All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
November 27, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I just saw the most fascinating thing.
Japanese scientists, Japanese inventors, are working on a new camera that has a shutter speed so fast that will actually capture a woman with her mouth closed.
Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
Fun, frolic, and frivolity for all, as well as the serious discussion of the issues.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
You were talking about the monologue in the last half hour.
I don't mean to pick on this nice guy from Allentown who called him Joe, but I told him after I just don't do well with whiners.
I don't know what to say to whiners when they're in the middle of whining.
I just don't know what to say other than, I don't know how you feel.
But then after they hang up, I sort of get, what did I just do?
I should have sat there and said, we don't whine.
And this is why I could never be Oprah.
She has made a career out of sitting around listening to whiners and then encouraging to whine more.
I could never do that.
Do you see where Senator Kennedy has agreed to a multi-million dollar book deal with Hatchet Book Group USA to pen his memoirs?
The money being bandied about here is like $8 million, an $8 million advance to write his memoirs.
Now, I seem to remember that Newt Gingrich was attacked for doing this when he was in the House of Representatives.
Ted Kennedy can do it.
Hillary Clinton can do it.
But when Gingrich signed a deal, he was unethical and he was greedy and he had to cancel a deal and give the money back.
Remember that?
And everybody's out there going, wow, we're going to get Senator Kennedy.
We're going to get his memoirs.
He got a record deal.
$8 million.
Oh, such a beautiful, beautiful thing.
The Hawkeye cauckey and the New Hampshire primary are coming up January 3rd in Iowa.
And you decide, well, I think I'm either going to, I'm not going to watch the Orange Bowl that night.
I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go to a precinct caucus.
If you are not affiliated with a political party and if you're not registered to vote, if you're not even old enough to vote, no problem.
Just come and help choose the nation's next president.
In yet another quirk of Iowa's caucus system, all citizens can participate as long as they sign a statement attesting to residency in the precinct and show that they'll be 18 in time for the general election.
It's not been a problem, said state Democrat Party spokeswoman Carrie Giddens.
Some people do have a problem with the ease of registering for New Hampshire's leadoff primary, which follows the Hawkeye caucus by five days.
New Hampshire allows same-day registration at the polls, has no minimum residency period, and defines a voter's home as the place where he or she sleeps most nights or intends to return after a temporary absence.
The state, not the parties, runs the primary, and changes to residency laws have been hotly contested.
This year, New Hampshire Democrats pushed through a change that some Republicans contend would enable campaigns to bus in people who cast a ballot and vote again in their real home states.
Republicans contend would enable campaigns.
What do you think the point is?
So in the New Hampshire primary, you can live in Massachusetts and get bussed in there and vote.
If you're a Democrat, if you live in Vermont, you can bus into New Hampshire.
And of course, in Iowa, you don't even have to be registered or affiliated with a political party.
Republican State Senator Bob Clegg said you can vote in New Hampshire without being a resident.
You can vote in a primary because you someday may want to live in New Hampshire.
Democratic State Senator Peter Berling calls such arguments part of the campaign of fear to restrict people's right to vote.
I'm sorry, I just...
I just have to laugh at this.
But Rush, this is a very serious thing.
This is tampering with the voting pro.
I know, but this is just.
So you oppose people that don't live in New Hampshire coming into New Hampshire to vote, and you are responsible for inciting fear because you don't want people to have the right to vote.
David Scanlon, New Hampshire's deputy secretary of state, acknowledged that the law is ambiguous about prohibiting people from voting in more than one state, but he insisted there are no widespread problems.
Everybody has the right to vote somewhere.
The question is where that place is.
The New Hampshire primary, I guess they want to charter some planes from California.
You could go in there and you wouldn't have to say anything if you're asked, I'm thinking about moving here.
Oh, good.
Well, come on in and vote in the primary.
And of course, to oppose this is to create fear.
Everybody has the right to vote somewhere.
The question is where that place is in the New Hampshire primary.
How many of you people knew this?
Have you heard the drive-bys talking about this?
We hear all about Republican voter fraud stealing elections.
Mrs. Clinton's got more money than God.
How many people do you think are going to show up in New Hampshire for the New Hampshire primary to vote, especially if she loses Iowa?
But how's she going to lose Iowa now?
Now this, I'm going to tell you something.
This is you missed the beginning of the program.
You might have definitely missed this.
Mahmoud Ahmadinezad says he wants to come monitor our presidential election for fairness.
