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.
*laughs*
Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Fun frolic and frivolity for all, as well as the serious discussion of the issues.
Telephone number is 800-282-288-2, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
You were talking about about uh uh monologue in the last half hour.
I don't mean to pick on this nice guy from Allentown at Call Name Joe, but I I told him after I just don't do well with uh with with winers.
Uh uh I don't know what to say to uh to whiners when they're in the middle of whining.
I just don't know what to say, other than how you feel.
Uh but then after after they hang up, and I sort of get, what did I just do?
I should have sit there and said that 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 encourage them to whine more.
I could never do that.
You see where Senator Kennedy has agreed to a multimillion dollar book deal with Hatchette Book Group USA to pen his memoirs.
Uh the price of the money being bandied about here is like eight million dollars, an eight million dollar advance to write his memoirs.
Now, I I seem to remember that Newt Gingrich was attacked for doing this when he was in the House of Representatives.
Uh 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 gonna get him memoirs.
He got a record deal, eight million dollars.
Oh, it's such a beautiful, beautiful thing.
The Hawkeye Cockeye and the New Hampshire primary are coming up.
Uh January 3rd in Iowa, and it's uh you decide, well, I think I'm either gonna I'm not gonna watch the Orange Bowl that night.
I'm gonna I'm gonna go ahead and I'm gonna 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, uh said State Democrat Party spokeswoman Carrie Giddens.
Some people do have a problem with the uh ease of registering for New Hampshire's leadoff primary, which follows the Hawkeye Cawkeye 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 uh the state and not the parties runs the primary and changes to residency laws have been hotly contested.
This year, New Hampshire Democrats push through a change that some Republicans contend would enable campaigns to bust in people who cast a ballot and vote again in their real home states.
Republicans contend would what do you think the point is?
So in the New Hampshire primary, you can live in Massachusetts and get bust in there and vote.
If if you're if you're Democrat, if if uh you can if you live in Vermont, you can you can bust in to uh into New Hampshire.
And of course, in uh 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 the primary because you someday may want to live in New Hampshire.
Democratic State Senator Peter Burling calls such arguments part of the campaign of fear to restrict people's right to vote.
Oh, 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 press.
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.
Uh because you don't 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.
I uh I uh the New Hampshire primary, if you if they I guess they've gone to charter some planes from California, you can go in there, and all you'd have to do 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?
When you uh this is now this, I'm gonna tell you something.
This is you missed the beginning of the program.
You might have uh uh you definitely missed this.
Mahmoud Akhmadizad says he wants to come monitor um our presidential election for fairness.
Uh he thinks that Bush is still in the I'm not making this up.
It's from the UK Guardian.
He actually thinks that uh if he if there are monitors here like him, uh 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 uh surreal days.
Uh campaigns have been trying to explain away the mystery in New Hampshire.
Uh or I'm sorry, in Iowa, requirements are taking part in a cauc eye are becoming a focus for candidates now that the event's just a little more than six weeks away.
The voter registration ruler, lack of one, is among a handful of unusual policies that make the cockeye 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.
The key there's nothing, there are no limits.
You don't even 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 caucus.
All right, let's take a uh a brief timeout here, ladies and gentlemen.
We've got audio sound bites still and your phone calls.
Oh, well, before we go, uh this is a record here that the drive-bys have missed.
Uh 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.
Uh Sunday's execution in Saudi Arabia brought to 136.
The uh 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 uh in 2005.
In contrast to worldwide condemnation of the U.S. when it executes someone after a trial, or such as Abu Ghab or Club Getmo.
Uh these executions in Saudi Arabia have gone relatively unnoticed and subsequently escaped commentary.
Uh the peculiarities of the Saudi justice system are 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, Chappaquitti, If I Did It.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Yeah.
Well, it's a it's a takeoff on uh on the O.J. book uh for those of you in real Linda.
This is Dan in Mansfield, Ohio.
Nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
It's uh honor and a pleasure to talk to you from a very long time listener.
Thank you.
Uh couple comments.
Uh the little kids with rickets.
Uh aren't these the same people that uh banned a dodgeball in school?
And you couldn't play tag because you were the it.
And also about the University of Wisconsin.
Could the tattlers have the right to uh tattle on their prof if they had uh intolerant speech?
Could who have the right to tell them the professor, the students?
The students have a right to tattle on the professors if the professors had 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 uh it's uh 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 there's a there's a possibility of recurrence of rickets, the disease rickets uh among our children uh because of poor calcium.
Uh, not drinking enough milk or not getting enough exercise and sunshine, and so forth.
And of course, the the uh 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 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 French, but I mean that's what it is.
