All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:53
December 7, 2009, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, now, folks, it's just getting comical.
Uh, the mistress, the first identified mistress of the now what looks like nine of them.
Uh, in the Tiger Woods story, that would be Rachel Yukatel.
She's mad that he had all these other women.
You believe that?
Alleged tiger mistress angry about his other women.
How stupid must all of these people be?
Uh, greetings, my friends.
I hope your weekend was great.
Rush Limbaugh here, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, and I want it known.
This program has never lost to the Oakland Raiders.
And it uh it never will.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
Did you know that Al Gore is a poet now?
He has written a poem that dumb Vanity Fair has just uh released it.
Well, it I guess it's in his book, his latest book called Our Choice.
Uh nobody's talked about it.
Who has read the book except Vanity Fair today, and it's the silliest, stupidest crack up of a poem you've ever heard, and yet Vanity Fair is praising it.
Uh that's coming up on the program today.
Health care, big, big, big debate, supposedly on abortion, supposedly on the public option in the Senate.
Dirty Harry is saying that he's going to get a vote here by the Christmas break.
Polling data in the state of Nevada indicates that this could be Dingy Harry's Waterloo.
People in Nevada don't like this.
They're mad at him.
He's in big trouble.
He doesn't care.
There are no checks and balances.
There are no checks and balances in the he doesn't care what the people he represents think.
And that can be said for practically every Democrat in the House of Representatives and in the uh in the United States Senate.
Now, we've known this was going to happen.
We've known it was going to happen.
It has happened, or it's on the verge of happening today.
The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has concluded greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the uh Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.
The AP is simply joyous as they report this.
EPA administrator and well-known leftist hack, Lisa Jackson, scheduled a news conference for later today to announce the so-called endangerment finding.
The finding is timed to boost the administration's arguments at an international climate conference on the man-made global warming hoax, that the U.S. is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation.
There is an underground government.
All of these bureaucracies, all of these bureaucrats, there are, in fact, in the uh in the Senate health care bill, there are 11 new bureaucracies created.
One hundred and eleven new federal bureaucracies created.
We now have an underground government.
We are going to get the effect of cap and take cap and trade, cap and tax, without any legislation on it.
The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare, and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking.
The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.
Now, this all happened because the Supreme Court.
Now, what is being called here a dangerous pollutant that is endangering people's health is what you and I exhale.
Carbon dioxide.
And as this uh this joyous AP story notes, this has been in the work since the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide is a pollutant which should be controlled.
Now, this is not funny.
I mean, on the surface of it, it's it's it's funny, it's ridiculous, but it's not funny, it's insidious.
I want to walk you through some progressions here.
The Supreme Court, first off, has assigned to itself the role of expertise in matters of science.
And of course they're all knowing and they're all powerful.
The finding, the EPA finding today, timed to boost the administration's arguments at the Copenhagen climate conference, the United States is aggressively taking action to combat global warming.
Good thing this is not political.
Good thing it's not a political ruling, eh?
Now, by the way, let's go back.
First sentence.
EPA has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated.
This is all about CO2.
So does this mean that workers, employees, can sue their employers if they are made to work around people who are emitting such a dangerous substance as carbon dioxide.
And if not, why not?
The EPA, a federal agency, has just said this is poison, has just said that it is destroying the climate, has just said that CO2 endangers human health.
So you let some clever trial lawyer get hold of this and get some poor employee somewhere who comes now with some disease, sues the employer for making him work next to somebody exhaling this stuff.
You think I'm making this up?
I hope it doesn't happen, but I mean I'm trying to illustrate the absolute absurdity of this.
This is uh this is just part and parcel of the divide we face, the university, universe of lies, universe of reality.
And what is really intended for this country and the world at the hands of both domestic and international leftists and Marxists.
And you know, the there's no difference in this global warming hoax and the health care reform hoax.
They are born of the same ideology, they're born of the same tactics, and they are born of the same objectives.
Radical leftists claim that man-made global warming destroys lives.
Radical leftists also claim that private sector medical care destroys lives.
The president himself has indicted the medical community for this.