He thinks that Bush is still in the ⁇ I'm not making this up.
It's in the UK Guardian.
He actually thinks that if there are monitors here like him, we'll find out for real if people really want to get rid of this administration, which is not going to be on the ballot.
This is one of these surreal days.
Campaigns have been trying to explain away the mystery in New Hampshire.
I'm sorry, in Iowa, requirements for taking part in a caucus are becoming a focus for candidates now that the event's just a little more than six weeks away.
The voter registration rule, or lack of one, is among a handful of unusual policies that make the caucus puzzling even to many Iowans.
Campaigns have been trying to explain away the mystery in an effort to attract potential supporters.
What mystery?
There's no mystery.
There's nothing.
There are no limits.
You don't have to be registered.
You don't have to be of age.
You don't have to be a member of a party.
You can go to one of the Hawkeye caucae.
All right, let's take a brief time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
We've got audio sound bites still and your phone calls.
Oh, before we go, this is a record here that the drive-bys have missed.
They're eager to tell us about the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and how new records are being set here and there, records of poverty record, whatever it is.
Sunday's execution in Saudi Arabia brought to 136 the number of people beheaded in the Saudi kingdom this year, according to an Associated Press count.
Saudi Arabia beheaded 38 people last year at 83 people in 2005.
In contrast to worldwide condemnation of the U.S. when it executes someone after a trial, or such as Abu Ghraib or Klovguitmo, these executions in Saudi Arabia have gone relatively unnoticed and subsequently escaped commentary.
The peculiarities of the Saudi justice system were basically ignored until an international storm arose after the publicity regarding the imprisonment and 200 lash sentence to a Saudi woman who suffered a gang rape.
By the way, on that, still no comment whatsoever from the NAGs or any other feminist group.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
There's a little joke running around the internet.
Title of Senator Kennedy's memoirs, Chappaquittic, If I Did It.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Well, it's a takeoff on the OJ book for those of you in Rio Linda.
This is Dan in Mansfield, Ohio.
Nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
It's an honor and a pleasure to talk to you from a very longtime listener.
Thank you.
A couple comments.
The little kids with rickets, aren't these the same people that banned a dodgeball in school and you couldn't play tag because you would be hit?
And also about the University of Wisconsin.
Could the tattlers have the right to tattle on the props if they had intolerant speech?
Could who have the right to tell on the professor, the students?
The students have a right to tattle on the professors if the professors had intolerable.
But that's a good point.
I think the directive did not mention that.
It just asked students to rat out students.
Well, that's intolerant.
It is not only intolerant, it's discriminatory.
And it's political.
It's allowing the teaching class to get away with exactly what the university is trying to ban.
Look, your point about people may not have heard this.
Some idiot group is out today.
There's a possibility of recurrence of rickets, the disease rickets among our children because of poor calcium, not drinking enough milk, they're not getting enough exercise and sunshine, and so forth.
And of course, the reaction to that, well, what do you mean?
You're right.
We're not letting them exercise.
Can't play tag, can't play dodgeball, can't do any of this.
Can't even go outside sometime because of the sun?
The sun causes cancer.
The sun is going to kill us.
And of course, cows are in disfavor because of the farts, the methane and so forth to create global warming.
Pardon my Frenchman, I mean, that's what it is.
All right, they expel gas.
And methane's causing global warming.
It's a big footprint.
So what do you expect?
I mean, get ready, folks.
Scurvy is next because they're going to find out something about citrus fruit that's bad as relates to global warming.
And of course, that's what a lot of the old world travelers across the seas ended up getting because they had no citrus.
That's how, at least that's how we discovered it.
Well, I don't know if we discovered it that way.
Marty Peretz, who was the founder of the New Republic, is saying something I've been saying for a long time.
It's nice to see somebody else say it, particularly a Democrat.
In fact, more and more left-wing commentators are beginning to say this.
His headline, Marty Perettes, a new republic, Democrats hoping for defeat.
Is the war won?
Probably not.
Going much better for Iraq and for us, certainly.
This was certified by the big three-column headline in last Tuesday's New York Times, and even big-time opponents of what they had come to think of as the president's own demented enterprise are beginning to admit it.
The news is very difficult for those folk because many of them had drawn outlandish conclusions about the future of American power in the Middle East, actually about its passing.
The New Yorker was, as recently as September, already planning for defeat, quote unquote, telling its readers how we should withdraw from Iraq.
