All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
September 26, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I did.
I got a lot of sleep last night.
I got probably, well, I got what, the new required seven hours.
If you sleep eight, you're going to die.
If you sleep less than seven, you're going to die.
I think I, yeah, 1221.
That's when I last looked at the clock.
And I 7.21.
Yeah, 7.21 is 7.15.
So I'm like, seven hours.
Anyway, oh, I watched a movie last night I've got to tell you about.
I normally don't do this, but I've got to tell you about it.
Greetings, folks, and welcome.
Here we are, the fastest week in media.
We're already on Wednesday.
This is Hump Day.
And it's also the fastest three hours in media.
The telephone number here, if you want to be on the program, I'm sure you do.
800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I watched them.
I got a Blu-ray player.
These HD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray.
I have them both.
And whenever there are new releases out, I said, just go get them.
And I got stacks of them I haven't seen yet.
So I decided when I got home late yesterday afternoon, I said, I'm going to chill here.
Rather than start doing show prep immediately, I'm going to go in there.
I'm going to watch.
I started going through the stack.
I said, hmm, I've heard about this.
And the movie was The Lives of Others.
And it won the Oscar for best foreign language film.
So I put it in.
If it won an Oscar, I don't care what it is.
It's got to be, it's got to be, you know, suspect.
It's just the opposite.
This is a movie.
This is the kind of movie that the United States ought to be making.
This is the kind of movie that Hollywood ought to be making.
I don't want to tell you too much about it other than to tell you it was just fabulous.
The movie starts in 1984 and runs, it's German.
It runs through the fall of the Berlin Wall and even a little after that.
And it is about how the East German Stasi, the secret police, spied on citizens and destroyed their lives.
Have you seen it, Dawn?
She's nodding in there like she knows what I'm talking.
Now, if Hollywood made this movie, they would make it about Bush, I'm sure.
But this, I don't want to tell you any more about it.
Oh, I should tell you this.
It does have some nudity in it, so it's got an R rating.
But it's not a sex movie.
It's not that at all.
So don't let the R scare you.
I mean, I know you wouldn't want your crumb crunchers watching it with you because of the nudity, but really that's it's it's in it's it really actually isn't even necessary here.
I think it's just the artsy, you know, the croissant crowd, you know, putting the film up.
They like getting R's because it's really bad.
Let's go, Mabel.
And in this case, it's not.
This is one of the most accurate portrayals.
I find it interesting.
It was made in Germany.
One of the most accurate portrayals of life under socialism and communism that you'll see.
And so it is in German, so you got to turn on a closed captioning here to be able to keep up with it.
Also, have you seen this?
No, Lives of Others is the name of it.
And it's on regular DVD, too.
You don't have to watch it in HD.
Have you seen the stories, all the backlash now at Lee Bollinger because he was rude to Mahmoud Ahmadinezad?
In the New York Sun today, backlash against Bollinger hits Columbia.
A backlash against the president of Columbia University who on Monday delivered a harsh rebuke to Mahmoud Ahmadinezad is coming from faculty members and students who said he struck an insulting tone and that his remarks amounted to schoolyard taunts.
The fierceness of Mr. Bollinger's critique brought the Iranians some sympathy on campus that he didn't deserve, the critics said, and amounted to a squandered opportunity to provide a lesson in diplomacy.
You know, this misses the point.
When Ed Koch has a piece today that talks about Bollinger was rude.
You don't invite somebody into your house and treat them this way.
You don't invite them to your school.
But his main gripe was that Bollinger forgot to stand up for the U.S.
He stood up for Israel, but he didn't question Mahmoud's assertion he wanted to wipe America off the map too.
Death to America, death to America.
And there are others running around saying that, yeah, it's bad.
It was horrible.
I mean, we did, you don't invite somebody in, you treat them rudely like that.
Everybody's missing the point.
If you want to feel that way, I can understand if you have manners and culture, you want to feel that, but that's not the point of this.
Again, the point of this is the invitation should never have been given.
