All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:35
June 25, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Limbaugh, the man accused of running the country.
The man about whom it is said he must be dealt with by high government officials.
Undaunted and fearless, we plod on.
You're the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number, if you would like to join us, is 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
I want to expand even more on the complaint that we heard from our caller from Hartford, Connecticut, Mary, who called just about a half hour, a little about 40 minutes ago and held her over through the bottom of the hour break.
And you recall, she was the one who said that I was wrong about the fact that Hispanics don't vote Republican.
Most of the people coming in the country, hardworking, conservative-oriented type people.
But she ⁇ the thing I want to expand on is her complaint or her allegation, her charge, her vicious charge, that I am inflaming the passions of Hispanics in this country, and that's why they will not vote Republican.
I don't know if you've noticed it or not.
You probably have.
I didn't see Meet the Depressed yesterday, but Snerdley told me during the break that he watched it and that there was, what was his name of this congressman?
What was Billard?
Belard represents the Hispanic caucus on the Democrat side.
What does that tell you?
So anyway, Buchanan was on, and Russ threw up my quota about this bill being the comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act 2007.
And Buchanan started talking about this is not immigration.
This is an invasion.
And this guy, and he had the numbers to back it up.
He was showing what is happening here with no border security.
And Billard just said, well, you're just too mean about this.
This debate is uncivil.
This debate is just not nice.
And that's what this lady from Hartford was basically saying to me.
You're the problem here because you're sounding hateful and spiteful and extreme and mean in this sort of stuff.
And there's a technique to this.
This is a favorite liberal technique.
You know, that they've been attacking talk radio as the bastion of incivility.
They blame talk radio for the partisanship that exists in the country and the big divide.
And the reason why so many people are angry and enraged is because of talk radio.
And the lack of civility in our public discourse these days is a favored liberal technique and tactic out there, folks.
And what they attempt to do with this is to get people shut up.
It is nothing more than political correctness.
This guy, Billard, did not answer many, if any at all, of Buchanan's claims.
He just attacked Buchanan for being mean.
This is just unfortunate.
The debate here is just too mean-spirited.
And I'm going to tell you what's going to happen here.
If people on our side of this are intimidated into shutting up, we're going to get political correctness with the Hispanic population.
Whereas, you know, P, you have to back off what you say about minorities in this country.
You can't tell truth.
You can't say what you really think about minority situations without hell descending on you.
You can't criticize an actor who has Parkinson's disease when he tells lies in a television commercial.
You can't do that without people coming out trying to destroy you.
And, you know, victims, minorities, what have you.
This group of illegal immigrants is always going to be looked at that way.
You know that the proponents of this bill, in fact, are acting like we ought to apologize to them because their illegal is because of our law.
They've done nothing wrong.
We need to make amends with them.
And if you don't fly along that path, then you're going to be said to be mean-spirited and extremist.
And we're just going to have a new group, a minority group about whom we can't speak without hellfire descending upon the people who do happen to say what the truth is and what they think.
Let me give you an example.
Let me find this.
I put it deeper in the stack.
Yeah, I put it right behind the Jesse Jackson arrested at gun shop demonstration.
You hear about this?
You might, in fact, Mike, you might want to get the most recent Justice Brothers commercial.
Grab that.
Let me know when you've got it.
Because the Reverend Dach was arrested Saturday at a demonstration outside a Chicago suburban, South Chicago suburban gun shop and charged with one count of criminal trespass to property.
He was arrested when he refused to move away from the entrance to Chuck's gun shop in Riverdale.
He's protested with other community activists outside the shop in recent weeks after a 16-year-old honor student was gunned down on a city bus.
The Reverend Dach, who says the gun shop's proximity to Chicago provides gang members and criminals easy access to firearms, has used the protest to call for stricter gun laws.
Well, I don't know that he was sent to jail, but if he was, I wonder if he got out on his own recognizance.
All right.
By the way, it was not Billard, the guy that was on with Pat Buchanan, was our old buddy Luis Gutierrez.
Luis Gutierrez, who is the chairman of the Hispanic caucus in the House, he's from Illinois, from Chicago.
Now, do you remember the story about Luis Gutierrez?
Luis Gutierrez went on 60 minutes shortly after he was elected.
And the Democrats were running the House then.
You know, I'd always told people, look, folks, these Democrats, here's what happens.