The hoax, I'm gonna walk you through these progressions.
The hoax known as man-made global warming is based on manipulated, falsified, altered temperature data, basic weather information.
One tree in the Siberian Peninsula, one tree is responsible for this hoax.
And a guy with his hockey stick graph, which is also now been proven to be a sham.
The hoax known as Obamacare at deficit neutral will improve health care is based on manipulated financial data, basic accounting information.
Key people who gathered, manipulated, and destroyed inexact temperature information, information that is the foundation of the global warming theory, were considered trustworthy.
They were scientists.
I'm speaking of the climatologists at the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia.
These people are knowing participants in a fraud, however.
They had the respect of the world.
They were scientists, and they were saving the planet, and no one doubted them except ideological skeptics and a few scientists who had the guts to.
Key people who gathered and manipulated inexact financial information, information that is the foundation of the deficit neutral theory in health care, were considered trustworthy.
With wonderfully good intentions.
I'm speaking of the accountants at the CBO.
These people are knowing participants in a fraud.
The underlying data proving man-made global warming has been hidden from public scrutiny.
The underlying laws providing and proving Obamacare is deficit neutral have been hidden from public scrutiny.
The state-controlled media has knowingly and willingly advanced the man-made global warming fraud.
The state-controlled media has knowingly and willingly advanced the Obamacare fraud.
A significant person at the Climate Gate fraud is Dr. Phil Jones.
He has been forced to step down as director of the climate research unit due to his corrupt behavior.
A significant person in the U.S. Senate in the Obamacare fraud is Max Baucus.
He should have to step down due to his corrupt behavior.
Climate Gate was advanced by propaganda and by public perception that men and women of science dressed up in lab coats were honest brokers of facts.
When in fact all they were were greedy, grubby leftists on the take.
Most of science is funded by Grant.
Science, government, academia, and media have all been corrupted.
They are the four corners of deceit.
Climate gate advanced by propaganda, and the public perception the men and women in science dressed up in lab coats were honest.
Obamacare advanced by propaganda, where the White House called a phony meeting of doctors who support socialized medicine and passed out white lab coats to them for a photo op.
Climate gate and Obamacare are the most significant power grabs, tax increases, and losses of freedom and liberty in American history.
Climate gate and Obamacare require central planners running a command and control economy.
Climate Gate and Obamacare require much higher taxes that will cripple the private sector and the domestic United States economy.
Climate Gate and Obamacare severely limit personal freedom and disposable income.
Climate Gate and Obamacare are both job killers.
Climate Gate and Obamacare are economy killers.
Climate Gate and Obamacare are budget killers.
Climate Gate and Obamacare require, demand everyone's participation, violating the laws of these two pieces of legislation, will result in fines and or incarceration.
Climate Gate and Obamacare puts the public sector and public servants in total control of the private sector and over every individual American.
Truth, facts, and public opinion mean nothing to the radical leftists ramming through Climate Gate and Obamacare.
They are one in the same issue.
They have the same technique, the same propaganda, the same end objective.
They are part and parcel of an un-American and unconstitutional takeover of American lives by radical leftists in the United States government and governments all over the world, and they are all based on lies.
They are all based on frauds.
They are all based on man-made hoaxes advanced by liars, dressed up as people we should trust.
Back after this.
Back after this.
All of this.
You know, I refuse to get caught up in the daily machinations of all this, which is what they want us to do.
Do you know what the Republican strategy on this is?
Do you know what the Republican strategy on health care is?
It's not to stop it.
The Republican strategy in the Senate.
And here's, let's see, John Kyle.
In response to the question, what's your strategy to the extent that you can share it?
Kyle said, actually, I think we can be fairly upfront about it.
Our strategy is not actually to delay and not take votes.
Our strategy is to have a lot of good amendments and highlight the problems in the bill.
It's not our strategy to somehow slow things down.
You know, I don't understand why.
If there's ever anything worthy of stopping and being flat out opposed to, it's this.
Everybody running around, so we got to be forced something.
We got to be for No, that's allowing the leftists to set the premise.