Mahmoud was going to have media access all through his trip.
He's a star to the drive-by media.
Hell, last night, Mahmoud, or maybe it was the night before, I'm not sure which, threw a dinner party for 50 academics and journalists over at the Intercontinental Hotel.
And you ought to read in Time magazine the glowing report, the glowing review of Mahmoud.
He was brilliant.
He's fierce.
He's articulate.
He's everything Bush isn't.
He refused to take questions.
He did allow people to make statements to which he would respond, but he did not allow, you can say what you wanted, but you couldn't ask any questions.
Yes, Mr. Snirdly.
Oh, yeah, they went.
Oh, yeah, they, yeah, well, of course, what happens every time he comes here?
This is the third year in a row that this is a coveted invitation from His Excellency, the President of Iran, the Islamic Republic, Mahmoud Ahmadinezad.
Oh, you see, I didn't read the thing, Kare.
I think he did insult the United States.
Yes, whether he did at the dinner or not, we've got more side-by-sides coming up of Mahmoud and Democrats saying the identical things.
He's still on the war path.
I want to go back to this Bollinger business before we let this go.
Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinezad?
As a human being, forget his title.
Who is he as a human being?
He is a man who orders his opponents to be imprisoned, tortured, and killed.
He is a man who wants Israel wiped off the map and is predicting that it's going to happen and that he's going to be the one to do it.
We all know that his country and he participate and allow the stoning of women who look the wrong way out of the burqa.
We know that he executes homosexuals when they're uncovered.
But wait till you hear his response.
I don't want to paraphrase this, but wait till you hear when we get to the audio sound bites.
He was asked a question by a reporter about gays.
Well, I just tell you, he said, well, we really don't have that phenomenon.
The reporter said, well, I know some that are there.
And Mahmoud asks the reporter for their address so he can learn about this phenomenon that he didn't think is going on in Iran.
So who is this guy?
The guy is a state terrorist.
He's a state sponsor of terrorist terrorism.
And we're worried that he was treated rudely.
I can understand that some people might think this, but we're missing the point here.
Once again, we're focusing on ourselves.
It's all about us.
And were we polite or not?
And are we doing the right thing?
Are we making the world like us?
Screw that when dealing with the situation like we're in with international terrorism threatening our existence.
In addition to that, the whole platform was nothing more than a propaganda thing for Mahmoud.
I mean, I guarantee you, he doesn't care he was treated rudely.
He might say so because he knows how to court Americans who have this.
I wonder what they think of me today.
I wonder what they think of us.
Of course, he's going to say that, but Mahmoud clearly enjoyed the opportunity for propaganda back to his targeted audience in the Middle East.
And it's still undecided, and he's denying it.
He might have been one of the original terrorists that kidnapped, involved in the kidnapping and holding of the American hostages during the Carter administration.
There's photographic evidence that places Mahmoud at the embassy.
He, of course, has denied this.
But I don't know.
I think here that when you look at the invitation and why Bollinger did what he did, we can go nuts analyzing this from our perspective.
Oh, it's so rude.
Yeah, it did.
I have no doubt that Bollinger's treatment of Mahmoud aided and abetted his propaganda and created sympathy for him.
But is what Bollinger said untrue?
Does it pass the truth test?
What he said was true.
I think that's what people are having, some people having trouble dealing with, just not all, but just didn't want to hear it.
Makes them uncomfortable.
Confrontation, it wasn't necessary.
Invite this guy to your academic institution and you thus convey upon him the status of a scholar at an academic.
The whole thing should never have happened because Mahmoud was going to get his media circus whether he went to Columbia University or not.
I got to take a quick timeout.
We'll be back and go through some of these side-by-side soundbites again, brand new ones, right after this.
Well, look at here.
I've got the San Francisco Chronicle.
My formerly nicotine-stained fingers here today.
It's a story by their Washington Bureau reporter Carolyn Lockhead.
Even if Democrats win White House, troops are likely to remain in Iraq.
Now, where did you first hear that?