These freshmen Democrats are brought into the speaker's office, be it Fort Worthless, Jim Ryder, Tip O'Neill, whoever, Tom Foley, and they're given the lay of the land.
You want to stand out here?
Ha ha ha.
No, no, no.
You will do what we say.
You will vote the way we say.
And if you don't, you're not going to get any re-election help from us.
You're not going to get any campaign funds from outside your district.
And you're going to do it all on your own.
Now, if you want to rise in our ranks of leadership here, then you do what we say.
And he went on 60 minutes, and that's exactly what happened to him.
We wanted to talk to him in a Limbaugh Letter.
He had agreed to do an interview in a limball letter about this and backed out.
So it was Luis Gutierrez, who was on with Buchanan yesterday, was talking about, that debate is not civil.
The debate, too mean-spirited and so forth.
Favored liberal tactic.
Now, here's a story.
And this is a Reuters story.
A headline is this.
Dad's absence decimates black community.
Now, this is something about which we have spoken on this program countless times.
And we have had black callers call us and confirm and tell us why this is the case.
It's the American welfare system.
The American welfare system became the father.
The father wasn't necessary.
People could have as many kids as they wanted.
The AFTC, when it was in force, would pay for them, and there was no need for the dad to stay home.
And I've had numbers of female black callers go, they destroyed our community.
It destroyed our family life.
And I've had others who haven't called say the same thing.
Now, here's the statistic here: that 56% of black children live in single-parent families, according to statistics.
For Chris Gardner, who was played by Will Smith in a movie The Pursuit of Happiness, fatherhood is the greatest job in the world.
There's no pay, there are no benefits.
You don't get time off, you don't get a break, but once in a while, you get to see your child shine and you say to yourself, That's my boy, that's my girl.
It's also a job that Gardner and others believe is increasingly in trouble in the U.S., even as the country gives its annual Father's Day salute on June 7th.
Oh, I forgot about that.
I forgot about the fact that a bunch of people want to wipe out fathers.
Time magazine, remember that before we time magazine, fathers may not deserve it.
More than 19 million children, about one in four, were living in households where no father, biological or other, was present, according to a census report in 2005.
Philip Jackson, the executive director of the Chicago-based Black Star Project, which helps children in mainly minority schools, said that father absence in the African-American communities across America has hit those communities with the force of 100 Hurricane Katrinas.
It is literally decimating our communities.
We have no adequate response to it.
Now, the story does not give a reason.
The story just laments the fact.
Oh, how horrible.
Oh, this is just bad.
Blah, What are we going to do?
Well, it is patently obvious.
And the reason I'm bringing this up, because it goes back to what I was saying earlier, most people know what the answer is here, would not dare say it.
You racist.
How dare you think that?
And then all of the other criticisms that would come your way if you did explain why this is the case.
And the whole purpose would be to discredit you and to shut you up.
But here's the reason.
Liberalism, folks, has destroyed the inner city black family while claiming to be the one that has compassion for all of these people.
It is the policies and the laws and the attitudes of the liberal mindset that has caused this.
From feminism to welfare to the nanny state to horrible public schools, lack of church and God, all these self-esteem pushers out there, political correctness.
And these reporters, you read this story and they never once, of course, they're liberals, why would they?
Figure it out.
The whole story is a mystery.
Why is this?
It is not a mystery.
But damn you if you dare say it.
And this is what's coming, is my point with the illegal Hispanic population.
And this is one of the ways.
Remember, Feinstein a couple weeks ago went on television.
I've never received more hate-filled, racist, and bigoted emails and phone calls in my 15 years in the Senate.
Well, yeah, I told you why she was saying that.
That was to give cover for the next time you start calling in droves so senators can ignore you.
Guys, you're just a bunch of uncivil, racist bigots.
And you're enraged and you're angered by these irresponsible buffoons on talk radio who we are going to deal with later.
And that's how liberalism works.
You call them a speech police, you call them Stalinists, you can call them Maoists, call them whatever you want, but they're behaving amazingly, brazenly wide open.
Normally, this kind of stuff they would never let you hear them say, but they're feeling confident.
They got a little cocky with their election victory last November.
Anyway, plus, they're so frustrated that they're unable to keep this stuff in check.
