All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 19, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
September 19, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I kid you not.
Look at this headline.
Man hides sex toys in sausage for Dubai trip.
You know, I love stories with Dubai in it, especially if it's got the words ports deal, too.
Staff in a German butcher shop were shocked to discover a customer had hidden two sex toys in their sausages for transport to Dubai, police said today.
It was two latex, well, I can't tell you what they were.
It was two latex blank blank there with a natural look, said a spokesman for police in the southwestern city of Mannheim.
After shopping there earlier in the day, the man who spoke broken English returned to the butcher's with two large Schwarten Megan sausages.
He asked a shop assistant to wrap and cool them until he departed for Dubai the next day.
But the assistants noticed that the goods had gotten heavier and alerted the cops.
Officers discovered a man who's about 50 had removed some of the meat and packed the sex toys inside.
Could have used a loaf of bread, the spokesman says.
It's not against the law here, but obviously I can't speculate on what customs in Dubai will have to say about it.
I'll tell you what, you don't want to take stuff like that into Dubai.
You don't want to get caught with it.
You do not want to do that.
If you're thinking of that, folks, stop yourselves.
Discipline, discipline, discipline.
All right, here's the answer to the question.
We had a call from Lewis in Houston, a liberal, who acknowledged my insightfulness, saying, why not just one free checkup for every American a year?
Since the healthcare profession tells us that if we would just tackle preventive maintenance on our health, that it'd reduce costs considerably.
All right, so the question, a very seductive question, and I'm sure a lot of people say, yeah, yeah, why not a free checkup?
Russian, what could possibly be wrong with a free checkup?
Well, how do you want to attack this first, folks?
You want me to go to the practical or the theoretical?
Which would you like first?
The practical or to the practical first?
How do things work in our country?
Let me give you an example.
I was in Sacramento, as many of you know, and during the mid-80s.
And back then, homelessness was all the rage because Ronaldo's Magnus was in the White House blaming him for it.
And they opened a homeless shelter somewhere downtown in Sacramento that had never been there before.
And they started giving away free food.
And, you know, the beat cops down there noticed far more people than ever before showing up down there started to show up.
So you start, you theoretically, and by the way, theoretically, there's nothing free.
We'll get to that in a minute.
The practicality is you offer something free and you are going to have more takers and more demands.
One free health care visit will then lead to two.
You have to understand out there, Lewis, what the objective of liberals proposing health care is here.
This is the practical explanation.
They want as many people as possible to be totally dependent on government programs and politicians for their needs in life.
And unfortunately, it has evolved as such that health care is now a need.
And it's also evolved to the point, dangerously, that too many Americans think that it's an American entitlement to have health care paid for by their neighbors, by the government, by somebody else, or their insurance or what have you.
In some cases, both insurance and a treatment.
So, one free health care visit, if we ever agree to that, Democrat politicians, probably some Republicans too, was, well, let's make it two.
It may go every six months.
We're already halfway there with the Brett girl and Hillary demanding that you got to get, you got to go get a checkup.
You got to do it.
You got to go to the doctor once a year.
What will be the penalties if you don't?
Boils down, Lewis, to freedom.
The simplest way to explain why this is a bad idea is freedom.
This is going to be a mandatory thing, and you're not left to your own device.
You know, we have freedom in this country.
Freedom to do stupid things, freedom to have accidents, freedom to screw up, freedom to be brilliant, freedom to do the right thing.
We have freedom, and it's under assault.
I'm not talking about constitutional freedoms.
I'm talking about everyday life decisions you want to make just in the privacy of your own life, living the way you want to live.
We got restrictions on what you can say now.
We got restrictions on what you can eat.
We got restrictions on what and where you can smoke.
We have restrictions, are going to have restrictions soon on the kind of car you drive based on the mileage that it gets.
We got restrictions on whether or not you have to wear a seatbelt or a helmet when you drive a motorcycle.
These little things, they happen very slowly and they encroach, and people don't notice them in the context of losing freedom because it's always presented to us as improving the quality of our lives and making us safer.
Because we, of course, are too stupid to make ourselves safe.
And we're too stupid to know what to eat and what not to eat.
I don't know about you, Lewis, but I don't want anybody telling me what I can eat not, what I can eat and drink.
I don't want somebody telling me that, especially the government.
I don't want a bunch of ninny nannies who live in my neighborhood telling me what color my house has to be.
I don't want them telling me how far I can build it back from the ocean.
But these things exist.