We got to be for we are for things.
We just don't have a lot of people willing to say what they are.
We're for individual liberty and freedom and small government and low taxes and get the government out of our way.
We're for private sector solutions to all of these problems that have been caused by government.
It's like Robert Samuelson says today in his piece in the Washington Post, entitled Healthcare Nation.
Medical spending threatens everything else.
It has to be stopped here, folks.
President Obama's critics sometimes say that he's engineering a government takeover of health care or even introducing socialized medicine into America.
These allegations are wildly overblown.
Government already dominates health care.
One-sixth of the economy.
It pays directly or indirectly for roughly half of all health costs.
Medicine is pervasively regulated from drug approvals to nursing home rules.
There's no free market in health care.
He's exactly right, and that's why it's in the mess that it's in.
And that's why the strategy, we don't intend to slow things down.
Uh we're gonna offer some good amendments and make it a better bill.
There is nothing in this worthy of being improved.
It's got to be stopped.
Samuelson says what's happening is the reverse.
Which is more interesting and alarming.
Health care is taking over government.
Consider in 1980, the federal government spent 65 billion dollars on health care.
That was 11% of all of its spending.
By 2008, health expenses had grown to 752 billion dollars.
Well, actually, 29 years.
Let's just let's round it up and say 30 years.
Federal spending on health care went from 65 billion to 752 billion, 25% of the total.
One dollar in every four is spent on health care.
And people still complain about it.
And we still hear that there are all these people uninsured.
And we still get the medical community tarred and feathered, doctors, insurance companies, drug companies.
They're the villains.
And there's no free market in it.
Even without new legislation, the health care share would grow.
As an aging population uses more Medicare, which is insurance for the elderly, and Medicaid will grow too.
That's the joint federal state insurance for the poor, including the very poor elderly.
Obama would magnify the trend by expanding Medicaid and providing new subsidies for private insurance.
30 million or more Americans would theoretically receive coverage.
All this is transforming politics and society.
The most obvious characteristic of health spending is that government cannot control it, which is why I say that it is a total fraud and hoax perpetrated by the CBO and everybody involved in this to say that this is deficit neutral.
Or that it's going to reduce the deficit over the long term.
It's absurd.
We're being lied to, left and right, by people who want only total control over our lives.
It's really no more complicated than that.
And the reason is public opinion.
We all want the best health care for ourselves and loved ones.
That's natural, seems morally compelling, unfortunately.
What we all want as individuals may harm us as a nation.
Our concern sanctions open-ended and ineffective health spending because everybody believes that cost controls are heartless and illegitimate.
The recent furor over proposals to reduce mammogram screenings captures the popular feeling.
No.
This is where I uh part ways with uh the brilliant economist, Mr. Samuelson.
I think the problem is third-party payers.
Third party payment and government.
Of course, you know, I got all kinds of hell.
Well, not a lot, but I mean for some people.
The William Shatner, did you have do you happen to watch the Shatner show last night, sir?
Well, we've got the we've got the audio, we got the video in the transcript at Rush Limbaugh.com.
I forgot I forgot to watch it too.
I was caught up in the NFL.
And I realized I got notes to be, hey, this was fabulous.
This was great.
And I said, eh, I don't like watching myself on TV anyway, so I didn't feel too bad.
And then Cookie told me there was a replay at 2 a.m., so I T-vot that.
But uh, but I haven't seen it.
HR just shouted in the IFB that I was great.
Well, one of the promos they use, one of the segments of this, by the way, HR, did that show up in the show?
The health care the health care excerpt, uh, where Shatner's talking to me about health care.
All right, all right.
I see he says, um, something along the lines of um, it's true that the more money you have, the better health care you get.
And I said, Yeah, and the more money you have, uh, the likelihood you're gonna have a house on the beach.
But this is health care.
So?
Why is health care?
It's but he was he was just dumbfounded.
But it's health care.
Health care.
Well, so why is health care so morally different than any other thing anybody wants?
No, this is something we need.
Well, doesn't everybody need a house on the beach?
Doesn't everybody need an Aston Martin?