A quick timeout here as we go to another obscene profit timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
I just saw something on a Drudge report that has given me an idea, ladies and gentlemen.
Listen to this.
This is from livescience.com.
And there's a bunch of online betting sites.
You can set a betting line on anything.
And one of these sites is usbets.com.
And this is what's with the long-awaited iPhone hitting the store shelves on Friday.
You're going to get an iPhone, Snowdly?
You're going to get one?
I don't use the phone.
It's such a pain, but it looks like a cool device.
I'd wait for the second or third Rev. Regardless, when the long-awaited iPhone hits store shelves this week, no doubt many Apple enthusiasts will adopt early, as they've done in the past with other products of the company, meaning go out there and create a mad dash to all these Apple stores to get one.
But just how crazy it gets is anyone's bet.
In fact, betus.com figures the odds are 20 to 1 that someone will get trampled while scrambling to get an iPhone on June 29th.
The site has also put odds on how long the batteries will last and whether the devices will be recalled.
You can bet on all of these things.
They've put those lines up.
The idea for creating these odds and a host of others surrounding the iPhone spurred by past electronic firsts that have been greeted with enthusiasm, but also a slew of unrealized defects and bugs.
Now, this has given me an idea.
I don't know how we could do this.
I don't know if we use this site or maybe do it on our own.
But here's how we could once and for all prove that global warming alarmists are full of BS.
We create a betting line on any or all of their dire prognostications.
Just go get Gore's movie and say, okay, what are the odds that New York City will be underwater in 20 years?
What are the odds that Greenland is going to melt?
Whatever's in there, and then let people bet.
Now, I would bet against every one of those assertions.
Every prediction that the global warming people are making, I would bet against.
And they won't.
You know damn well that Lori David would not put her divorce millions on the line.
And you know for a fact that Gore won't put his tobacco cash.
That's where a lot of his money comes from, his book cash or his movie cash.
They will not bet for their own prognostications.
All of these people that live in the areas that are to be affected by the rising sea level, do you see any of them making a mad dash to move?
In fact, our property values not increasing in precisely the places where Gore and his cronies are predicting utter destruction.
They are.
Folk, do you realize how rich we could get here?
Oh, this is this is, and we would prove nobody believes this stuff.
Even the scientists, even the, even the, the, the, the politicians, nobody would bet that their predictions are right.
All we'd have to do is all bet against them.
And we'd be right on every one of them.
Wow.
Now, you might have to wait 20 years or payoff, depending on how, you know, it's one of the smart things these people have done.
Well, 2050, New York City could be underwater.
2050, Greenland could melt.
But they will.
The point is, they would not put their money where their mouth is.
None of these global warming activists, none of these scientists would do it.
I don't know what it takes to get a betting line on these sites.
But boy, that would be cool if we could do it.
I mentioned this column earlier in the program, and I told you I was going to look for the author.
His name is Paul Jacob, and it's at townhall.com.
Paul Jacob is senior advisor at the Sam Adams Alliance.
That's a townhall.com member group.
This has nothing to do with the beer for those of you in Riolinda.
Sam Adams Alliance is a think tank.
And it's entitled Two Americas.
He says, could Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards actually be right about something?
Not where to go to get a haircut, mind you.
I mean, about there being two Americas.
There is the vibrant America and the stagnant one.
There is the America of ever-increasing wealth, innovation, creativity, of a dynamic economy, new jobs, new products, services, choices, galore, information overload, the abundant work product of freedom.
And there is the politicians America, the regulated America, the subsidized America, the earmarked America, the failing America.
In one America, it is what you produce that gets you ahead.
In the other, it's who you know.
In one America, to earmark some money means setting aside funds into savings for a purchase, a car, a house, college.
In the other America, to earmark is to grab from taxpayers to give to cronies.
It is the highest right of career politicians buying their votes with other people's money.
There have been reforms, sure, but a recent bill in the House contained 32,000 earmark requests.
In one America, we decide what we pay for.
We choose constantly about little things and big.
We call the shots and we walk down the street and associate with somebody else.
So we have some faith in those we work with.
In the other America, we vote, but we rarely get what we vote for.
It really is a great way of restating the ideological arguments that exist in the country today and the results that each ideology, conservatism versus liberalism, ends up producing.
Thank you, and welcome back.
It's time now to return to the phones, always an adventure here on the EIB Network.
