polar bears and they're destroying the earth.
That gives you a sense of relevance and bigness and power.
And it sells, even if it's the destructive kind of power.
But here in Things Something That Really Matter, I challenge anybody to argue with this.
Have we lost our will to fight?
Is that really not what troubles so many of you?
Not the U.S. military.
I don't mean I'm talking about the American people and supporting this kind of thing.
The U.S. military has not lost its will to fight.
That's not what I mean.
I'm talking about from Dingy Harry on down to Nancy Pelosi throughout liberal America for certain.
But how many of the so-called independents and moderates, the brainchild of this country, we're told, have had their will to fight broken by the drive-bys of the Democrats and four or five years of constant pummeling of the entire effort.
While this is happening, here go the Iranians proclaiming today National Nuclear Day and doing the exact same things that we went into Iraq to stop.
Now we don't have the will to stop the Iranians.
What does it appear?
I'm just talking about President Bush.
I'm just imagining here, if the president says, you know, we've got to do something about this, and I'm meeting with military commanders to start planning strategy.
Can you imagine the hellfire that would erupt from the drive-by media and some of the people in this country over this?
So not only is the purpose of armies to kill people and break things, it is to break the enemy's will to fight.
And that's what wounded, high numbers of wounded accomplish.
And you look at the reports coming out of Iraq.
We never hear about death tolls, death numbers, wounded reports of the enemy.
Never.
Other than when U.S. Marines are portrayed as rapists.
Then we hear about the casualties.
But we never hear about the casualties the enemy are taking.
All we hear about is the casualties we're taking.
And after four to five years of this daily pummeling, some people have thrown up their hands and it's not worth it.
Can't handle it.
The will to fight.
Back in a second.
Ha.
How are you?
Rush Limbaugh, highly trained broadcast specialist meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
The president of the United States in Yuma, Arizona, right now, outlining his latest immigration plan.
And we will, we're not going to jip it because I don't know how long networks are going to stay with it.
Our cameras and microphones are not there, so we would have to steal somebody's feed, and that we're not going to do.
So we'll get the lowdown on this and comment on it when we are fully appraised and informed.
Here's a story from Psychology Today.
The headline pretty much says it all, but maybe a few more details.
Queer IQ, the gay couple's advantage.
The subhead, gay relationships are less mired in deception than hetero relationships, perhaps even less prone to friction, according to multiple studies.
I'm telling you what it says here.
It's psychology today.
No, it's a crock of fudge is what it is.
But anyway, it says here, most lesbians don't fear rapacious women, and gay men need not always soft pedal their sexual predilections on balance.
Gays and lesbians understand their partners' bodies and biases with a certainty that many a clueless breeder yearns for.
Can I read this to you again?
Want to hear this again?
Be careful, Rachel, because they're going to make your kid in school read this, and you're going to have to go read with her.
Or if they do it with Al Gore's movie, why not this stuff?
Most lesbians don't fear rapacious women, and gay men need not always soft pedal their sexual predilections on balance.
I forgot to play the gay.
Grab the gay community update.
I forgot to put you.
We haven't had one of these in so long, it slipped my mind.
See if you can find it real quick here, Mike.
Before I go any further, if you find it, just stick it in there and play it.
I'll be able to hear it and know that you've started it.
Because this is big news here.
And we just, I got to do a gay community update on this.
And it's been so long since we have heard Klaus Nomi.
Have you heard our gay community update theme?
Oh, Rachel.
Rachel, Rachel, Rachel.
See, you spend too much time watching Gore's movie.
Here we go.
Klaus Nomi at our official gay community update theme.
This, by the way, again, from Psychology Today.
Oh, man, what a thrill it is.
You're able to dig this song out of the archives, ladies and gentlemen.
Klaus Nomi, the great Klaus Nomi, who's also the late great Klaus Nomi.
If you're wondering, what does this guy look like?
All I can tell you is that when I listened to this for the first time, and I imagined the looks of the guy singing it, and then I saw a photo of Klaus Nomi, I was right on the money.
And you probably are too.
We'll have a picture at rushlimbaugh.com where you can buy his CDs, by the way, at the end of our day today when we update a program to reflect the contents of today's program.
So we're building up here to the big climax.
If you're driving, you might want to pull over at this point.
Klaus Nomi and you don't know me.
That's a takeoff on Leslie Gore and you don't own me.
All right, here's the news again.
This is from Psychology Today.
And I'm just going to read the headline.
I'm reading that queer IQ, calling the gay couple's advantage.
Gay relationships less mired in deception and perhaps even less prone to friction, according to multiple studies.
There will always be a battle between the sexes because men and women want different things, quipped the comedian George Burns.
Men want women and women want men.