Would it, unplanned and reckless, be a Saigon moment, as others predicted?
The front page of the Sunday New York Times carries a headline, as Democrats see security gains in Iraq tone shifts.
Told you about that.
Forgive another reference to Vietnam, but I believe that in 1972, when George McGovern had been anointed the Democrat candidate, the nominee and many of his devotees actually wanted a North Vietnamese victory over the South and its U.S. allies.
The American electorate had an intuition that this was the case, and it repelled them.
Hence, sanctimonious George winning only one state.
There is no exact parallel to this for 2008, but writes Marty Peretz, I suspect that many Democrats are so deeply hostile to a forward foreign policy and their minds so deeply embedded in the notion that you can negotiate successfully with fanatics and tyrants that they wouldn't mind a prophylactic victory for the enemy, which raises the question: is this enemy their enemy?
I suspect not.
And so here is the timeless wisdom of the Speaker of the House.
The fact is we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq.
There's Marty Peretz lamenting the fact that Democrats are hoping for defeat.
And he's a what?
He's not a neocote.
This is a new republic.
No, This guy's worried about the New York, about the Democrat Party and where they're headed.
And there are others.
Financial Times, Clive Cook, I'm sorry, Clive Crook.
Up to now, Democrats have been stinting in their recognition that the situation in Iraq has improved.
Yeah, violence down a bit, but that's the wrong posture.
They need to celebrate the success as long as it lasts as enthusiastically as the Republicans.
They also need to stop harrying the administration with symbolic war funding measures, demanding a timetable for rapid withdrawal as though nothing has changed.
This would take little away from their larger valid criticisms of the war and of its conduct until very recently.
Newsweek's Charles Peters, who is founder of the Washington Monthly, I have been troubled by the reluctance of my fellow liberals to acknowledge the progress made in Iraq in the last six months, a reluctance I'm embarrassed to admit that I have shared.
Giving General Petraeus his due does not mean we have to start saying it was a great idea to invade Iraq.
It remains a terrible idea.
It always was.
The occupation that followed has been until recently a continuing disaster.
Still, the fact is the situation in Iraq is much improved since the summer.
Why do liberals not want to face this fact, let alone ponder its implications?
And more and more of these liberal commentariats are starting to see this and write about it.
And they're echoing what I have been saying for months now.
The Democrat Party crossed over the cliff when its leadership declared the surge to be lost.
They've been invested in defeat for way too long, and it will come back to haunt them.
By the way, New York Sun, and a fascinating story today.
Headline talks are set on ending Battle of Iraq.
Quiet announcement signals start of U.S.-Iraq parlay.
And so the Battle of Iraq is to be brought to an end, in T.S. Eliot's phrase, not with a bang, but a whimper.
With the eyes of the world focused on the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, President Bush's war czar, Lieutenant General Douglas Lut, quietly announced the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the Allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush's presidency.
The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and the administration of Iraq and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.
Bringing the war to a close by the end of 2008 will ensure that the next president will face a fait accompli in Iraq, a fact that will further remove from the presidential election the Iraq war as an issue of contention.
Do I know what I'm talking about?
Yes.
Don't doubt me.
50,000 troops remaining at the end of the Bush presidency.
Here is Autumn, 16 years old from Reno, Nevada.
Hi, Autumn.
Welcome to the program.
Hi.
I was just calling, and I wanted, I was calling for my sister Shasta, who is doing a paper on Vietnam and the differences between Vietnam and the Iraq War.
Oh, yes.
She wants to know your opinions about it.
Before I give you my opinions so that you can give them to her, is she older or younger than you are?
She's older.
She's in college.
Where does she go to college?
The community, Chucky Meadows Community College.
There in Reno?
Uh-huh.
Okay.
Well, I'm glad you called Autumn.
Don't misunderstand, but why didn't she call herself?
Because she is either at work or school right.
She's at work right now.
Does she believe that there are similarities?
Yes.
I see.
And you are trying to convince her that there aren't.
No, she just no.
I was just calling for her to, because she wants your opinions on it.
Okay.
Well, we have to take a profit center timeout here.
Can you hold on for a couple minutes and I'll come back and I'll do my best to explain this as I believe it, okay?
Okay.
All right.
Thank you very much.
We'll be back with 16-year-old Autumn and Reno after this.
Your guiding light, a national treasure, a living legend, and a harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Even sweet at times.