And this is Pat in Spokane, Washington.
I'm glad you waited.
You've been up there quite a while, and I appreciate it.
Oh, good to talk to you, Rush.
I've been wanting to for a long, long time.
Thank you.
About Mary calling.
Yeah.
I work in Denver, even though I'm in Spokane this week.
And I work where there are, oh, probably 200,000, 300,000 Mexicans pass by me every week, go through where I work.
200,000 to 300,000?
Yeah, at least that many.
Wow.
You obviously want to keep some of this close to Vest, and I, using my instincts here, will not ask.
Right.
So, and they all berate me for not speaking Spanish.
And I tell them I don't have to.
I'm an American citizen.
I don't have to speak Spanish.
And they say, well, you should learn.
Why?
So you can talk to us clearly.
I said, you have to learn to speak to me.
I don't have to learn to speak to you.
Am I wrong?
No, but see, that's exactly what I was talking about.
You're exactly right.
It's for their own benefit, by the way.
Right.
But you're trying to be helpful.
And you're trying to help them.
But what's going to happen here is that they're going to tell people what a witch you were and how unkind and all of that.
No, and that's how it works.
They do that all the time.
Well, I admire you for hanging tough.
I admire you for the answer that you gave.
Most people wouldn't.
Well, I'm so sorry.
I'll do my best to learn.
But as for now, I can't.
I don't.
No.
So then I also tell them that I had lived in New York at one time.
I said, and most of the Puerto Ricans there speak English.
And they say, well, Puerto Ricans are not Hispanic, and we don't have anything to do with them.
So Mary is way off if she thinks that they're like.
I'm sure you've made her day.
So she called in to defend a group she's not a member of.
That's right.
They don't even care.
To them, Puerto Ricans and Cubans are not on their list whatsoever.
We are Mexicans.
Right.
I mean, I've been told that, you know, we are Mexicans.
Okay.
Well, I appreciate that.
Again, I'm not surprised to hear that, but I was really pleased to hear how you deal with it.
Well, thank you.
You know, you're not wrong.
But see, you know, what they said to you, but your responsibility is to learn their language, is essentially what the Senate is telling us, that all of this is our fault.
We need to apologize to them.
They are unfortunate victims.
They're the backbone of our country, and we need to apologize.
It's like all of this that has resulted in their status as illegal is our fault.
It is our law.
And we feel like we almost have to apologize to them.
And they get that, by the way, which is why they have the courage to come up to you and tell you in Denver, Colorado, you need to learn to speak Spanish.
This is Michelle up next, Billings, Montana.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, Rush Megadetos from Billings, Montana.
Thank you.
And I'm an eight-month-old Rush baby, and I can't believe I'm talking to you.
An eight you.
I've only been listening to you for eight months.
Okay, you've been listening for eight months.
I got it.
Well, welcome to the program.
How did you find us?
My fiancé listens to you, his name is Bill.
He listens to you every day, and I've been looking since I've met him to find my way and my beliefs.
And you are exactly what I've been looking for as far as politics and so forth.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Oh, you are the greatest.
My question is, I work with people from Mexico, and they've been listening to you since last week.
And they've been asking me questions.
What's going to happen to them?
I don't know how to answer that question.
And basically, what do you think are these illegals?
No, they're here working.
They're just afraid that they're going to have to go back before their summer is over.
Well, I need to know more.
If they ought to be illegal, if they're worried about having to go back.
Okay, so if they're not illegal, they don't have to go back?
No, if they're citizens, if they've the only way you can be legal, if they get a green card.
They're here on work visas.
They're on work visas, and the work visas expire this summer?
Yes.
Tell them not to sweat it.
We're not deporting anybody.
Nobody on our side is even talking about deportation.
Right.
That's not, the whole point is border security to tighten it down.
That stuff, deal with it later.
Nobody, they're.
They're becoming listeners of yours also, and they were just wondering what your advice would be.
Are you for real?
I'm not kidding.
I have some workers that are from Russia.
They want to know what my advice to them would be?
And they've been listening for a week?
Yes.
Are they listening now?
i do believe they are are they are they well they've been listening for a week uh Does listening to this program, I'm going back to what Mary said an hour ago, does listening to this program scare them?
No, actually, they like listening to you and they like to hear your point of views, especially on the global warming and on the fuel and so forth.