And how long ago?
You first heard it on this program back in March or April.
The light bulbs are starting to go off there in the drive-by media and in the rest of the Democrats.
They are slowly getting around to seeing the point that I was making since Monday about Mrs. Clinton's comments about staying in Iraq after she is elected president.
She said it on George Stephanopoulos.
The leading Democrat presidential candidate, Senator Clinton, steadfastly refused as recently as Sunday's round of talk shows to promise that all U.S. forces would be withdrawn if she is elected.
Charles Kupchin worked in the National Security Council.
People say, Rush, what's so important about this?
Of course, it's true.
Why do you keep harping on this?
My friends, let me explain why I keep harping on this to you and why it is crucial.
I'm glad for the question.
Sometimes I assume everybody is on the same page with me.
This is not Social Security.
This is not the ship program.
This is not some domestic policy thing.
This is about the national security of our country.
It is about the defense of the United States of America.
And for the last four years, the Democrat Party, aided and abetted by its insane, deranged, and delusional base, has been trying to undermine U.S. victory.
They have invested, and as you've heard me say, now own the concept of defeat.
All along, it has been a lie.
Now, they have been trying to secure it.
They have been trying to secure defeat primarily to destroy the Bush presidency, to enable their easier ascension to the White House 2008.
And they don't care if they destroy the country in the process.
Fix it when they get back in power.
They have been lying to the American people, and their lies have shown up throughout the drive-by media.
And the drive-by media and the fringe base have all bought the notion that the Democrats, the 06 election was about getting out of Iraq.
The Democrats are not going to take us out of Iraq.
The reason why this is important is they have been lying to their own voters.
They have been lying to the American people, and their lies have been amplified across the drive-by media on an issue that matters, on an issue that matters.
And U.S. National Security is at the top of the list.
It's more important than Social Security reform, right?
Because all that stuff's academic if the country isn't adequately defended against future attacks.
And they have not been on the same page.
They have been actively undermining that, knowing full well that if they were in power, they would do nothing different than what Bush has done in the sense.
They wouldn't pull troops out of there.
They wouldn't pull an immediate withdrawal.
They wouldn't put a date certain on it.
They wouldn't do any of this.
They never have when they've been in the White House.
Clinton didn't, you know, Clinton never met his promised withdrawal dates out of Bosnia.
FDR didn't fight World War II this way.
Well, yeah, you could say Bay of Pigs, but that was a botched operation when they got out of there.
This is not a botched operation.
Now, they've been trying to say that it is.
So that's the only reason I'm harping on this.
You know, I'm interested in truth.
And especially on an issue like this, if the Democrat Party is going to lie to the country and is going to have their willing accomplices in the drive-by media lie to the country about what Democrats actually want to do, then it's important.
Because if they're lying about this, what else are they lying about?
You know, and it's irresponsible.
So now for some reason, Mrs. Clinton has been forced into the open and asked the question, what will you do as president?
She cannot, she could not say, well, I'm pulling them out of there.
I mean, she could, but it wouldn't work.
Because the bottom line is she's not going to.
She would have to pull a stunt shortly after her inauguration.
I had no idea what the Bush administration hid from me and all of us.
Why, I have been privy to information that I didn't know.
It is much, much too serious.
I was in the dark.
We can't pull out.
Then that would be tough.
Plus, you know, she can't get elected if she does, all she does is make a play for these kooks, these delusional freaks that make up the Democrat Party base.
These people cannot be happy.
Moveon.org has been thrown overboard.
Now Mrs. Clinton's basically thumbed her nose at the anti-war movements.
I can't pull out of it.
So where's the anti-war movement go?
Hopefully, they will create riots at the next Democrat National Convention like they did in 1968.
And that's not out of the realm of possibility because these people are delusional and they are deranged.
And their sole reason for existence has been to get out of Iraq and secure U.S. defeat.
And they've been told by their elected Democrats that that's exactly what the Democrats are going to do.
And now Mrs. Clinton just said, you know what, I've been lying to you all along.