All right, they expel gas.
And they get methane's causing global warming is a big footprint.
So we're what do you expect?
I mean, get ready, folks.
Scurvy is next because they're going to find out uh something about citrus fruit that's bad as relates to uh 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 I think that's how we discovered it.
Well, I don't know if we discovered it that way.
Uh Marty Perretts, who was the founder of the uh New Republic, uh, 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 uh say this.
His headline, Marty Parrott's 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 a rock.
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 it 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 Peritts.
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 Peritz lamenting the fact that Democrats are hoping for defeat.
Um and he's he's a what?
New He's not a neo cunt.
This is a new republic.
No, no, no, no.
He's he's he's liberal.
No, no, no.
This guy's worried about the New York about the Democrat Party and where they're headed, and there are others.
Uh Financial Times, Clive Cook, I'm sorry, Clive Crook.
Up to now, Democrats have been stinting in their recognition that the situation in Iraq is improved.
Yeah, violence down a bit, but that's the wrong posture.
They need to celebrate the success as long as it lasts as enthusiastic uh uh 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, and 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 commentariates are starting to see this and write about it.
Uh, 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's son, and a fascinating story today.
Headline talks are set on ending battle of Iraq.
Quiet announcement signal start of U.S. Iraq parlay.
And so the Battle of Iraq is to be brought to an end in T. S. Elliott'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 Lute, 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 fate of compli in Iraq, a fact that will further remove from the presidential election the Iraq war as an issue of contention.
Yes.
Don't doubt me.
Fifty thousand 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.
Um 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.
What where does she go to college?
Um 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 and 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, I she just calling for her to um 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 in 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 are you recording this?
Recording.
Okay.
So I don't have to wait for you to write down.
The the uh the big Well not a big series of differences.
The first place Vietnam, that was a war started and run by Democrats.
Uh 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, uh and uh the the world is uh 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 gonna be hit, you take out whoever's gonna hit you once you have evidence that people from that part of the world have already hit you.
Uh we went into Afghanistan a full year before Iraq, so if anybody tries to tell your sister that it 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.
Uh but as far as the other things are concerned, uh 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, uh in large part, not everybody was, but that when they signed up, that's what they signed up for.
They're in Vietnam there was a draft, uh, and it was there was no real sense of national purpose uh 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 uh Cambodia is gonna go communist and Laos is gonna go communist, and we gotta stop the domino theory.
And that's what was we were in the middle of the Cold War with the Soviets, uh, who were proxies along with the uh the Chicoms uh helping the uh North Vietnamese.
Also, another difference is Ho Chi Minh had gone to school in the United States and actually been a chef in uh New York restaurants, uh none of Al-Qaeda.
The only way they got in here was illegal immigration and so forth and to plan their attack against us.
Uh in terms of the actual battle uh itself.
Uh Iraq has never been a quagmire.
We were never bogged down uh uh as we were in Vietnam.
Uh we've had a much greater will to win in in Iraq uh than we did.
The uh another major difference is that the commanding officers on the ground in a in uh in Iraq were running the show and planning the strategy.
Uh and they didn't always do a good job, And they were replaced.
Washington, Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara and a number number of others were actually in charge of bombing runs.
They micromanaged it.
Also in uh in Iraq, we were not burdened by Senator Carey driving Swift boats.
Uh he did drive swift boats in Vietnam for a while.
But there there's really there's no comparison uh between the two whatsoever.
The the I guess 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 is no there's there's no reasonable comparison between Iraq uh and Vietnam in any way, shape, manner, or form.
Uh another difference, we lost fifty thousand people.
Uniform we lost fifty thousand in Iraq.
Uh uh Vietnam.
It went on and on and on.
Uh we what's the latest count?
Thirty, six hundred, thirty-eight hundred now in uh in Iraq, and we're gonna win Iraq.
We uh you know, I don't want to upset Vietnam vets uh because you know that it's conventional wisdom that we lost.
We did because we pulled out of there, but but uh we could have won that.
Um we never lost a battle.
We could have won that had the had the uh military experts been allowed to uh be in charge of it.
So does that help?
Yeah, that helps a lot.
Thank you.
All right.
Uh is your sister have to write a report about this or something, did you say?
Yeah.
Is do you know anything about her professor?
Um, 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.
Sure it was.
Also another thing about Vietnam, here's one thing else I need to point out to you, Autumn.
Uh back in uh 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.
Uh 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've I just lost Tom Broco.
I guess I've lost the war.
I never just lost Dan Rather.
I guess we've lost the war.
I just lost Peter Jennings.