Are they from Mexico?
Yes.
They speak enough English to understand this program.
I understand enough of them.
But yes, they speak enough English and some things they don't understand.
I explain to them.
Good.
Very, very good.
Well, I'm not trying to be funny here, but I think the risk of deportation is very small because they're occasionally like I have, if I can find the story.
Let me see if I can find the story in the stack here and put the immigration stack aside.
Give me a moment.
Here it is.
2,179 illegal immigrants arrested.
Half of them have criminal records.
About 800 have been previously deported.
This is a CBS story.
In a blitz that began May 26th, ICE, the immigration and customs enforcement, has arrested nearly 2,200 illegal immigrants across the country.
Now, they put these stories out now and then to try to convince people.
We're running them up.
We're doing everything we can to enforce the law.
We're finding these people and we're sending them back.
But I don't think that's what's going on.
I mean, you can probably round up.
Well, we just heard from a woman in Spokane who works in Denver that 200 to 300,000 of them walk by her every week.
Or did she say day?
I think she said day.
Day, whatever.
So there are two to three hundred thousand there.
Nobody is making any attempt to deport them.
Here's a number.
But you could probably find 2,179 illegal immigrants outside a hardware store in a mall in certain cities in this country over the course of a day.
So this, it sounds like a lot, but it's really not when you've got 12 to as many as 20 million here.
So the odds are, as things stand now, I really shouldn't say with conviction because I don't know the individual circumstances here.
It also depends on their employers.
If their employers are responsible.
That's another question they have, sir, is their employers and so forth treat them like, well, can I say crap?
Well, yes, you just did.
And so forth.
You know, they were wondering if the ones who do have work visas here, if somehow there'll be a law to where they're not treated, overworked, and underpaid.
Well, that's...
Does that have anything to do with the bill?
That's why they're here.
I know that's why they're here.
I told them that, and they kind of got upset.
Well, that's why they are wanted by some people who want them here.
Now, see, everybody's cringing because this is another truth that I shouldn't be saying.
But it is, to me, this is, you can look at this in another way, too.
The very fact that there are people in this country who say that it is compassionate to have this steady stream of undocumented, low-skilled, and uneducated people.
Believe me, they want a current crop of that because they want the cheap labor and they want the welfare dependence.
want the transfer of wealth.
They want the...
They want to line their own pockets.
Well, no, the Democrats want voters, and they need new victims.
They need dependents.
People who are dependent on government for health care for their kids and for their whatever else they need that their salaries, their wages do not provide them.
It's all about the redistribution of wealth for Democrats.
It's about creating power.
It's the ultimate illustration of the lack of compassion that liberals and Democrats have for these people.
They really had compassion for them, they would be concerned that if they're here and they're not going to be sent away, that they at least be educated, learn English, and learn what it takes to assimilate to our culture and prosper in it.
But that's not what this bill is about.
This bill is about keeping a steady flow of these kinds of people so that they can be exploited.
There's no other way to put this.
Now, exploited by some people, and they are going to be doing the exploiting on their own because they're going to be accessing without the benefit of citizenship, the social safety structure that this country provides for the indigent and for the needy.
So, there's this kind of what frosts me when I hear that the opponents of this bill have no compassion.
It's just the exact opposite.
I mean, to sit here and say that these people are going to come in with the qualifications they have, and that no effort's going to be made to improve those qualifications and not helping those people at all.
Now, I don't really have enough information to know what's going to happen to them when their visas expire because I don't know what their companies will do everything they can to help them.
They can come back and work.
Pardon?
They're hoping that they don't get deported out and that they can come back and work next year.
It's possible, but it depends on the employee.
I mean, look, there's a lot of employers that don't report them.
Uh-huh.
Why do you think we've got 20 million illegal in the country?
Exactly.
So, it's but I don't know.
I don't know who they work for, and I don't want to know.
I'm not out of it.
You'll probably get in trouble if I said that.
I'm sure you would, and it's not relevant to the conversation here.
I would be irresponsible if I were to say one way or the other.
My inclination is to say they'll be fine based on history, based on experiences.
But they could be working for somebody who's going to, okay, your visa's over and you're gone, and I'm going to bring somebody else in that's got a card.
Uh-huh.
So, all right.
Well, here's the thing to tell them to do.