You know, it's happening all over the place.
So you start talking a free checkup, it's going to become two free checkups.
And that's going to lead to expanded coverage.
Well, why are we only offering a free checkup?
We need to offer free tonsillectomies.
We need to offer free this and free that.
Once it starts, once liberalism starts, Lewis, it never stops.
There is no liberal solution to a problem.
Their so-called solutions only create new ones.
Once we're going to give away a free checkup, then we're going to give away two checkups because two is better than one.
And we're going to expand that.
If you need a tonsillectomy, if you need an anal exam, we're going to give you that too.
Everybody needs an anal exam now and then, especially you people who don't get yours from the drive-by media.
You have no idea what one's like until you get one of those.
Family leave.
Family medical leave act.
Let me give you an example, Lewis.
Yes, we need to have mothers and fathers be able to take 12 weeks away from job in order to raise the newborn child and take the dog to the vet and deal with these emergencies.
And when that happened, I made a prediction.
I said, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Who in the world out there can afford three months without a paycheck?
Folks, do you realize what's going to happen?
The next stage will be paid leave, mandatory, 12 weeks paid leave.
By gosh, it's happening.
Starting to happen now, state by state.
Feds are going to propose it at some point at Clintons.
Pay you not to work, pay you to take time off.
And who's going to object?
An employer ought to pay me.
I hate my employer.
He's not fair.
Never giving me a raise.
It's about time he had it sucked to him.
This is the attitude they've created.
Class envy.
Everybody hates the boss.
Of course, everybody hates the boss.
You don't need government to make you do that.
I'm not hated as a boss, but I've had bosses that I thought were idiots.
We all do.
So here come these brilliant politicians.
I'll help you get even with that brilliant boss.
I'm going to make sure you can take 12 weeks off when a dog gets sick, when grandma needs to go to the old folks' home, when the soup gets spilled or whatever, and your boss is going to pay for it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
People lap it up.
Then 12 weeks is going to someday become 15 weeks.
And then that'll someday become 18.
And if you have twins, 24 weeks of paid leave.
If you have triplets, a full year of paid leave.
There's no end.
Once you start this stuff, Lewis, there's no end to it.
On the theoretical side, the whole concept of free is something, Lewis, you're going to have to learn this.
There is no such thing.
When you say free, one checkup, free checkup, I assume at the doctor of your choosing, or you're going to let the government tell you which doctor you're going to go to for this checkup.
And you're going to want gasoline money to get there since they're telling you.
And what happens if you have to wait a whole day in line because everybody else in Houston's going there that day?
Or if just one-tenth of 1% of Houston's going that day for their checkup?
Oh, so we're going to have to, the government's going to have to mandate when you go so that we don't have a run and overcrowding of the various government health centers where the checkup's going to take place.
And if you go to get the checkup and they tell you, you know what?
We've just discovered here that you have diabetes, type 2 diabetes.
Then what do you do, Lewis?
That ain't going to be free.
Well, you'll think it's free.
But it isn't, Lewis, because your neighbors make it free.
If you want to understand the concept I'm talking about, Lewis, do this.
Pretend that we don't have your plan in place yet because we don't, but you want it to be.
So I want you to go walk up and down the street in your neighborhood, knock on the doors of your neighbors, especially those that you don't know.
And I want you to tell them you're going to the doctor for a checkup and you want 20 bucks from them to help defray the costs.
Then you go to as many of your neighbors as possible and get as much money as you need for the checkup.
And you go and you knock on their door.
Say, I'm going to the doctor.
I'm going to get a checkup and I want you to pay for it.
So it'll be free for me.
Well, that's all what I'm talking about.
It's exactly what happens.
Somebody's got to pay for this.
The doctor has to get paid.
Have you ever thought about the doctor?
Is a doctor going to give away the checkup to every American once a year?
What about the nurse?
What about the doctor's office utility bills?
What about his equipment and supplies?
What about the bills for the free clinics?
What about the record keeping, Lewis?
You have somebody in there in a computer or something that's going to record the results of your checkup because you've got to have a medical file.
And who's going to pay that person when you go in and get your free checkup?
There is no such thing as free anything.
I don't care.
Somebody is paying for a service to be provided or a product to be manufactured and distributed, sold.
The concept of free is relevant only if you are selfish and think as long as it doesn't cost you anything, then it's free.
But it's not free.
You're being totally selfish.
And another question, Lewis, that you might want to think about is this.