I just 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 uh 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 uh kudos from uh the land of uh Senator Turbin, I'm fat saying.
And no offense taken, Rush.
Uh we could have won in Vietnam War.
I participated in the uh air aids of 72.
Um 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 four point seven percent.
And real estate is local.
Uh 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 burst it 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 if home prices in San Francisco fell four percent.
No, it would not not at all.
I mean, we might hurt current so outrageous.
It would only hurt people who want to sell right now.
But it would if if if this is happening, it's gonna make more people eligible to get into the market.
Absolutely.
And what you and you just hit the nail on the head talking about this legislation that Barney Frank is trying to introduce it's gonna kill the housing market.
Uh right now we need to make uh money affordable.
But they they created their own trap.
You were exactly right, by making these loans uh by bringing in people that could not afford them.
And it's just ludicrous to blame these lenders uh for this big uh 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.
Exactly what they're getting at.
Right, as far as Congress are concerned, they're still victims of the rich real estate industry and the mortgage banking industry.
And we're gonna get either no matter how many disclosure forms, no matter how many lawyers they had read the disclosures, none of how many times they signed them.
They were still victims.
You gotta understand you do understand.
As far as Democrats are concerned, they're gonna make as many victims as possible.
That's what Barney Frank coming out turning the tort lawyers loose on these lenders.
I'm gonna tell you, you're gonna you're i if if that ever happens, you realize how few people you're gonna be able to qualify for a loan.
Oh, we we know exactly.
We're having a difficult time now.
Uh in our marketplace, our sales are down slightly as far as the number of homes sold by about six percent, but that's six percent off the all-time record.
It's still a great market here locally.
Right.
But what really infuriates me is not is the local media, the print, the radio, the TV, they jump on all these national stories and he just blast it day in and day out.
Yeah, of course, because everybody is already 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.
So you're right at the end of the day.
No whining here, even though I am a Cleveland 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.
And you're also right because real estate prices where I live, I don't even want to tell you.
We are back.
The most listen 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 uh Allentown.
Allentown.
Listen, I got love for him because I'm from Harrisburg, PA, but it ends about there.
I'm a twenty-four-year-old Reagan conservative Christian, and next to my faith in Christ, the one thing I attribute every ounce of success to on 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, uh I appreciate that.
That's nice of you to say.
I I want to say something about this too, because I you know, a lot of people accuse me of being, well, uh not artificially optimistic, what do they say?
Well, of course, look at your life uh uh who wouldn't be optimistic with your life, it must be easy for you.
Uh 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, uh then you you might form that impression.
Other people also say, you know, look, optimism's good, but not when it's phony.
You're gonna sit around and tell people things that aren't true just to make them feel good, that's not good.
Well, I that's not what I do.
I I try to point out what genuinely is positive and uh to find the positive in most everything, because it's just I've just learned in life that that's that makes for a happier life.
And I frankly don't think there's any virtue in misery.
Um, I've got the staff saying most people should I don't think I should repeat.
That's awfully self-serving.
See, that's that's the kind of thing as somebody else ought to say, not me.
I can't say that kind of you would 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 gonna sound the most self-serving.
This it is.
All right.
Um 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.
Oh you'd be optimistic too if I if I had your life and so forth.
And uh my staff's all saying we wouldn't want your life.
And what they're meaning by that look at 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 uh Snerdley just said most people couldn't handle your life.
They wouldn't, they couldn't deal with the negative aspects of it.
Uh but that's that's awfully self-serving for me to say.
No, that that it really is.
Yeah, true, but that's that's the kind of thing other people ought to say, regardless.
Despite all of that, I mean that what one of the reasons I'm optimistic is is because look where I am, given all that that happens and has happened.
So anyway, bottom line, David, I I 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.
Megadiddoes, 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 say there's no man-made global warming.
Right, right.
I believe that the earth travels in non you know, like elliptical cycles, and that this is just part of something over time.
Well, one thing I don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, because if it is, then w we're we're all polluters.
There's nothing we can do about it because we all exhale.
Right.
I I I'm with you on that.
And something like Mount St. Helens eruption could accelerate the process.
We have no control over something.
Mount Penatubo, 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 Penatubo erupts and the temperature under the 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 we've got to increase our pollution.
That is what would cool the planet, putting all that gunk up there that would block uh the sun from heating up the greenhouse gases that are that are already there.
But see, this is 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, Mr. Limbaugh.
All we want is clean air for our children.
And you felt like you want dirty water, Mr. Limbaugh.
No, 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.
Uh 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 as possible.
But no, I'm uh I will I will deny from 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 a can.
And on the way via Armored Courier to the secret warehouse housing artifacts to 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