I have no intention of pulling your troops out of there.
These are not.
Now they're aged.
These are the 60s relics from Jurassic Park still hanging on.
They can't recruit any younger members, but we'll see.
Next summer, the Democrat Convention could be pretty exciting.
Get this.
The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether voter identification laws unfairly deter the poor and minorities from voting, stepping into a contentious partisan issue in advance of the 2008 elections.
That's not what they have to decide.
What they have to decide is whether it constitutes a poll tax.
That's the way the opponents of this are trying to persuade, because you go out and go out and buy your ID.
You have to go out and buy your ID, your photo ID, if you don't have one.
And if you're poor, you probably don't have one because you don't have a car.
You don't have a driver's light.
Well, the recent poverty figures would dispute that.
Anyway, we know what this is all about.
The Democrats want to keep cheating, and you can't cheat if you have a voter ID that's required photo.
You can't cheat.
You can't engage in voter fraud.
And so here come the race baiters again, the Reverend Doc and Reverend Sharpton, who can't let go of the old, we're all in slavery and bondage, and they do this on purpose.
And it is a crying shame what this kind of advocacy has done for too many people in the black population of this country.
Portray them as idiots, portray them as incompetents, portray them as still in bondage and in slavery, and convince them that the whole world's out to get them because they're black.
There's nothing about this that is discriminatory.
Poll tax is, and that's a loaded phrase to call this a poll tax because everybody's taught from the civil rights days of age-old gone by that the poll tax was the invention of evil white Republicans to keep poor blacks from being able to show up when it was segregationist Democrats who came up with ideas like that.
The justices are going to hear arguments early next year in a challenge to an Indiana law that requires voters to present photo ID before casting their ballots.
The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.
Of course, Mr. Sterley, where was the recent story that there were, was it upstate New York that 23 different districts had photo ID required in a test of it?
Where was that update that we did recently?
He's not listening to screening calls.
There was a place somewhere, and we just did a morning update on it, where they required photo ID to vote.
Where was that?
Oh, yeah, Georgia.
It was 23 counties in Georgia.
And there was no fraud.
Nobody reported any problems whatsoever after the election.
Zip zero nada.
It does work.
That's the whole point of it.
But the state Democrat Party in Indiana and civil rights groups complain the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters without any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana.
The party argued those voters tend to be Democrats.
So a little more on this after we have the break coming up.
And yes, the audio soundbite roster is just waiting, as are your phone calls.
Stick with us.
All right, we are back.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution here on the EIB network.
This voter ID law that the Supreme Court's going to hear the case from Indiana.
You know, in Georgia, when they proposed this, the Reverend Zach and the crew flew in there and said, it's a poll tax.
This is unfair.
It's unfortunate because these people, some of them don't have the money to pay for these IDs, state of Georgia, and we'll pay for it.
We want honest and fair election.
We'll pay for it.
Well, they don't have cars.
They can't get to the, we'll come to them.
No, you won't.
My people we're talking about here don't want government people walking into their homes.
They're afraid they're going to be carted out to prison.
That's their culture.
So it could not, nothing would matter.
There was no way that the Reverend Jackson could make it work or would allow it to work.
Anytime something like this goes for the Supreme Court, I just cross my fingers.
I just get scared to death because this is not the, this is, you lose this, and it's just dirty rotten shame.
Speaking of it, I've checked the email here during the break.
Some people say, you know, Rush, I respectfully have to disagree with you.
I think Bollinger was rude, and I think it does matter.
We're a civilized country and so forth.
I want to go back and say one thing about this.
Before I say one more thing about it, I still remain stunned that people in this audience still have the courage to disagree with me because you know, at the end of the day, I'm going to be right.
I guess it's a triumph of emotion over common sense when people want to disagree with me.
And I relish it.
I really do.
It's a way you learn.
It's the way I always learned.
And I'm wrong very rarely anymore, but I still learn from it when I am.
Now, let me make this point.