But when men want men and women want women, each couple can circumvent treacherous romantic terrain because partners more closely share sexual appetites and mind-reading abilities than do heterosexual pairs.
Mind-reading.
See, here we go.
Most lesbians don't fear rapacious women.
Gay men need not always softpeddle their sexual predilections on balance, gays, and lesbians understand their partners' bodies and biases with a certainty that many a clueless heterosexual yearns for.
Homosexuality could be viewed in some respects as the triumph of the individual's mating intelligence over the gonads' evolutionary interests, says the article.
That's just telling you what's out there, folks.
Psychology today.
What do you mean, Gona?
We are having a good time in the EIB network.
Rush Limbaugh behind a golden EIB microphone.
Now back to the phones.
As people have been waiting patiently, one of the things the president is saying, by the way, in his remarks in Yuma, Arizona on immigration is we've never done enough to secure the borders, and that's the first thing that has to be done.
And I don't know any more than that because I'm not listening to it.
We'll get a full report on it, but I wanted to pass that on.
Midland, Michigan, and Francis.
Hi, you're up, and I'm glad you called.
Thank you very much, Rush.
Am I coming through all right?
I'm having a little crackling on the phone.
Yeah, you're a little muffled out there, but it's hard to understand you.
Let me press our button.
Well, it's not so much crackling on it.
You're muffled.
Like you're using a phone at Walmart.
No, I don't think so.
I was going to comment that the opportunities for Dow Chemical with this activity is beyond belief.
Remember, their petrochemical stocks basically are something like, what, 80%, 70% of their production process in styrene plastics and what have you.
Guess who their suppliers would be?
Their owners.
And it wouldn't be such a bad deal.
They're not buying their feedstocks at the same price you would find on the open market.
I'm just going to tell you, look, I understand the great deal for stockholders.
They're going to make out like a bandit that's going to help the United States in terms of employment.
Yeah, but here's what I'm just going to tell you what most people are going to think about this, because I have experience with this with the Dubai Ports deal.
What they're going to think is, okay, we've got these Arab dictatorships.
Let me read you the list again.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, including Dubai, and Oman.
They're buying a chemical company.
If they want to use an American chemical company, start making weapons of mass destruction, they can do it because they're going to own it.
Ah, come on.
That's what these guys wanted to.
They could create their own petrochemical companies.
They've got all the money in the world that it takes.
They're taking an existing facility and putting it to use.
There's nothing that could stop these guys if they wanted to compete with us.
And then I would rather be in the driver's seat of running the world economy on things that are going to benefit the United States, which it will do.
Wait a minute.
Wait just a second.
There's nothing that could stop these guys if they wanted to compete with us, and you want to be in the driver's seat of running.
They run the petrochemical.
The world runs on oil.
They control the oil.
They have the whole bloody.
Yeah, but they want when Nancy Pelosi becomes president.
Yes.
Well, I bet.
Nancy Pelosi would fall on herself trying to figure out what door to open.
Rush, your disappointment.
No, you don't.
I'm just kidding you.
These guys, these guys know what they're doing, and Dow Chemical would benefit.
Now, the European socialists that run it wouldn't like it, but.
Wait, no, wait, you are muffled, and I'm not getting every word.
I can't help it.
Some of your Walmart phone, probably.
Well, I need to ask you a question.
Did you just call me a socialist?
No, I said the European socialists who run Dow Chemical won't like it because it's pretty much a European management type thing that is in control of Dow right now.
The Europeans won't have any problem with it.
They don't look at the Saudis.
They love them.
They love them, except you guys said they would rather buy an existing outfit.
You said these guys, the Arabs, would rather buy an existing outfit rather than start from scratch to compete with us.
They could do it if they wanted to.
Well, then why don't they?
They may.
That's just it.
That's just it.
Well, we may force them into that when we deny them the rights to do this deal.
And guess what?
They got the feedstock.
They got the whole bloody thing that Dow Chemical has got plants all over the world.
Huge plants in the Southwest.
Huge.
They're building plants in China.
They got plants in South America.
You're not telling me anything I don't know.
We're not talking.
You're missing my point here.
The reality of this.
I tried this during the Dubai Ports deal.
It didn't work.
You can sing the praises of this deal all you want, and you can talk about how this is no big deal.
And people aren't going to hear it.
They're going to think chemical company owned by Arab Dick.
Oh, good warranty.
That'll be the end of it.
I'll predict you before this may bring Congress back early so that the Democrats and Republicans get into a race again to see who can be the first to pass legislation saying this can't happen, just like they did with the Dubai Ports deal.
Nobody's going to look.
Look at it.
Logic is not just not only not appreciated.
Logic isn't relevant here.
We're going to be discussing raw emotion on it.
You wait and see.
Brian in Tampa.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You are next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Mr. Limbaugh, after your last call, I'm not sure.