Who is going to pay for the free lawyer you are going to demand when the free checkup fails to find your health problem until it's too late?
Who are you going to find to represent you for free as you bring your malpractice suit against a doctor who didn't get paid, who misdiagnosed what you have, gave you an anal exam, and found out that you were full of it and couldn't do anything about it.
You exploded later on.
Big problems like Castro.
You need to go get redress for this free checkup that failed.
Who's going to give you your free lawyer?
All right, let's go to some audio soundbites here, folks.
You got a pretty good roster here today.
I want to start with the Reverend Sharpton last night on Heart Boiled with Chris Matthews.
As you know, the Reverend Sharpton is now the chief of the speech police.
The drive-bys have anointed the Reverend Sharpton and the Reverend Jack with that power.
Now, you remember yesterday we played audio soundbites of Isaiah Thomas, head coach of the New York Knicks.
He was on a witness stand.
He's being accused of sexual harassment by a female staffer.
And apparently he called her a B.I.H. And he was asked in a witness stand, is it a difference?
Who can say the word B-I-H?
Would you get angry if a white person called a black woman a BIH?
Yes, sir.
You can't say that.
I'm paraphrasing here.
What about when a black man calls a black woman a BIH?
Well, I don't think that's as bad, he said.
So the Reverend Sharpton was asked about this by Chris Matthews last night.
Matthews said, is there a difference, Chief, between the word and who can say it?
I don't think so.
I think that the word is wrong no matter who says it.
It's a misogynist and sexist term.
I do not agree with anyone using it.
We in Nash Action Network have fought it, whether it was Imos or whether it was hip-hop artists.
I think that a sexist word or racist word or a word that is homophobic is that no matter who's the one using the word.
So that's a bad word in your vocabulary, period.
Correct.
All right.
So the NAA LCP had a funeral some weeks ago for the N word, and now the Reverend Sharpton on Hardball last night has officially banned the B word from being used by anybody.
Then Matthew said, how did you get this thrown, Chief?
You're chief of the speech police.
This position of influence where you can decree that Don Imos must go or must go or the conditions upon which he can come back.
Where did you get this position of power, Chief?
What I said was that Don Imos or anyone else has the right to say what they want, but we have the right to organize people to say that we're not going to pay for it.
As I'm in Gina, Louisiana right now, organizing against a decision we feel is wrong in the criminal justice system.
All right, the Reverend Sharpton evaded the answer.
Let me answer it for you, Chris.
You want to know who it was that empowered the Reverend Sharpton to ban words and to sit in judgment over who can say what where in media.
Chris, it was you and all your buddies in the drive-by media and all of you guys in the Democrat Party.
And it was CBS and it was NBC who bent over forwards and grabbed the ankles when the Reverend Sharpton came calling.
You're going to sit there and empower these charlatans as power brokers in the Democrat Party and in the American left.
And then you're going to sit there and wonder, well, who gave you the power?
You've got to realize who's legitimizing these guys.
They do not legitimize themselves.
You do, Chris, by accepting what they say as scholarly leadership on behalf of the civil rights movement.
And no mystery here.
Moving on, Washington, D.C. at the policy center, Senator Barack Obama spoke, and here he says he's got new ideas out there.
And his new ideas are basically just a replay of the same old liberal ones, class warfare and soak the rich.
At a time when Americans are working harder than ever, we are taxing income from work at nearly twice the levels that we're taxing gains for investors.
I will restore simplicity to the tax code and fairness for the American middle class.
We will also turn the page on an approach that gives repeated tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, even though they don't need them and did not ask for them.
Wrong O.
We always ask for them, Barack.
It's not a matter of your determining my needs.
It's none of your damn business, nor anybody else's in Washington to determine my needs or anybody else's, and then to construct policy on the basis of it.
The rich are paying an ever greater share of the income tax burden than they ever have, Barack.
There are more middle-class people not on the income tax rolls than ever in American history.
The rich are paying a lion's share of income taxes.
Now, explain this to me, too.
I'm for tax cuts for everybody, Barack, Senator Obama.
But this notion that somehow capital gains taxes or the rates are too low, we're taxing work at a greater rate than we're taxing investment, well, then lower the income tax rates and really watch revenue pour in.
No, we got to raise rates.
Why do we want to penalize investors now, Senator Obama?
What is it with you people?
You want to penalize success.
You want to penalize risk.
You want to, if, if, how about these investors who go south, who make bad risks, bad investments?