One of the things I said about Bollinger, what did he say that was untrue?
What did Lee Bollinger say that was untrue, ladies and gentlemen?
You see, it made me think about something.
I am routinely, by people who never have listened to this program, I am routinely tarred and feathered as impolite, racist, sexist, big and homophobic, all the clichés by people who've never listened to the program.
Some people who have listened to the program and who offer incessant personal attack criticism, I think do so because the truth is now considered to be impolite in a world of political correctness, ladies and gentlemen, where everybody must be guarded about what they say.
Must ask ourselves, well, would it be improper to say what I really think?
What if it offends somebody?
I shall shut up.
I shall thus silence myself and I will not run the risk of offending anybody.
And so the truth often gets suppressed.
Well, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, I don't subscribe to PC.
I love the truth, and I love hearing myself articulate the truth.
And as such, I think in our carefully controlled and we always, we don't want to be hurt, we don't want to be offended, and we don't want to be offensive.
Society, we are always censoring ourselves because this is a slow and building process called political correctness, which is essentially censorship.
And I think the truth is now part of PC.
You can't really say the truth if it hurts somebody's feelings.
You can't say the truth because it's going to be thought of as rude to be so honest and truthful.
When there is a fact, when there is a truth out there that the libs don't like, especially a fact or truth that refutes their lies, that they can't bat down any other way, they guilt everybody into shutting the hell up.
And so truth becomes a casualty.
Truth is impolite.
Truth is offensive.
And when we have truth on our side, we need to stop letting him get away with feeling us into being quiet.
Now, this reaction that everybody is getting or having to Bollinger is missing the point.
He didn't say anything.
It wasn't true.
And to whom did he say it?
I mean, it wasn't, you know, the chairman of the local garden club that came in there for a lecture.
But see, we don't even want to admit the truth of who Ahmadinezad is, some of us, because admitting the truth of who Ahmadinezad is might cause us to have to take it seriously.
And I'd rather be first in line at Blockbuster on Friday night than have to deal with this sort of stuff.
So I think that's one of the factors here in all of this backlash.
Again, I realize that some of you, genuinely, because of your manners and your upbringing, think it was a rude thing to do.
And I still think that having that as a primary reaction to what happened up there is missing the point.
Go to the phones.
Jill in Ithaca, New York.
You're first today on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
You know, you said you're right most of the time.
Well, that's true.
You're a little bit right of Attila the Hun most days.
Oh, thank you.
Because I'm sitting in his chair right now at the Institute.
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
So, you know, I'm not politically correct, I guess, but you seem to like that.
So that's fine.
And you don't, I don't know.
Do you read the papers ever?
Because the Democrats did try to get us out of Iraq.
And back in May, they pulled an all-nighter to try to do that.
So don't you dare say they're not trying.
Jill.
That's not true, Rush.
Jill.
Yes, that's my name.
Well, I know it's your name.
Do you realize how they've duped you?
Do you realize that all-night session was an intelligent woman?
And you can't possibly be.
You can't be intelligent and not be duped.
Oh, I've been duped, but you've been duped by President Bush, as you all have.
Jill.
Because where's those weapons?
I'm still looking for the weapons, Rush.
Come on.
Jill, Jill.
Jill, can we stay on topic and not go back to that?
In order to do that, Jill, I will stipulate there were no weapons.
We shouldn't have gone, and we've botched it since we've been there.
Okay.
Can we move forward now?
Can we move forward?
Why get out, Jill?
Why lose?
Why wave the white flag?
Why want to lose, Jill?
What's in it for the United States of America to lose, Jill?
Rush, what does winning mean to you?
What is what?
Winning.
Winning there.
What does that mean to you?
What does winning?
What is winning?
We're the United States of America, and they are the enemy.
Rush, could you tell me what winning would mean?
Just tell me what it would look like.
Absolutely.
What the original mission has always been about.
Iraq stands alone as a functioning democracy able to defend and protect itself against enemies in that region.
Hell yes, there's a great definition of victory, and it's totally attainable.