Are you for or against this?
My instincts are to be a little bit suspicious of this, but I don't think my opinion on it matters.
We're beyond that.
I mean, this is if this goes down anything like the Dubai Ports deal went down, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks.
It's dead.
Okay, well, the thing is, is I think all those countries, the consortium of governments that will own this, I think it will be better because it won't be one person owning it.
And as we know, all American businesses.
Wait a minute.
One person doesn't own it now.
But they're all Americans.
Well, not as they've got investors all over the world.
Yeah, okay.
The CEO, the board, they're all Americans.
And Americans always, large American corporations always screw over the shareholders.
But my point is, is every country owning it doesn't have a reason to hate us.
The only reason that Iran and all of them hate us is because we oppress them, and we don't oppress any of those countries that are going to be owning it.
You don't understand militant Islam.
You don't understand the objectives of people who've hijacked that religion and believe.
And you look at Saudi Arabia, you're talking about Wahhabism.
There's plenty here to be concerned.
Your theory, something I said during the Dubai ports deal, that they're not going to blow up their own port if they own it.
Well, no, no, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying we Americans does not, America does not oppress those governments, the ones you read off.
They don't have any reason to hate us.
We are not.
Wait a second.
Wait a minute.
We're not hated because we oppress.
The Iranians don't hate us because we oppress them.
Yes, they do.
That's why they act like that.
Look, they're hopeless.
They would not act on us.
You don't understand the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
They hate us because we're alive.
They hate us because we're not them.
They hate us because we don't subscribe to their religion.
You've got to understand that first and foremost.
We don't oppress people anyway.
Mr. Limbaugh, get serious.
Come on.
Who are we oppressing?
You're telling me that they would actually just be angry at us for no reason except that we oppress them.
That is why I'm just stopped it.
I'm not telling you they are.
Listen to them.
They're the ones who are threatening to blow us off the map along with Israel.
Listen to bin Laden.
Listen to Zawahiri.
Listen to Ahmadine.
He said, Don't listen to me.
Listen to them.
That's what scares me.
Nobody's believing what these people say.
George Bush is the biggest enemy to some people in this country.
These people are swearing our extermination, and we're not listening to him.
Mr. Limbaugh, look at all of the Arab countries.
The ones that we're on friendly terms with are not terrorists.
They only do that because they have no other way to speak out.
Oh, come on.
This is like saying ACT UP is justified throwing condoms around St. Patrick's because it's the only way they can be heard.
You know, you liberals are going to have to get over this silly notion that everybody's entitled to dump on us because we discriminate against people.
The only way they can be heard?
Why can't they just be happy and live amongst themselves?
Why can't they just, why do they have to be on this massive effort to convert the whole world or wipe out those who refuse to go along with them?
You've got to understand what this threat's about.
I'm not even talking about the Dow Chemical deal now.
I'm speaking specifically to your nonsensical assertion that countries that we don't oppress hate us.
Islamos, Islamofascists, don't even really have a country other than the Iranians, and they hate us.
And we don't oppress them.
We haven't done anything.
We didn't do anything to bin Laden.
We didn't do anything to Zawahiri.
We haven't done anything to these people.
Not one thing.
Other than elect Bush and support Israel.
They've been killing us with acts of terror for 30 years.
And we were slow to awaken to it.
But you're buying this tripe that's been talked to you by whoever, either in school or whatever, that we are oppressing the world.
And as such, we need to understand why they hate us and deal with them on that basis.
And we don't have time to understand why they hate us.
All we need to know is they do, and they have no desire to not hate us.
They don't want to like us.
They hate you every much as they hate Bush, every bit as much as they hate me.
They hate Pelosi.
They think she's the biggest blithering idiot on the planet, but they still hate her.
But she's useful to them, as will people like you be if you don't wake up.
This is worse than I thought, folks.
Have you heard the latest about Elizabeth Edwards?
Elizabeth Edwards, this is an AP story, says that she is scared of the, quote, rabid, rabid Republican, unquote, who owns property across the street from her Orange County home, the 28,000 square foot mansion.
And she doesn't want her kids going near this guy.
She says he's a gun-toting neighbor.
She particularly recalls the time the neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers, investigating it right away off his property.
The Edwards family has yet to meet Johnson in person.
I wouldn't be nice to him anyway, Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview.
I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who, when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out, scares the business out of me.
Edwards says that she views Monty Johnson as a rabid, rabid Republican who refuses to clean up his slummy property just despite her and her family, whose lavish 28,000 square foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded acres.
Monty Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots, but he takes offense to the suggestion that he's purposely left his family, including an old garage that he leases for use as a car shop in dilapidated condition.
Johnson said he's lived on the property for his entire life.