I'm not talking about these mortgages and his people invest the stock market or whatever.
The deal goes south.
You're going to make it good for them, Senator.
You're going to make up the loss?
Of course not.
Why do you want to impugn investment?
What the hell do you think makes a country grow?
Certainly isn't your stupid programs that you come up with that are just retreads of age-old New Dealism that do nothing but kill off economic growth.
This stuff, this stuff, yeah, he doesn't have a prayer anyway, but Hillary's even worse.
I know.
And we demonstrate that each and every broadcast moment here.
Doctor of Democracy and America's Truth Detector, a harmless, lovable little fuzzbull.
All right, folks, you got to hear this.
It takes a blogger with a video camera to ask Jack Murtha the questions that drive-bys will not.
This is a courtesy of hotair.com.
On Capitol Hill yesterday, the Young American Foundation Jason Matera had this exchange with Jack Murtha about the Haditha trial.
I read.
All right.
Now that the murder charges against Lance Corporals Justin Sherratt and Stephen Tatum have been dropped in the Haditha incident or in the process of being dropped, would you like to issue an apology for saying that they killed innocent civilians in cold blood?
Trial is still going on.
Justin Sherratt and Stephen Tatum, two men you accuse of murdering innocent civilians in cold blood.
The charge is in the process of being dismissed.
So what did the process of being dismissed?
Do you like besmirching our troops, sir?
Do you like besmirching our troops, sir?
You've been in the service in Korea.
You accused them of murdering innocent civilians in cold blood.
That's something that would come from Al Jazeera.
How the congressman, sir.
Woo!
That's Jason Matera.
He is from the Young Americas Foundation.
And that was from the thehotair.com blog, which is Michelle Malkins.
So, you know, Mirtha said, I served in Vietnam.
You've been in the service as a Korea.
I enlisted in Vietnam.
I have another Mirtha story.
This is from yesterday.
If pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq results in a bloodbath, the guilt will rest with the Iraqi people and not with the U.S. Congress, according to Jack Murtha.
Many have threatened that there will be chaos, a bloodbath, when the U.S. redeploys some Iraq.
And this, in fact, may be the case.
Murthy said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington on Monday, if they continue to choose to spill blood, it'll not be on the conscience of the United States.
Murthy said that ethnic violence in Iraq would be a continuation of decades of its own conflicts, which they and they alone can solve.
The fact that Representative Mirtha acknowledged that leaving Iraq in chaos would lead to genocide, but then says it wouldn't be our fault of striking, said Kevin Smith, who's a spokesman for minority leader John Boehner.
Post-withdrawal bloodbath would not be Congress's fault, according to Jack Mirth.
These guys want no responsibility for any chaos or sheer hell that they have caused or will cause.
This is Jeff in Colfax, California.
Hi, Jeff.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Yeah.
Hi, Larish.
Nice to talk to you.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
I was just going to make an observation here.
The Democrats tell us that they want to talk to our enemies, that we should talk and listen and be all warm and fuzzy with them.
However, Pelosi and Kucinich and Obama, they all, I don't think Obama has talked, but Pelosi and Kucinich have talked to Assad recently.
They didn't just talk to him.
They went over there and practically prostrated themselves before him.
Exactly.
And this strike that the Israelis made on the North Korean weapons, nuclear stuff that apparently was a possible nuclear installation in Syria.
We're still not sure if it was, but it was something.
Exactly.
And do you think that Mr. Assad spoke to Pelosi and Kucinich about this beforehand?
No, come on.
We all know what happens.
This is classic.
In the first place, don't call those nice gentlemen our enemies.
That's confrontational.
The Democrats speak with foreign leaders.
They're not speaking with our enemies.
We don't have any enemies.
Our enemy is George W. Bush.
So they went over to Assad and they talked to Assad.
And I don't know this for a fact, but I know it's happened in the past.
I know, for example, didn't it come up in the Kerry campaign in 04?
And it might have come up during the Reagan years with the Soviets.
Democrats have long gone over to foreign countries that are enemies of ours.
Just sit tight.
We get rid of Reagan, get rid of Bush, everything will be okay.
Don't hold this against us.
You know, we're your friends here.
We Democrats, we understand you.
We want to talk to you.
We want to give peace.
Blah, Just hold.
I know they did it with Ortega.
And I think it happened with a couple.
So my memory is that Ted Kennedy, back in the Reagan days, went to the Soviet Union and said, look, just bide our time here.
Don't, you know, this guy's mad.
