All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:09
August 3, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, I know.
Late arriving show prep.
Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
It is Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Oh, yip.
Yahoo.
I love Open Line Friday.
It's a golden opportunity for those of you out there to call the program Monday through Thursday.
This is a benevolent dictatorship.
I am in total charge and no First Amendment here.
Only I have that.
Only I have the right to say what I want to say.
Only I have the right to be heard.
You don't.
Unless you're calling about something that I have set up and I'm interested in.
On a Friday, throw all that out.
And I open the phone up, take a huge professional career risk by opening the program's content when we go to the phones to you.
Lovable, adorable, couldn't live without you, rank amateurs.
And it's a great chance for you.
You have a question, you have a comment.
You have a complaint.
You want to whine about something.
Everybody whines these days now and then.
And if you have a question, something has nothing to do with politics or culture issues or whatever, this is the day to ask the question again, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama found himself embroiled in a new foreign policy.
In fact, Mike, Mike, hang on.
Let me find the sound bike that goes with this.
What do I do with it?
Is it nine?
Why don't I?
I bet it is nine since it's the last place I'm looking.
Yep, the bottom of the stack.
No, it's not nine.
Hang on, folks.
I'm sorry.
This is very, very unprofessional of me.
What did I do with this?
It's the drive-by guy making excuses for Obama.
Well, oh, here it is.
No, this is not it.
Well, maybe I'm imagining something.
Well, I've checked every...
Is it 10?
I'm losing my mind here, folks.
That doesn't happen much.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's it.
Number 10.
Exactly right.
All right.
Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama found himself embroiled in a new foreign policy flap with rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday, this time over the use of nuclear weapons.
Obama, that's for you in Riolinda, nuclear for the rest of you.
Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al-Qaeda or the Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
And then after he did that, he said, well, no, take that back.
If we had to, we would.
And then he said, no, just to scrub the whole thing.
It says two days in a row that Barack Obama has made an idiot of himself.
It's just, I mean, stepping right into Hillary's testicle lockbox.
And he doesn't even know it yet.
So this flap is over the use of nuclear weapons.
And once again, the question of his experience and naivete has been called into the question.
Now, I made a point the other day that the drive-by media in dealing with this would handle it by saying, well, no, we shouldn't look at it in terms of examining the substance of what Obama was saying.
We need to look at what he was trying to do politically.
And we need to do that for Mrs. Clinton.
We need to look at what she's trying to do politically because these are Democrats, and the drive-bys are not going to dump on them.
They're going to build them up and they're going to try to excuse it and run cover for him.
And lo and behold, we have a little montage here.
This runs about eight seconds.
It goes by real fast.
We have Mara Lyason of Fox, Jake Tapper, ABC, CNN's Tony Harris, and they're reacting to Obama's foreign policy speech.
And listen to how they describe it.
In a muscular speech on the war against terrorism.
It was a muscular speech.
Today's speech, which is obviously a very muscular, this kind of muscular speech.
How does this happen?
This is just like, remember the old montage we have of 25 different drive-by media types saying that Cheney brought gravitas to the ticket when Bush chose him to be his vice president.
Now the speech is muscular.
It was stupid.
It was dangerous.
It was damaging.
But that's not how we look at this.
No, no, no.
We must look at what he was trying to do.
What was he trying to accomplish?
He was trying to be muscular.
And note how well the drive-bys fall in line.
It doesn't matter.
If you miss CNN, watch MSNBC.
If you miss that, watch CBS.
If you miss that, watch NBC.
If you miss that, watch ABC.
If you miss that, read the New York Times.
You miss that, read the LA Times.
You miss that, read the Washington Post.
You missed that, read USA Today.
If you miss that, read the Minneapolis Tribune Review, Star Tribune.
If you miss that, read the San Francisco Chronicle.
It doesn't matter where you go.
It's identical.
It is all the same.
But as I like to say, if you miss this show, you have missed it because you will not get anywhere else what you get on this program.
All right.
How many of you, when I shared with you the blockbuster story of two days ago that the Democrats were all intent here on coming up with a spy program that was going to help the United States?
How many of you say, whoa, this is rich?
These guys have been trying to shut down the spy program?
What's going on?
Some of it didn't make sense.
It's almost like the Democrats were trying to pretend that they cared about security.