Back to the phones to autumn in Reno, Nevada.
All right, Autumn, thank you for holding on.
Uh-huh.
All right, are you writing these down or are you recording this?
Recording.
Okay.
So I don't have to wait for you to write down.
The big series of differences.
First place, Vietnam, that was a war started and run by Democrats.
Iraq was started, of course, by the terrorists.
Yes.
Now, Iraq did not attack the United States, but Al-Qaeda did, Middle East terrorists, and they have been attacking Americans around the world for years and killing Americans and others.
After 9-11 happened, that is really the big key for anybody to understand here.
There was no 9-11 that preceded our involvement in Vietnam.
9-11 happened, and the world is convinced that Saddam Hussein is making similar plans to attack the West.
After 9-11 happens, the whole concept of preemptive war enters the picture.
And that is, you don't wait to be hit again.
If you think you're going to be hit, you take out whoever's going to hit you once you have evidence that people from that part of the world have already hit you.
We went into Afghanistan a full year before Iraq, so if anybody tries to tell your sister that Iraq didn't attack us, you tell them it's a regional effort, that Iraq is simply one battle in the war against terrorism.
But as far as the other things are concerned, there was no draft today.
There is no draft.
There was no conscription.
Everybody joining the armed forces today, particularly after 9-11, knew exactly where they were going to be sent.
They were going to be sent to Afghanistan or Iraq.
In large part, not everybody was, but when they signed up, that's what they signed up for.
In Vietnam, there was a draft, and there was no real sense of national purpose behind what was happening in Vietnam, because the explanation that we were told back then was, well, we've got to worry about this domino theory.
If Vietnam goes communist, then Cambodia is going to go communist, and Laos is going to go communist, and we've got to stop the domino theory.
And that's what was, we were in the middle of the Cold War with the Soviets, who were proxies along with the Chikoms helping the North Vietnamese.
Also, another difference is Ho Chi Minh had gone to school in the United States and actually been a chef in New York restaurants, none of al-Qaeda.
The only way they got in here was illegal immigration and so forth and to plan their attack against us.
In terms of the actual battle itself, Iraq has never been a quagmire.
We were never bogged down as we were in Vietnam.
We've had a much greater will to win in Iraq than we did.
Another major difference is that the commanding officers on the ground in Iraq were running the show and planning the strategery.
And they didn't always do a good job, and they were replaced.
Washington, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert McNamara and a number of others were actually in charge of bombing runs.
They micromanaged it.
Also, in Iraq, we were not burdened by Senator Kerry driving Swiftboats.
He did drive Swiftboats in Vietnam for a while.
But really, there's no comparison between the two whatsoever.
The best thing I can say to you to pass on to your sister is that the effort by today's Democrats and today's media to draw comparisons was that we lost in Vietnam.
And we also ended up impeaching a president afterwards, Richard Nixon.
So what they've been trying to do for the last five years is to draw an analogy between Vietnam.
We're losing in Iraq just like we lost in Vietnam.
They've been trying to manufacture scandal after scandal after scandal to make the Bush administration like the Nixon administration.
They've been reliving history or trying to recreate history for the purposes of political gain.
Everybody knows that there's no reasonable comparison between Iraq and Vietnam in any way, shape, manner, or form.
Another difference, we lost 50,000 people.
We lost 50,000 in Iraq, or Vietnam.
It went on and on and on.
What's the latest count?
3,600?
3,800 now in Iraq.
And we're going to win Iraq.
I don't want to upset Vietnam vets because it's conventional wisdom that we lost.
We did because we pulled out of there, but we could have won that.
We never lost a battle.
We could have won that had the military experts been allowed to be in charge of it.
So does that help?
Yeah, that helps a lot.
Thank you.
All right.
Does your sister have to write a report about this or something?
Did you say?
Yeah.
Do you know anything about her professor?
No, I don't.
Was it an assigned paper or has she chosen the topic?
I think she got to choose from a list of different topics or something like that.
I'm sure that was on the list.
I'm sure it was.
Also, another thing about Vietnam.
Here's one thing else I need to point out to you, Autumn.
Back in the days of Vietnam, there was no alternative media.
The drive-by media, the mainstream press, was the sole source of news back then.
Yes.
When Walter Cronkite, who was, quote-unquote, the most trusted man in America, the CBS evening news anchor, when he basically said we can't win there, Lyndon Johnson, the president, was watching and said, well, I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.