He's got his button on the finger, but we're not going to let him push it.
It's just her finger on a button.
We're not going to let him push it.
So just they do this.
So wouldn't it surprise me if Pelosi and whoever else, I know Kucinich went over there, but there have been others.
Among whatever else, why would they go?
Well, one of the reasons they went was to upstage Bush, but they would go over there because, hey, look, Mr. Assad, you know, we realize that things are being said in our country, but we don't believe them, and we can do business with you, and just wait till we're in charge, and blah, blah, blah.
And when they walk out of there, I guarantee you, Assad gets on the phone and calls Mahmoud in Iran and calls his buddies down in Lebanon at Hezbollah.
He said, you won't believe what just happened here.
I just had these two idiot infidels walk in here, these Democrats, this Midget Kucinich and this Pelosi babe, and they're telling me how much they love.
You realize how we can wrap these people around our fingers?
And just to prove it, they start launching or they start loading a scud missile with a chemical warhead, has sarin gas in it, and it explodes and kills a bunch of Syrians and Iranians that are working on it.
And the Israelis have to take out some kind of installation.
It's clear that the conversation at Pelosi and Kucinich, nothing, they get laughed at.
They want to go talk to Iran.
Pelosi, next since, I want to go talk to Iran.
I want to go talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinezad.
Now, Ahmadinezad, she might have to go to Iran because Ahmadinezad and Hugo Chavez are both due in the United States on Sunday.
You know, the UN session, the General Assembly opens up next week, and it's time for a new round of speeches.
So perhaps Pelosi get together with them there.
We're having them down to Washington for dinner.
So maybe a joint address to Congress.
Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmedinizad.
It's been a year since the sulfur speech of Hugo Chavez.
This is correct, Mr. Snirdley.
Time flies, does it not, on this show and everywhere else?
So look at, these are thugs.
These are totalitarian dictators, and they see Pelosi and Kucinich and these other people what they are.
Rubes, idiots.
People that can be lied to, people can be jacked around, people that can be used, manipulated.
Nothing changes.
It's always been the case.
Rockford, Illinois, this is Mary.
Welcome, sir.
Pardon me, ma'am, to the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
My question goes back to the Hillary care problem or her program.
You mentioned earlier how people who made over $250,000, if they wanted to get their own insurance, that there'd be better plans out there than what she's offering.
How about the doctors?
Where are they going to go?
Aren't they going to be wanting to make the most money?
Aren't they going to go where the best doctors are going to want to get into the best clinics?
So what are we going to be stuck with, those of us who can't afford our own insurance, get stuck with Hillary care?
What kind of medical care, what kind of doctors are going to want to be in those programs?
Yeah, the cast of Gray's Anatomy We'll be doing your surgery.
These are all very relevant points that you're making.
And, by the way, everything you're asking has happened.
Canada.
Right.
Great Britain.
The exact thing that you...
Now, by the way, Mrs. Clinton, I should say, Wall Street Journal brings this out.
Let me find it, in fact, from their editorial.
Mrs. Clinton, very shifty about this.
If this thing ever happens, she is not going to immediately get rid of the employer-provided insurance program.
The strategy now is designed, as the journal says, to cause minimal disruptions to current private insurance coverage in the short run while dressing up the old Hillary care agenda with slightly different mechanisms and rhetoric.
Rather than fight small business like she did the last time around, this time she's trying to seduce it with tax credits for small companies that provide insurance for their employees.
Only later, when costs rise, will the credits shrink or other taxes rise?
So there's a bit of a stealth aspect to this.
The end result is not going to be how it starts.
It'll just fade into that or evolve into that purposely by the way it's set up.
This is being done to make it more difficult for people like me and others to oppose what she wants.
No, we're not changing anything.
We're just going to make it more efficient.
We're not changing anything at all.
It's just going to be much, much more efficient.
But then if you read all the details, she might not even be changing the original structure right off the bat, her current structure.
But when you have to go out and have policy coverage before you can get a job interview and penalties if you don't do this and that, I mean, it's pretty breathtaking.
Your questions are exactly right.
You're going to end up with inferior medical care providers.
And the other thing you bring up is really good, but the whole question of doctors in this, it takes a lot of time and a lot of money to become a doctor.
And you have a lot of bills to pay after you've gone through your schooling and whatever else that you do when you first set up wherever you go to work.
You've got a lot of expense.
I want to know what are the financial incentives for doctors in this plan?
I want to know.