Where does this stop?
I said, the whole problem here, Bill, is we're fixing a problem here that's been caused by the very thought that you have, and Samuelson's mentioning it here that there's this this moral opinion, and everybody has the everybody's entitled in when it comes to health care to the best.
And of course, politicians try to fulfill that fantasy with people by claiming to be the only ones who can provide the best, and look what they've done to it.
So now you have no relationship between the patient, the customer, and the provider of service.
And that's why there's no affordability.
The government being involved in this is precisely why it's as out of whack as it is, and why it's going to get even worse.
As he points out, government cannot control costs, and these people at Washington don't care about that.
This is about control as most of what they're doing is.
That's right, my friends, it is that time of year.
Christmas season is upon us, and that means on this program, Manheim's steamroller returns to the bumper rotation.
It's always been my uh my favorite time of the year.
And it always will be, especially since I now live in a place where it seldom is below 70 degrees on Christmas.
Never snows.
Although, although I tell you here the first day of Copenhagen on the first day of Copenhagen, the USA gives to them a massive Upper West mid uh blizzard.
We're gonna have snow in Sacramento, maybe.
Michigan is going to get creamed with Lake Effect snow and blizzard type snow.
Uh Upper Midwest is just going to get savaged this week with uh with with chilly weather on the first day of Copenhagen.
And I I want to get back here to this this Robert Samuelson piece, because it says so much.
Uh two more paragraphs that I wish to quote to you.
A society that passively accepts constant increases in health spending endorses some explicit, if poorly understood, forms of re income redistribution.
The young transfer to the elderly, because about half of all health spending goes to those 30 55 and over.
Unless taxes are increased disproportionately for older Americans, and just the opposite is true, they are subsidized by the youths.
More and more resources also go to a small sliver of the population in 2006.
The sickest 5% of Americans accounted for 48% of health spending.
Obama's health care proposals may be undesirable.
are.
But it's mindless to oppose them, as many Republicans do, by screaming that they'll lead to rationing.
Almost everything in society is rationed, either by price, if you can't afford it, you can't buy it, or explicit political decisions.
School boards have budgets.
Healthcare is an exception.
It enjoys an open tab.
The central political problem of healthcare nation is to find effective and acceptable ways to limit medical spending.
Now, I want to go back to this concept of rationing, because that's essentially what I was telling Shatner.
If you can afford a house on the beach, you can.
If you can't, you can't.
If you can afford an Aston Martin, you can afford it.
If If you can't, you can't.
And if you can afford, you know, the high-tech hospital services in room, you can.
If you can't, you can't.
And all of when I said that, oh no, that meant I all of a sudden I'd become heartless.
In his mind.
But it's but it's health care.
It's health care.
Yeah.
But it's health care.
But see that society does ration everything.
Nobody gets everything they want.
Except Barack Obama.
And now the Democrats in Congress.
They're about to get everything they want, including personal wealth.
Nobody gets everything they want.
Now, when we approach the subject of health care, though, we throw that out.
Samuelson's right and says, if you want it, you should have access to it because somehow your body, your health, is no different than anybody else's.
If if if if we've got the best technology to treat cancer and everybody gets cancer, ought to have that access to it.
Fine.
Somebody's got to pay for it.
We all are paying for it.
And we And that costs are out of control.
And by the way, after all this spending, does everybody get access to the best in health care?
They don't, do they?
I wonder why that is.
It's because it's impossible.
It's impossible for everybody to all have the best of anything.
Now, when the free market rations, that's the free market.
And you see, it is the the way the way it works in in human nature in a free society.
You're born, you grow up, you see things, you're inspired, you're motivated, or you're not, whatever.
Um you want to become something in your life, or you don't care to.
Depending on how badly you want something, you'll work your buns off for it.
And if you succeed in working your buns off for it, then the spoils go to you.
If you outwork others, that's up to you and them.
We've gotten to a point now where the people in a free society who have sought to be the best they can be, and that's what America is.
America, the United States of America is the place in the world you come to be the best you can be.
The United States of America is the place for all people to become the best they can be.
But not everybody has the same ambition.