Yeah.
Every drive-by news anchor for the last four years in this country has been trying to say we've lost in Iraq.
The Democrat Party leadership has proclaimed defeat, and yet we're winning.
And no president, President Bush never said, well, I just lost Tom Broco.
I guess I've lost the war.
I just lost Dan Rather.
I guess we've lost the war.
I just lost Peter Jennings.
I just lost Charlie Gibson.
The difference is I'm here during the Iraq War and wasn't there during the Vietnam War.
There was no alternative media back then to counterism.
There's so, so, so many differences.
I could go on and on and on, but the ones I've given you are the primarily most substantive.
Okay, thank you.
All right, Autumn.
Thanks.
Thanks very much.
I appreciate the phone call.
Something just doesn't seem right about this, but I can't put my finger on it, and it's not a big deal.
Fritz in Springfield, Illinois, welcome to the EIB Network.
Well, hello, Rush, and kudos from the land of Senator Turbin, I'm sad to say.
And no offense taken, Rush, we could have won the Vietnam War.
I participated in the Air Raids of 72.
I was calling because I'm a real estate broker, and I wanted to share with you, I've got great news for half the country, because the drive-by media, as you say, likes to emphasize the negative.
Well, in our marketplace, our prices are up 4.7%.
And real estate is local.
And if everybody would look around at their own local market and look and see what they have going on in their own particular market, nearly half of the markets in the United States are up.
Now, we're sorry here in Springfield, Illinois, that the bubbles bursted in California and Florida and the East Coast.
Well, but wait a second.
Wait a second.
Even if it has burst a little bit in California, it wouldn't hurt anybody if home prices in San Francisco fell 4%.
No, it would not.
Not at all.
I mean, it might hurt so outrageous.
It would only hurt people who want to sell right now.
But if this is happening, it's going to make more people eligible to get into the market.
Absolutely.
And what you just hit the nail on the head talking about this legislation that Barney Frank is trying to introduce.
It's going to kill the housing market.
Right now, we need to make money affordable.
But they created their own trap.
You were exactly right by making these loans and by bringing in people that could not afford them.
And it's just ludicrous to blame these lenders for this big debacle because do you know how many disclosures these people had to sign acknowledging what they were getting into?
These individual borrowers had to sign at least a half a dozen disclosures.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's exactly what they're getting.
As far as Congress are concerned, they're still victims of the rich real estate industry and the mortgage banking industry.
And we're going to get no matter how many disclosure forms, no matter how many lawyers they had to read the disclosures, no matter how many times they signed them, they were still victims.
You've got to understand.
You do understand.
As far as Democrats are concerned, they're going to make as many victims as possible.
Barney Frank coming out and turning the tort lawyers loose on these lenders, I'm going to tell you, if that ever happens, you realize how few people you're going to be able to qualify for a loan?
Oh, we know exactly.
We're having a difficult time now.
In our marketplace, our sales are down slightly as far as the number of homes sold by about 6%, but that's 6% off the all-time record.
It's still a great market here locally.
But what really infuriates me is not the local media, the print, the radio, the TV.
They jump on all these national stories and they just blast it day in and day out.
Of course, because everybody's oriented, it's like I said once.
These guys that run these Wall Street newsletters and so forth, their subscriptions skyrocket when they talk about the coming crash and the crisis.
And this is what people in the news business think will get ratings.
Well, they do.
And what it does is I have so many people walk up to me and say, How bad is it?
I said, Well, it's great for me, so hop on my wagon.
Good.
No whining here, even though I am a Cleveland Browns fan.
I have to share that with you.
And to show the conservatives are positive and upbeat, I overlook the fact that you're a Pittsburgh Steelers fan, and you're exactly right.
That was one of the greatest games I ever saw last night.
All right.
Well, we've come to a mutual agreement.
You're also right because real estate prices where I live, I don't even want to tell you.
We're back.
The most listened to radio talk show in America and the most influential.
David in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, you're next.
It's great to have you here with us.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
You bet.
To respond to Joe's comments, you might remember him as the Debbie Downer caller of about an hour ago.
Yeah, from Allentown.
Allentown.
Listen, I got love for him because I'm from Harrisburg, PA, but it ends about there.
I'm a 24-year-old Reagan conservative Christian.
And next to my faith in Christ, the one thing I attribute every ounce of success to in my life is surrounding myself with unbelievably optimistic people.