Well, I was going to say tell them to get in line and become legal, but that takes a number of years.
I mean, the quickest route to get what they want is to stay illegal.
Oh, no, they don't want to do it that way.
Okay, well, I understand that.
I'm just commenting on the bill.
I'm not commenting on them, you understand.
Uh-huh.
Well, the bill would like them to stay illegal.
That way, they can become, but they want to.
No, no, no, no, but the bill will make them legal the minute it becomes law.
That's why my instinct is hang tough.
Okay.
The thing may happen.
You never know.
People are going to do their best to stop it.
But if this bill ever becomes law, the day the president signs it, they're legal.
Really?
Whether they have citizenship or not, they don't have to become citizens to be legal if this bill happens.
Okay.
All right.
All right.
It's only hang tough.
Thank you very much, Rush.
All right, Michelle.
We'll take a quick break and be back.
Why?
You never know what's going to happen here.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Rush Limbaugh, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, running America.
Back now to the audio soundbites.
This is from C-SPAN this morning.
Steve Scully, the host, the topic today was talk radio and the immigration debate.
And Scully takes a call from Huntersville, North Carolina on the C-SPAN Republican line.
And he says, Who do you listen to, caller?
And how does talk radio influence the debate?
If it has.
Rush Limbaugh came along, much more polished gentleman, I think a better thinker, and certainly a more elegant speaker.
And he influenced me a lot.
I think the tone of your question sort of indicates that these brilliant gentlemen who speak on the radio are themselves influencing the mass of the population.
It's the other way around.
They're reflecting what we think.
Then, if you say the talk radio is a reflection of America and Rush Limbaugh represents or provides a vehicle for those to express their points of view, do you think talk radio will ultimately result in the demise of this legislation?
I don't know what will happen in Congress.
I've no idea.
But talk radio is what, as a boy, I remember the speakers on the street corner talking to the crowds.
This is the same thing.
People face to face.
Yes.
I'm in that point here constantly.
When the first charge was leveled on the second day of this program, back in 1988, August 2nd, that I was speaking to a collection of mine on robots, that I was Vengali, Pied Piper.
You people were vacant.
And all you did was reflect what I heard.
It was just, or what I would say, it was its exact opposite.
This program is a success because it reflects what you already think and gives you ammo and abilities to explain to others what you think rather than just saying, well, I just feel it.
You've got ammo now.
And the plus it's entertaining, it's informative, all of that sort of stuff.
And we have made converts.
I mean, I'm not denying that.
But Scully said, if you say talk radio is a reflection of America, represents or provides a vehicle for those to express their points.
Other shows may do that.
I don't take enough calls to do that.
And I don't take enough early media requests would have me, what are your callers saying?
And I never accept the invitations because I didn't know.
I don't take that many calls.
I would never tell you that what happens on my show with callers is representative of America because I don't take enough to know that.
And there's nothing scientific about it.
We take callers not based on what they think, but whether they can speak well, you know, briefly, get it out quickly and all that.
Here's another one.
This is Wall, New Jersey, a caller to C-SPAN this morning.
I think talk radio is very uninformative.
Like your show, I'm calling now and I can say whatever I want.
On talk radio, people like Rush Limbaugh.
And people listen to these people and form their ideas based on what these people tell them.
A lot of times they go on for an hour without even taking a call from an individual.
What they do is they pontificate about what they think.
Those people are adamant supporters of the war.
They're adamant supporters of Bush.
And they are, in my opinion, the most destructive element in our country today.
Yeah, people who speak are the most destructive element.
And that's the kind of guy that the liberals like Nian Feinstein and all these fairness doctrine people are speaking to.
I've explained the philosophy of this program.
This program is not an over-the-back fence show.
Other hosts have guests and they take all kinds of calls, and that's fine.
But you listen to this program for a variety of reasons.
And the primary reason you listen to this program is to hear me.
I have yet, well, I can't say I was yet to have somebody say, you know, I really love your show, The Callers on Your Show, are better than any other show.
I don't mean put people down, but I never hear that.
I mean, that one caller, my God, I never heard anything like that was great.
Hey, look, you people that call the program, you know I love you.
Don't misunderstand what I just said.
If you remember it, we'll talk about it further tomorrow, along with whatever else comes up between now and then.
▲
Export Selection