I think what we need to hear from Mrs. Clinton is doctors going to be allowed to make money.
I don't mean will they not be paid.
I mean, but is the profession going to be enticing enough for good people to go into it once your plan is in full effect?
Are you going to end up like you did in 1993 or four telling doctors where they have to go and what specialty they can study?
You're going to allocate this, the health care provider resources according to what you think is needed where?
And if so, what's in it for the doctors?
There has to be something in it for the doctors.
What are we going to do about malpractice insurance?
And Ms. Clinton, could you do something very simply for us here at the beginning?
Would you tell us what medical services are going to be provided in your plan and which ones aren't and which drugs are going to be covered and which ones aren't?
We just take this down to the basics.
She's the expert here.
Do you realize, folks, how literally obscene it is for any of us to think of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, I don't care who, or name a Republican as the expert on healthcare in this country?
Is that not scary that so many people think that that makes sense?
Well, look at here, folks.
This certainly qualifies as big news, doesn't it?
And we have a poll out there.
This is a Reuters-Zogby poll.
One in three Americans expects a U.S. recession in the next year, and less than 25% think that home prices will rise.
According to a Reuters-Zogby poll released today, less than a quarter think over.
Hispanics and African Americans, hardest hit here, more likely than whites to predict a recession, reflecting a deeper sense of job and economic anxiety among minor.
What a crock, what absolute drivel.
You know what?
I read the other day, I'm not making this up.
This actress out there, Kate Blanchette, is that how you pronounce her name?
She's from Australia.
She's gotten, she's lost her mind in this environmental stuff.
She is going to drink her own urine for the environment.
Well, it's not exactly going to happen that way.
She is going to put in something to recycle her own home's wastewater and keep using it over and over again to save the environment.
She's doing it for the environment.
I kid you not.
Now, I'm going to tell you something.
This stupid story from Reuters about this stupid poll needs to be sent over to the wastewater in her house and mixed in with it because that's about what this is worth.
I tell you, these people, they have their templates and they have their narratives, and I don't care what the hell the story is.
What in the world?
This is a this is Emily Kaiser, by the way.
We need to identify the professional journalist here.
Hispanics and African Americans were more likely than whites to predict a recession.
Okay, fine, period.
But no, no, we have to now editorialize.
What does that mean, Emily?
Oh, Emily's here to tell us.
Well, Mr. Limbaugh, that reflects a deeper sense of job and economic anxiety among minorities who represent a disproportionately large share of lower income groups.
She doesn't know this.
She doesn't.
This is just the way they look at it.
Of course, minorities and Hispanics are going to be more filled with doom and gloom.
They're minorities.
They're victims of the evil.
Majority in the United States of America is constantly pounding on them and stepping on them and keeping them down and kicking them in the throat with it.
Emily, you know why?
I don't care what numbers and why you want to break down the people in your stupid poll, but I'm going to tell you why you got the results.
One in three Americans expects a U.S. recession.
Who the hell's telling them that?
You are, Emily, you and your buds in the drive-by media.
You could, one in probably one in three Americans expect to get fat.
Why?
Because you're telling them they already are.
And of course, minorities and Hispanics are hardest hit because they don't have any money, so they've got to go fast food joints.
This job, this profession has deteriorated to sunk to such a low level.
You don't have to have a brain.
You have to have a memory to be able to recite the templates and the narratives of your worldview and incorporate what is supposedly news, the results of a stupid poll into your worldview to produce a newspaper story.
In a story about why is it news that a third of the idiots you talk to in this country think there's going to be a recession anyway.
But then to add minorities hardest It's just too good.
Let me take a quick time out here, folks.
We'll try to squeeze another call in.
Maybe.
I don't know.
See what the time is when we get back.
Don't go away.
Hey, here's another Reuters story.
The headline here, many of Earth's vital signs in bad shape.
Oh, no.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Earth is dying.
We're on life support.
More wood was removed from forests in 2005 than ever before.
one of many troubling environmental signs highlighted on Thursday in the World Watch Institute's annual check of the planet's health.
I tell you, you know, I'm pausing here because I haven't the time to deal with this as I would listen.
Let me put it back over here in the Global Warming Stack.
We're going to do Open Line Thursday on Friday tomorrow since I'll be in Sacramento on Friday for a big important speech.
What is so funny in there?
What are you?
Open line.
Yeah, Open Line Friday and Thursday.
Yeah, Red's right.
And we'll leave it.
▲
Export Selection