Here is what brought this about.
A federal intelligence court judge, and this, by the way, I think this is a tremendous learning exercise and opportunity to understand that what the Democrats say in public oftentimes is not what they really know to be the case when it comes to national security.
Federal intelligence court judge, FISA judge, earlier this year secretly declared a key element of the Bush administration's wiretapping efforts illegal.
This, according to a lawmaker and government sources, providing a previously unstated rationale for fevered efforts by congressional lawmakers this week to expand the president's spying powers.
The Democrats were joining in this effort to expand his spy powers after they had been trying to tear down the program in public.
The House Minority Leader John Boehner disclosed elements of the court's decision and remarks on Tuesday on the Fox News as he was promoting the administration-backed wiretapping legislation.
Boehner has denied revealing classified information, but two government officials privy to the details confirmed that his remarks concerned classified information.
Now, they haven't released the name of the judge here who declared a key element of the wiretapping efforts illegal.
But the judge concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two count them two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States, according to two other government sources familiar with the decision.
The incident that led to the Democrats all the whole we've got to expand the capabilities of the program was because this judge ruled an element of the program unconstitutional for two phone calls overseas, which is exactly what the program was designed to do: detect potential terrorist communications from overseas calls into the United States.
So when this happened, of course, then the Democrats find out about it.
Everybody finds out about it.
And they understand the crazy thing about this is that they're the ones that have been trying to accomplish just this very thing.
They have been trying to make this program unworkable.
They've been trying to strip these powers from the president.
They've been trying to subpoena and investigate and Republicans too, like Arlen Spector, a number of them have going nuts.
The judge actually rules an element of the program illegal over two phone calls.
They understand the serious nature of this program and why it's valuable, why it works.
And I don't know what's better about this, that they actually did this and showed themselves to really understand the grave nature of intel gathering and data mining and so forth.
Or if they're just trying to pretend like they care about it.
Haven't figured it out.
It's one of the two.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll get to your phone calls and other things as well here in just a sec.
We had a phone call of this right before the previous hour concluded or right for this, yeah, the last hour, the end of the last hour.
And so I make $50,000.
I work two jobs.
My employer pays 60% of my health care.
I pay $40,000.
But I like this SHIP program here, Rush, because if somebody wants to come along and a government pay for my health care, I'll take it.
And I said, the government's not paying for it.
Why are you asking me to?
Well, I'm not.
Yes, you are.
Why are you asking my call screener to pay?
I'm not.
I'm not.
I guess you are.
Why are you asking my broadcast engineer to pay for your health?
I'm not.
I'm not.
Yes, you are.
When you're asking the government to pay for it.
Well, that's a subsidy I could use.
Well, you know, get rid of the 15-color TVs you might have or whatever number it is and get down to one.
Try an outdoor antenna instead of cable.
Whatever you have to do here, priorities are priorities.
Where is it written that it says, you know, people that do get help from the taxpayer never ever say thanks.
The Medicare bunch.
Every year they demand more.
And it's no different than if you walk down the neighborhood where you live and start banging on the front door and say, hey, my kids need health care.
I need some of your money.
It's the same thing.
Now, the Democrats, defying President Bush, who promises to veto this, voted decisively yesterday to expand this program, the SHIP with the P program, a popular health insurance program for children of the working poor.
They have more than doubled tobacco taxes to pay for it.
This is a middle-class entitlement.
This is not simply restricted to ensuring the children of the poor.
Senators of both parties banded together as a 6831 vote to support the program, which currently ensures about 6 million children.
18 Republicans joined 48 Democrats and two Independents voting for the legislation.
Now, they got to go to the House.
They've got to conference this.
If congressional negotiators can strike a bipartisan deal, some senior Republicans suggest the White House may have to back down on its veto threat.
But the White House says, We're not going to back down a veto threat.
Both these versions are too expensive and would expand benefits to the middle class.
And this is by design.
This is not even stealth anymore.
This is right out in the open.
This is an incremental addition to the number of people getting health insurance paid for by their neighbors on the way to the eventual universal health care that the Democratic presidential candidates are all promising to accomplish and achieve.
I've got blue in the face.
You could earn a family four could learn up to 82 grand and qualify as a poor family to get insurance, health insurance for your child.