Said his family purchased before the Great Depression, said he spent a lot of money to try to fix it up.
Up.
It's 42 acres.
I have to budget.
I have to live within my means, Johnson said.
I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place up.
The Edwardses were still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003 when Monty Johnson said, he put a go Giuliani sign on his fence.
He posted a Go Rudy Giuliani 2008 sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards estate.
And he's criticized Edwards for the scale of their home.
While they're still putting the final touches on the property, which they bought about four years ago, Monty Johnson said, I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people, but does he ever socialize any poor people?
He doesn't speak to me.
Now, this is that speak of a neighbor this way?
Gun-toting, what is it?
Rabid, rabid, Republican, slummy property?
I guess there are two Americas.
You know, John Edwards out there saying there are two Americas.
There's one America that fears its less wealthy neighbors because they're different, and the other America does not.
I mean, this happens all Marin County, they don't want people like Monty Edwards or Monty, what's his name, Monty Johnson living next to them?
Marino, the Habitat for Humanity, don't want it anywhere near here.
Tiburan, the solstice leader, don't put it anywhere near us.
We're all for the poor, but don't put them anywhere near here.
Disney doesn't want poor people building subdivision, homeless, whatever it is, nearby out in Orange County.
And now John Edwards doesn't like this rabid, rabid Republican with the Giuliani sign living across the street from her.
Gun-toting Republican.
Kathy in Midland, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you for taking my call.
And, of course, I'm very interested in your subject today.
I am a native of Midland.
I was born here.
And actually, one of our, my family are one of the founding families of the area.
Let me ask you a quick question out there, Kathy.
Is Midland, Michigan, in the middle of the state?
Well, it's about 100 miles north of Detroit, toward 20 miles away from Lake Huron's Spagno Bay.
All right.
I just tried.
Some places named Midland are in the middle of nowhere.
I just wanted to find where this is.
And you're correct.
We are in the middle of nowhere.
And when some of the people who are employed by Dow Chemical and have come from the entire world believe that they've gotten to the end of the earth.
However, they find that we have a magnificent community.
There are about 6,000 employees as a company.
And our total, our population for the city is around outstanding 40,000, but with the environments, we're probably just under 100,000.
So, of course, this would totally devastate this area.
Why?
What would change?
What would change?
Dow Foundation and Dow.
We have foundations that have been funded because of employees who have been very profited because of their work with the Dow Chemical Company.
We have just had a, actually, an opening day.
Let me tell you that if they own stock in it and this deal goes down, they're going to benefit tremendously.
I heard the man speak before, and I think I do not own any stock in Dow Chemical because it's not my sacred cow.
But we just have to go to the bottom of the street.
Oh, but I'm saying you said the employees, if they own stock, they'll do well.
Maybe I missed something in what you were saying, but you said we have foundations that have been funded because of employees who've profited because of their work with the Dow Academy.
You think they're going to be fired if...
Oh, no, no.
We have...
We have a foundation called the Dow Foundation.
We have a foundation called the Strostacker Foundation.
They have been set up because of the people who began Dow Chemical over 100 years ago.
And in turn, these foundations help to build our hospitals.
I understand, but I'm running out of time.
I don't mean to be rude.
How is any of this going to change if the Dubai people end up owning down?
Well, when I went to a meeting, I belong to the Chamber of Commerce, and they have a meeting that tells the people what is going to happen.
About three years ago, I went to the meeting, and on the screen as we came in, there was a view, a horizontal view of a city.
And I thought, that looks like Nippland, but, oh, that's wrong.
Well, it was Qatar.
Dow Chemical has a facility in Qatar that they went to there because they're still confused.
You have to think they're going to shut down Midland Michigan if they buy it.
Sure, they would.
Sure, they would.
There's no reason for them to stay in Michigan.
To transport out of this area, anything is on a railroad and over our roads, maybe airplanes.
Why would you keep this is a dead end?
Frankly, it's a dead-end place.
The Dow Chemical Company was started here because of the price.
Well, you don't want to say it that way.
If you're going to call Midland, Michigan a dead end place, then you're justifying them moving out because nobody wants to be in a dead-end place.
Well, I would not do business.
I mean, I could not afford my business if...
Why don't you do this?
Suggest, you remember the Chamber of Commerce?
Yes.
Suggest changing the name of the town to Midlandistan.
And it might not seem such a dead place.
Back after this.
Speaking of Michigan, have you heard Michigan, some Democrat in the legislature in Michigan has offered a budget plan that would buy an MP3 plan iPod for every schoolchild in Michigan?
Kid You Not?
I kid you not.
John Edwards has cowardly dropped out of another debate on the Fox News channel, and we got the new definition of the new castrati.
All lots of stuff.
▲
Export Selection