Not everybody has the same desire.
Not everybody has the same commitment, not everybody has the same devotion, not everybody has the same ability.
Not everybody has the same educational opportunity, not everybody has the same intelligence.
And nowhere in the history of mankind have outcomes ever been guaranteed unless you live in oppression, and then everybody is equally miserable.
But that's what American exceptionalism is.
We are the exception to the history of the world.
Tyranny, oppression, discrimination, uh dungeons, torture.
We're the exception.
It's not that we're better people because we live here.
It's that our system, our freedom, our enshrined documents, founding documents laid the groundwork for this country to be an exception to human history.
We have been.
It's under attack now.
Now it may, it may be heartless to say, well, yeah, Bill, I mean, if you have if you have a lot of money, you get uh better health care than somebody else.
You have a lot of money, you get a house on the beach, and other people don't have one.
But the simple fact of the matter is it's the reality.
But we've got this point now where everybody thinks that when it when it comes to health care that there ought to be no differences, even though the differences exist.
And now we're spending money left and right, and we look with transfers of wealth.
Samuelson's exactly right about this.
But when the free market does the rationing, people like me have no problem with it because you end up getting what you deserve in the free market.
And sometimes you don't get what you deserve.
Sometimes you do work hard, sometimes you do bust your butt, sometimes you do outperform, and you still don't get what you deserve.
You keep working at it.
It's the story of life, it's human nature.
It's hard.
Even in a country like this, life is hard.
But we have it easier today than it has ever been in the history of humanity.
But since most of us never lived during a really tough times, we can only relate to things based on our own baselines or own experiences.
But to somebody like to people who are knowledgeable educated, it is pure folly for anybody in this country to think they've got it tough.
You may have it tough compared to somebody else, but you're on a cakewalk.
It's why I always said, always got in trouble for this too.
I've always said that the uh baby boom generation, I'm a I'm a not so proud member of it, because half the baby boom generation has now grown up to run this country into the ground.
But I've always said the baby boom generation had to make up its traumas in order to convince itself that life was a BI itch.
Try living Through the Great Depression, followed by two world wars, followed by a Korea, followed by Nikita Khrushchev saying he's gonna bury your grandchildren.
You try living before the invention of the automobile and electricity and air conditioning, all you try living that.
Those were tough times when horse manure was essentially the street.
The main street of town, horse manure.
You now I know that times are tough now, everything's relative, but compared to what people look at the life expectancy.
Then versus now.
We don't have it that tough.
We had to invent our traumas, and we've done a great job of it.
We now have psychotic drugs to handle all of our traumas.
We've got people wringing their hands over the inequities and unfairnesses of life and how tough they've got it.
And it is tough now for a lot of people in this recession, unemployed and so forth, not trying to diminish it, but just a little sense of perspective.
Especially this time of year to have a little appreciation for what we have and what we still have a chance to become, uh, even though the slogging is gonna get tougher because we've got much bigger obstacles than we in our lifetimes have ever faced.
And we can overcome this too, but we're gonna have to have an educated informed public to do it.
Okay, so that statistic about the number, the amount of money spent, let's see, uh five percent of Americans accounted for 48% of health spending in 2006.
Five percent.
They are the seasoned citizens.
And they will be rationed.
Their care will be rationed.
If if if you're gonna make even a pretence at cutting costs, you have to go to where the costs are.
And the young, if you're Obama and the Democrats, you can't tax them totally into oblivion.
They'll stop working for you.
You need them to continue to work.
But if you're Obama and the Democrats, and you look at the elderly as the wisest segment of the population, if you look at the elderly as the most informed, and because of the length of their lives the most educated, and because of the length of their lives, the greater their memories.
What harm is there in a bunch of people who realize that the way to get out of recession is what we did in the 80s to get sick and sort of wither away, not be around to remind anybody.
This stuff is insidious.
I'm folks, what what is happening here is um to me it's isn't it's as near criminal as as this climate hoax.
Climate change, global warming, whatever it is.
But we're where we are in part because expectations have been raised that in this one area, everybody expects the best, which is just not possible.