In fact, the age of a child, I'm not making this up.
The age of a child, this bill is 25 years old.
So you could have a family of four with a 24-year-old dad, a 22-year-old mom, and a kid or two, and four of them would qualify as children under the SHIP program with a P.
Now, they say that the program has been very successful because before the program 10 years ago was inaugurated, well, we have 23% of the American children had no health insurance.
That has dropped to about 16%.
But an estimated, they don't know, it's a wild guess.
8 million to 9 million children remain uninsured.
Experts say most are eligible for federal programs or remain uninsured because some parents don't know such help is available.
Huh.
Now, the Urban Institute, which is a liberal think tank out there, says that it's 1.1 million children who are eligible and are uninsured.
1.1 million children of the poor.
Here is Oleg, Oleg in Brooklyn.
Oleg, I'm glad you waited.
I really appreciate your patience.
Hello.
Yes, hello.
Megaditos from the motherland rush.
Motherland where taxes were high, and that's why natural disasters never happened.
The government withheld 95% of the people's income, and that's why in the USSR, bridges never fell, levies never broke, and Chernobyl reactors never exploded.
You know what I'm saying?
I do.
It's very funny.
Thanks for the call.
You're welcome.
I now live in America, but I keep the memory of the old country alive on my satirical website, which you mentioned on Monday when you referenced what you said, a great, great editorial cartoon.
Oh, it was.
This is the one with the founding fathers discussing the raising of creating a nation of murderers, thugs, tyrants spreading disease, destroying the planet, and all that, and then stealing all the world's oil.
Absolutely.
That was such a great cartoon, Oleg.
That was just the satire in that.
You know, the great thing about comedy, which you captured in that cartoon, is that good comedy has to have an element of truth in it.
And the element of truth in your cartoon is that there are gobs and loads of Americans who believe that that's what the purpose of this country is, and that we had some corrupt founders that actually set it up.
They're actually Americans that believe it, and that's why it was funny.
Right.
Well, a lot of it on my website is funny.
You said that you didn't know who did the cartoon, so that I decided to fix that historical mistake because you are the all-knowing Maharashtra.
The problem is, the problem is that somebody sent it to me with just the picture of the cartoon.
You know, I have a lot of, I have tried to tell people, if you're going to send me something that you think I might like, send me the link so A, I can verify it, and B, put it on my website and cite the source.
But this is something I am constantly having to pound over the heads of my staff.
It happens every day.
They forget to send links.
And yours, unfortunately, was one of those where the link was not included.
That is okay.
But we found it from a website.
Did you find it?
I think we did.
I think Coco was looking desperately for it.
I was unable to provide any help because the person that sent it to me didn't send the link.
Can I say the name of it?
Sure.
What is the name of your website?
It is thepeople'cube.com.
And a lot of people already know about it, but I thought the mention would not hurt.
It's a paradisite working under the slogan, weak you are weak liberalism with strong communism.
It's sort of like a Stalinist version of the onion.
A Stalinist version of the ONI.
So you're speaking of weak liberalism and strong common sense.
That cartoon is a sample.
Okay, so it's www.peoplescube.com.
Is there any thepeople'scube.com?
Free or the?
The.
The people's.
The cube.
The people's.
There's no apostrophe between the EA and the SP, but it's thepeople'scube.com.
Right.
All right.
In about 30 seconds, Oleg, your site will be shut down.
No, no, no.
I'm going to.
This audience is making such a mad dash to get to it right now.
If your server farm is not capable of the load that it's going to get as a result of your site being broadcast on this program, then it'll look like a denial of service attack.
It really isn't.
So it just, we shut down websites constantly when they get mentioned on this program.
It's not the KGB coming after you.
It's not Putin coming after you.
Right, right.
We are the party ourselves.
We are on the website.
We have our own party.
We have our own Politburo members and we have discussions planning and plotting.
Oh, this sounds cool.
This sounds like something that writes.
I love satire.
I love parody.
Especially with people who don't get it.
That's the most fun.
Is when they don't get it and they really get upset, really get irritated, really get riled.
That's when it's fun, because they eventually will figure it out.
Oh, I have a lot of enemies already because of that.
Well, you know, learn to take as a measure of success the criticism of your enemies.
That is a fundamental thing that those of you, people like you in controversial businesses, have to learn how to do.