Jill, you have called here in a confrontational, argumentative fashion.
I know of no reason why you would do this, but I want to explain how you've been duped.
The Democrats have no intention of getting out of Iraq.
Mrs. Clinton said so on Sunday.
Could you give me your reaction to that?
She didn't not say we're getting out.
She just didn't want to make a statement at that point.
Jill, you don't hear what you don't want to hear.
You do not.
The Democrats, the whole point is the Democrats have made it.
I will admit to you, they've tried to get out.
I don't dispute that, but not because of any reason other than owning defeat, hanging it around Bush's neck to destroy his presidency so they can win in 08.
The fact is that all-nighter you talk about was never intended to do anything but be a PR stunt and show people like you that they were listening to you and that they cared to try to impress you, but they had no intention of succeeding.
That's how come they cancel a bunch of votes in the overnight.
They didn't had no intention, Jill.
And Mrs. Clinton has made it plain, as numerous other Democrats are starting to, that they are not going to get out of Iraq if they win the White House.
You've got to understand this.
There's no way they're going to saddle themselves with defeat.
And it's time you wake up and understand how you have been lied to by the people who you think are doing your bidding.
And I say this to you with love and compassion and hope that you will see the truth about the party you support because they are not trying to do what you think they want to do.
And they are not going to do it when they have the power to do it.
And I want you to remember my saying this on September 26th of 2007.
Thanks for the call, I think.
We'll be right back.
Look, folks, calm down out there, will you?
I just checked the email.
I was not agreeing that we shouldn't have gone to Rock, that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, and that we've botched it since we got there.
I was stipulating it just to move beyond where most liberal mushheads are these days.
And you hear, thank you, thank you.
I just wanted to move beyond that.
And the best way is stipulate it for the sake of the discussion and then say, so now what do you want to lose?
And that's what happened.
I'm just stipulating it to, you know, they're going to sit here and debate weapons of mass destruction with some deranged lunatic from the Democrat base.
Here's Bill in Texas.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning.
I'm so glad I got a chance to get through with your speaker.
I mean, with your connection guy there, he has a serious problem with me talking to you, but I just wanted to ask you this morning, since I have you on the line, how many black people do you know?
How many white people do you know?
There's no such thing as white people.
Okay.
There are Caucasians, but there's no such thing as white people.
Cars can be white.
All right, then.
How many Caucasians?
Kings can be white, but humans can't be white.
Okay, fine.
Now that we've educated you on that, let's move on to the black part.
Okay.
How many dark-skinned people do you know personally?
How many black-skinned people do I know?
Dark.
Dark-skinned.
Yeah, all black people ain't black.
It's a hearing problem out there, Bill.
Oh, I forgot that you had that problem.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
Yeah, you get an electronic exponent.
I forgot.
But let me ask you this.
The reason why I'm doing this, Rush, is simple.
You keep stipulating that all, what do you call us, Democrats?
Yeah, Democrats.
All Democrats are stupid.
Okay.
Aren't there some Democrats over there fighting in that war?
Some young men that are Democrats?
Never said all Democrats are stupid.
You don't stop at the point saying that Democrats are stupid.
Doesn't that mean all?
You don't say, I know some that are.
You say, Democrats.
I qualify this constantly.
That's why I separate liberals from Democrats.
Bill, what did you call about here?
This is, you know, I've now learned there aren't any white people.
Yeah, and I'm quite sure you should understand it being as educated as you are.
Yeah.
Okay, so we now.
Does that mean white is not allowed in polite discourse now when describing race?
Well, you shouldn't if you're smart enough to understand that there's no such as a white human.
You can have light-skinned people, but I don't think their skin is going to be white unless there's okay.
Let's say, let's say humans have another kind of white skin, a white.
You know, I'm starting to understand why call screener Mr. Snurdley was having a difficulty with you.
I bet you you were because we called by you.
I don't know why you called yet.
I told you who I called.
I asked you how many black people are Dorothy.
That people, you know, many people have tried to trick me.