And you, my friend, are number one on my list.
Thank God for you, Rush, for being so optimistic about life.
Well, I appreciate that.
That's nice of you to say.
I want to say something about this, too, because I, you know, a lot of people accuse me of being not artificially optimistic.
What do they say?
Well, of course.
Look at your life.
Who wouldn't be optimistic?
With your life, it must be easy for you.
Which I understand for people on the outside looking in.
If you see only this portion of my life and don't know what came before it, then you might form that impression.
Other people also say, you know, look, optimism is good, but not when it's phony.
You're going to sit around and tell people things that aren't true just to make them feel good.
That's not good.
Well, that's not what I do.
I try to point out what genuinely is positive and to find the positive in most everything because I've just learned in life that that makes for a happier life.
And I frankly don't think there's any virtue in misery.
Um, um, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
I've got the staff saying most people, I don't think I should repeat.
That's awfully self-serving.
See, that's the kind of thing somebody else ought to say, not me.
I can't say that kind of thing.
This is why they don't have microphones.
You don't, you don't, let me tell you, if I say this stuff, it's going to sound the most self-serving.
All right.
All right.
Okay.
Mr. H.R. Kit Carson, what the staff is trying to get me to talk about this optimism business and people looking at my life, just at this slice of it to what you know now, I'd be optimistic too if I had your life and so forth.
And my staff's all saying we wouldn't want your life.
And what they're meaning by that, look, you are hated and you get lied about and you get trashed and you get, I mean, they try to destroy you out there.
And Snurdley just said most people couldn't handle your life.
They couldn't deal with the negative aspects of it.
But that's awfully self-serving for me to say.
It really is.
Yeah, it's true, but that's the kind of thing other people ought to say, regardless.
Despite all of that, I mean, one of the reasons I'm optimistic is because, look where I am, given all that that happens and has happened.
So anyway, bottom line, David, I appreciate your comment.
I just don't believe that there's virtue in misery.
I just don't think you run around being miserable all the time.
That's liberals.
They're incapable of being happy.
And look at them.
They're literally miserable.
And there's just, you know, we all only get one life, folks.
And there's enough suffering in life without making your own, which is what way too many of us do.
Brian in Manchester, Connecticut.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Mega Ditto's Rush.
Thank you.
Just had a quick comment on global warming.
Yeah.
I know that you have talked against it, but it makes it sound like you're for pollution when you say there is no global warming.
And I know you're not.
I said there's no man-made global warming.
Right, right.
I believe that the Earth travels in non-liptical cycles and that this is just part of something over time.
Well, one thing, I don't believe CO2 is pollutant, because if it is, then we're all polluters.
There's nothing we can do about it because we all exhale.
Right.
I'm with you on that.
And something like Mount St. Helens eruption could accelerate the process.
We have no control over something.
Mount Pinatubo.
It's a way to cool the planet.
I mean, if we really, really, really, really want to cool a planet, you pollute it.
Mount Pinatubo erupts and the temperature under it went, the temperature plummeted for a while.
I mean, if these global warming people are really, really serious, we've really got to cool a planet or else we've got to increase our pollution.
That is what would cool the planet.
Putting all that gunk up there that would block the sun from heating up the greenhouse gases that are already there.
But see, this is an interesting point because the environmentalist wackos from the get-go have always structured their beliefs pretty cleverly.
If you oppose them, why you must be for dirty air.
Because all we want is clean water, Mithril Limbaugh.
All we want is clean air for our children.
And you sound like you want dirty water, Mithril Limbaugh.
Just because I oppose you a wacko doesn't mean that I want to pollute.
But I reject the notion that we're the big polluters in the world.
We do more to clean up our messes and the messes of our allies, messes made by daily life, than anybody around that is an industrialized nation.
Some of the biggest polluting countries per capita are the third world because they simply don't have the technology and they're not being allowed it because technology is said to pollute.
Their lives are being kept in the dungeon by environmentalist wackos who want us to return to as close to that kind of primitive lifestyle as possible.
But no, I will deny from now to the rest of my life that I'm for pollution in some cases.
Yet another exciting excursion into Broadcast Excellent now, totally in the can, and on the way via Armored Courier to the secret warehouse housing artifacts in the future Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
Can't wait for tomorrow, folks.
We'll be back.
Be here before you know it.
Already got five stories for tomorrow's show on the printer.
▲
Export Selection