Take as a measure of success the hatred, the actual despising of you that they have.
Yes.
Okay, I think I've shaken Oleg up here a little bit.
It won't be that bad.
I just won't be that bad.
We've got to take a brief time out.
Oleg, thanks for the call.
Thepeoplescube.com is his website, if you can still access it.
No need to think about it, folks.
I do that for you.
Open Line Friday continues.
You know, Oleg from the motherland, the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, Russia.
Do you know what the average life expectancy, the life expectancy today is for the Russian mail?
Take a stab.
You are so close, I am impressed.
57.
What is the current population of Russia?
Take a stab.
Take a stab.
Take a wild guess.
This is Russia now, not all those former Soviet satellite block nations.
This is just the motherland.
140 million.
Do you know what the estimated Russian population will be 20, 30, 40 years from now?
30, 40 years from now.
100 million.
The average male lifespan 57, they are losing population.
They have a runaway alcohol problem and AIDS, needles.
Needles and AIDS.
This is one of the reasons why Vladimir Putin is running around beating his chest all over the world.
You know, because Russia ain't what it was.
And he knows it, and he knows that people don't have the same fear, don't have the same...
So he's trying to insert himself into as many...
Plus, KGB.
And he's trying to insert himself into as many of these world situations so that Russia will be a place.
It's like it got an inferiority complex.
You know what the biggest problem in China is?
No, no, seriously.
What is the biggest problem in China?
No, let me be brief.
When the leader of China, Hu Jintao, gets up every morning, what is his biggest challenge?
No, it's not the environmental pollution of his country.
It's the fact that he has to create 25 million jobs a year because he needs those billions who don't live in the cities to stay the hell out of them.
And if they can't find jobs out in the hinterlands, they're going to come to the cities.
And he will lose control of his population.
And when you are at Chikom, maintaining control of your population is fundamental if you're communist.
And he's already losing control because of the exportation of capitalism.
He needs it.
25 million jobs a year he has to create or that the Chinese economy has to create.
Now, traditional communism can't do this.
Communism, you know, people work for the state, don't work.
If you don't work, you get paid a little bit.
You starve.
You go to the grocery store, there's nothing there.
But, you know, and if you say the wrong thing, they come kill you, wipe you out.
But he can't, they can't.
And look what's happened to the old Soviet Union, Russia, its situation.
The Chinese are not going to let that happen.
And that's why they're doing as much as they can on the capitalist front.
What would you say when he wakes up in the morning, the biggest challenge for Kim Jong-il is staying alive.
He doesn't care about feeding his population.
He's different from the Chikoms.
He doesn't care about feeding his population.
Anyway, these are just things that people don't look at in certain perspectives.
Here's illustrate the point about China.
From the Christian Science Monitor, it's a parent's nightmare, a routine vaccination gone wrong.
For Lang Yong-li, whose bright-eyed daughter suffered brain damage and paralysis after a mandatory shot, it triggered a four-year search for compensation, justice, and an explanation.
He tried to sue the hospital for malpractice, and he lost.
Medical authorities in southern Guangdong province said that there was no link between the vaccination and his child's condition, so he took his campaign to the media.
He traveled thousands of miles to Beijing, to the city, by bicycle, the patrician petition, the central government, without success.
Then in April, of all things, a court accepted a lawsuit filed by Mr. Lang Yong-li, together with the parents of two other children who had also fallen ill.
The suit alleges that vaccines were to blame in all of the cases.
Last week, the court, this is China we're talking about, the Chikons.
10 years ago, this guy be shot for bringing a complaint to the government that poor vaccine wiped out his kid.
And they'd shoot him, too.
Last week, the court began hearing the case against provincial and city health agencies in a state-owned drug company based on laws concerning product safety and inspection.
While consumer activism is on the increase in China, the legal system isn't bound by precedent and is squarely under the control of the Chikoms.
That makes it hard to force change from the bottom up, though it's not impossible.
The government wants this last line in the piece.
The government wants a harmonious society, but how can they abandon their children and do nothing? asks one of the experts here.
How can they abandon their children and do nothing?
Harmonious.
Well, their definition of a harmonious society is placated, satisfied people who stay put out in the hinterlands in a country and don't show up and cause trouble like this.
But see, the genie's out of the bottle over there.