You ain't no trick.
It's a total trick.
It's no different than you're trying to get me to say, I have lots of black friends.
I'm not going there, Bill.
I'm not going to let you get all that thing that you always do.
Bill, let me tell you something, pal.
You want to hear it straight from my mouth what I think about race in this country or do you not?
Go ahead.
Let me hear your speech on race.
You know something?
I love this country, and I want everybody in it to be educated so they have the opportunity to access life in America because it's better here than it's ever been anywhere else.
And there are people, liberal Democrats, and a lot of people with so-called compassion who I firmly believe with government programs and policies and other ill intent have destroyed elements of the black family that prevent many blacks in this country from achieving the American dream and happiness.
And it breaks my heart.
I have been reading about the plight of urban education this morning.
And it is a crime what's being done to young black kids in school, not requiring them to learn, not even requiring them to show up.
It's a disservice to them.
And it's embarrassing to me that my country has people in it that are completely comfortable with keeping a certain percentage of our population poor, ignorant, and dependent for their own political gain.
It infuriates me.
It breaks my heart at the same time.
Why don't you spend time talking about those things, Watch?
And those people.
Why don't you name them like you do Hillary?
Why y'all name on a woman?
What people?
I'm going to ask you, why do you hate Hillary so much?
What did she do to you personally?
You know, you're not listening to what I'm saying.
In the first place, say, why don't you talk about that more often?
I just said it to you, and I have said it often on this program.
And now, after I've said that, instead of engaging me in that, you jump off to why do I hate?
I don't hate anybody, Bill.
I oppose Mrs. Clinton because of her policies.
I have a little fear about what might happen in the country if she and her husband get back in for another eight years of the Clinton soap opera.
I don't hate anybody, Bill.
Didn't nothing happen to the people while they were in there the first time, but under George Bush's watch, we've lost several young men.
What are we talking about now?
Well, I'm talking about what you wanted to talk about.
I wanted to talk about this.
No, no, I don't know what to do.
Who did we not lose during the Clinton years that we have lost with Bush?
Did we have men in a war losing lives every day when Bush was in office?
I mean, when Clinton was in office?
Oh, we were.
Bill, you really don't want to go there.
We had how many 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in a genocide while Bill Clinton was in office, and all he did was apologize for it.
He had Rwandans are black, by the way.
I know who they are.
Okay.
But they're not considered.
We had troops in Kosovo.
They were NATO troops, and some of them lost their life.
Hell yes.
Bill, you have a pent-up rage at something, and you're aiming it at me today.
No, I'm not ready.
I want to ask you questions because you have a race.
You're being consistent.
That's why you're fighting Democrats so hard.
You know who the majority of Democrats are.
Yes, what?
I know the majority.
What do you mean by that?
You know who the majority of Democrats are.
That's why you're going at it and I do not know who are the major majority.
You do.
You're smart.
Remember what you're saying?
You tell me.
You tell me, Bill, because I don't think of Democrats as anything other than people with certain ideological beliefs.
Now, what are you thinking?
Because they're black.
The majority of Democrats are not black.
You said they were.
I did not entirely.
I did not do that.
It's silly and stupid.
There aren't enough black people in the country to be a majority of the Democrat Party.
There are not enough of them to be the majority?
No.
The majority of Democrats, the majority of blacks vote Democrat in presidential elections.
And how would you know that?
Bill, call Media Matters for America and just tell them I made it up.
Yeah, I've been thinking about Bill here during the break.
He might have been onto something.
If Bill Clinton is the first black president, then there really can't be any white people, folks.
I mean, if a guy is white as Clinton, you want pasty white, if there's no such thing as a white human being, Bill Clinton is one, and if he was the first black president, then there aren't any whites.
So, Bill, your problem is solved.
If Barack Obama is not black enough, as so many liberals have said, I guess there really isn't any black or white.
Bill got off his talking points there, lost his place at some point in the conversation.
Anyway, Bill, I wanted to commend you.
▲
Export Selection