I don't care what they're making right now in the shoe shops and wherever they're in the iPhone shops.
I don't care what they're making.
The fact of the matter is that there's a capitalist bubble that is gumming up from the bottom.
I know there are various parties in the Chikom party.
Oh, oh, companion story.
Companion story.
Fisher Price to recall nearly 1 million toys.
Toy maker Fisher Price is recalling 83 types of toys, including the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Dora, and Diego characters, because their paint contains excessive amounts of lead.
A worldwide recall announced Thursday involves 967,000 plastic pre-schrueled toys made by a Chinese vendor and sold in the United States between May and August.
Now, okay, so the Chikoms are tainting our food.
The Chikoms got lead in their paint.
The Chikoms are sending us cheap stuff.
Everybody's dumping on the ChiComs here for this.
And the ChiComs have got to pay attention to this because they need us as an export market.
But I want to take you back.
I am 56, ladies and gentlemen, 56 years of age, proud to admit it because every year my life has gotten better.
I knew it would.
When I was 12, I hated it.
16, I hated it.
19, 20, I hated it.
I wanted to be 40 minimum because I knew every year would get better and it has.
But I was a kid once.
My parents and my grandparents and I all grew up with lead into paint all over the house.
We had lead toy soldiers throwing at each other, you know, doing all kinds of things.
You know why lead was into paint?
It wasn't because corporate interests wanted to kill us and kill their customers.
It was because it made the paint work better.
The paint covered more.
It lasted longer.
But the wackos pulled one on us when poor little children in various neighborhoods apparently developed an insatiable appetite for paint that was loose on their windowsills.
We had, for some reason, some poor kids in this country ran around slurping up paint chips that had lead in it and they got sick.
So, a whole industry, a whole industry had to retool to fix this deadly problem since the parents of these poor kids were unable to convince their kids not to eat paint.
My parents told me not to eat paint.
My grandparents told my parents not to eat paint, and we didn't eat paint.
But apparently, some parents way back did not tell their screw-you'll little kids, don't eat those paint chips, don't do that.
I'm saying you go back.
HR said, are you for lead paint?
Yes, I'll come out for lead paint.
I'll come out for asbestos.
The stuffed ass, I'm in the copy and pocket of big lead.
I'm in the pocket of big corporate interests.
No, what I'm saying is, when I was a kid, and I look at, I don't want to be an old fuddy duddy, and I'm not, this is not walking 10 miles in the snow to school because I wouldn't ever do that.
And I wouldn't ever lie about doing that.
But we grew up, I grew up with according today with so many life-endangering risks like lead paint, asbestos.
You know, when I was a kid, we could go out and play all day, and my mom never worried.
Take the bike and head off.
In fact, she came back too soon.
She got mad.
She's enjoying being rid of us for a while.
Brought the friends back.
She got mad because they'd want to get into the Coca-Cola supply.
I'm just kidding about that.
But nevertheless, now, where have we come?
We've gotten to the point now where we baby kids to the point that we're afraid, almost let them go outside because something in the air is going to kill them.
Global warming is going to kill them.
We don't let them grow up.
We treat them like infants from the time they're born until they're 25 or 30.
We don't, we convince ourselves they can't do anything on their own.
They're just innocent little victim flowers, little children and so forth.
And that's it's a shame.
It's got so bad.
Two days ago, there was three days ago, there was a story that the wackos now say that the toner in your laser printer is deadly.
It's as deadly and dangerous as cigarette smoke.
Nothing could be more preposterous.
And yet, the day after I did that story, CNN had this earnest-looking or Fox earnest-looking expert or expert on talking about this real and vital threat that corporate interests had snuck in on us.
It's like all of these laser printer people, and most of these things come from China, want to kill us.
It's amazing how many American corporations want to kill their customers.
It just, it's stunning to me.
So now, it ain't going to be long before, if there's a printer anywhere near your precious little seven-year-old's classroom, they're going to have to forget it and go back to the mimeograph machine.
And the mimeograph machine, that's what we sniffed.
That stuff stunk up the room when you cannot believe.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you Open Line Friday, Rush Limboss, serving humanity simply by showing up.
Now, where is the second story?
Things are falling apart on me here at the end of the show.
Well, look, get this.
When the United Nations concluded a two-day debate Thursday on the potential devastation from climate change, it covered a lot of territory: deforestation, decertification, greenhouse gases, renewable energy sources, biofuels, sustainable development.
But one thing the debate on global warming lacked, according to June Zeitlin, the executive director of the New York-based Women's Environment and Development Organizations called WEDO was a gender perspective.
Or maybe it's we do.
Women and children, 14 times more likely to die than men during a disaster spawned by global warming.
And they didn't talk about it at the UN.
And the NAGS upset about it.
Tony in Indianapolis, I'm glad you called, sir.
I appreciate your patience and holding on.
Well, I have been waiting since the summer of 1990 to say mega Ditto's Russia.
Thank you.
Found that story, but the hurricane forecasters have lowered the forecast again.
Now, started at 17, then it went to 60, now it's 15.
Great news.
Yeah, it's a global warming.
Sea surface temperatures are so scalding out there.
That's what's happening.
Two questions, sir.
Yeah.
First, I'd like to know the margin of error on that Zogby poll that put the Democrat Congress at 3% to know if it would be possible to say that inside the margin of error, no one in America likes the Democratic wetlands.
Excellent point.
I think the margin of error in Zogby is like 3%, 3.5%.
Theoretically, it could have a negative.
They may not even approve of themselves, is my point.
Yeah, unless they're not in the sample.
Well, that is possible.
My second question is purely entrepreneurial related.
Right.
I am a partner in a company, a very small company, that we make a control of combustion equipment that basically figures out exactly how much energy a building is using in heating and then just replaces that energy.
Right, So we save customers, we save customers like 72% on their fuel usage, which is a pretty linear equation to figure out 72% of stack emissions.
Now, we are all, you know, conservative, you know, red and meat Republican kind of guys, and we do not want to sell our product on the falsehood of global warming.
But I must admit, it's a pretty, you know, alluring little thing.
Yeah, I understand, you know, because it's like the automakers.
They're coming out with these hybrids because they think the customers want them because of the media making a big deal about this.
And corporate America is the one thing they will not do other than a news business is alienate the customer.
And so they try to make as many products for as many segments of the market as possible.
If you have this system that does what you say, and if it will, if you think that buildings, large and small, would be more inclined to investigate your system and perhaps buy it if you coupled it with a global warming component.
You know, it's a marketing thing to do.
You don't have to do that.
It's, you know, it's sort of like I'm not against cars that get great gas mileage.
I'm not against these hybrids.
If you want to buy, just don't tell me that you're better than me because I don't drive one.
Don't tell me if I drive a car that gets 12 miles a gallon and you drive a car that gets 50, don't come sniveling to me and say, I'm destroying the planet.
Don't tell me you're a better person than I am because neither of us are destroying the planet.
Neither of us are saving it.
And that mentality is exactly what we hate.
We think we have got a market-driven solution.
People don't want to pay money if they don't have to that can go into their buildings, make them much more energy efficient, and they get paid back for the investment that they've made.
It just seems that the noise in the market to cut through it, you've got to hit all the push-button issues.
And while we, you know, I don't want to give a minute of credence to this idea that if you buy my product, you'll save the planet.
You know, if you'll buy my product, you'll make your life better.
Right.
Don't put it in the Save the Planet business.
That's going too far.
Just, you know, if your product does what you say, that'll sell itself to hell with why people want to buy it.
They'll buy it because it's cheaper in the end run, right?
Yes.
Well, cheaper for them to operate if they're saving that much on energy and emissions.
Easily.
73%.
Well, that's, you know, I'd market it that way.
I'm not you.
But, you know, you've got a great product that does something.
And, you know, you can appeal to the citizenship of people without coupling it to some wacko left-wing cause.
Well, when we buy our advertising on EIB with a confiscatory advertising rate, we will certainly.
Well, it will eat into the profits that you're going to make.
I mean, there's no question about it.
Look, thanks for the call.
We've got to get out of here and run.
Back up to the margin of error in the Zogby poll was 1%, not the usual 3%.
That's a slick adjustment that Zogby made.
He puts out his poll.
Only 3% of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing in Iraq.
Folks, it's been great.
Hope you have a wonderful and dazzling weekend.
We'll have one ourselves and see you back here on Monday.
▲
Export Selection