I wonder why everybody does not expect.
Sterling, what's your favorite car?
If you can have a car right, if you go buy the car tomorrow, don't think about it.
What's your instinctive reaction?
What's a favorite what would you buy?
Top of the line beamer, all right.
Snerdley's preferred cars at top of the line beamer.
I saw a car the other day that I did not, I'd never seen before.
And it was being driven by a buddy of mine, Buddy Marucci, who, by the way, took Tiger Woods to extra holes in the U.S. amateur in 96 or 97.
And I bought the car I have from Buddy when he was in the business.
I pulled up to him, I said, what kind of car is that?
Was right there on Royal Le Ponciani Ways.
Is it Aston Martin?
I'd never seen this car.
I know what Aston Martin's looked like, but I've never seen this.
It was a it was a ragtop convertible.
Boy, it was sharply black.
Why didn't everybody want one of those?
Why doesn't everybody want a top of the line beamer?
Why doesn't why is there maybe they do, but why is there not a national clamor for it?
Why is Congress not working to give everybody a top-of-the-line beamer?
Why?
Why is Congress working from promulgating the hoax and the lie that they're gonna give you the best of health care?
There's no power in everybody driving a top of the line beamer.
You're driving a top of the line beamer, you could probably outrun Congress when they chase you down to collect your taxes.
Quick timeout, folks.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Now, one more thing here, folks, on the notion that the uh the free market rations excuse me, which was the word used by uh Robert Samuelson.
I know what he means.
By rationing, he just means that not everybody can have what they want.
And that the system, uh, capitalism decides who gets what.
But here's the here's the basic difference.
In the free market, there is abundance.
Now, this is very important to understand.
In a free market, there is abundance.
Any centrally controlled product or service must be rationed.
If coffee, for example, if coffee was considered a right, it would have to be rationed.
And it would cost through the through the nose.
What do you mean, Royce?
What do you mean?
How come because if there's one entity involved in bringing it to the market and charging for it and making sure that everything and there's no incentive, and there's no competition in it, it's gonna have to be rationed because there won't be enough of it.
There's never enough of anything that government provides unless they go into debt or start printing money wildly to provide it.
And even at that, even then, with the government now mostly in charge of health care, we still have all these uninsured people.
Right?
So it is not in any way, shape, manner, or form, consistent to say that anything government does results in abundance.
But since coffee is available from the free market, it's abundant, and it's affordable because they're all different types of it, ways you can get it, uh prices based on what people will pay for it.
The one consistent result of government-controlled anything is scarcity.
Go to Cuba.
Go to Venezuela.
Go wherever the government control go to the old Soviet Union.
Scarcity, that's what you end up with.
When the government controls everything.
And this country is the greatest illustration of plenty in the history of humanity.
Because it has been largely a free market.
With uh, you know, FDR tried to sabotage it.
And Obama's doing FDR on steroids.
But they were both doing it for the same uh political reasons.
Obama, I think, is slightly bit more dangerous than FDR was, but it's close.
Now to the audio sound.
No!
The hell would Harry read this album.
Let me grab a phone call or two here before we go to the break.
Scott in Three Rivers, Michigan.
You're first today on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Ross.
How are you doing today?
Good.
Very well, thank you.
Hey, uh, did you happen to hear that uh Sir Paul McCartney um wanted to proclaim Mondays being no meat Monday in an effort to reduce global warming?
Uh well, not specifically that, but I know that uh McCartney has said he doesn't ever want to eat anything with a face on it.
Uh for the for the for the same reason, which that uh never mind.
I was gonna I'd be a tiger joke for Ruth.
Yeah, I know we could go on and on.
But anyway, I was uh my kids and I, I was driving my churrin into scroll this morning.
Yeah.
And um we heard that on the radio, so the uh the three of us uh decided to name the rest of the days of the week uh along uh Sir Paul's lines.
Um and I'd like to give you some of what we came up with if you sure sure, fire away.
I got my hand on the bleep button here.
Oh no, I'm good.
We're all good here.
Uh we like uh tyrannical Tuesday, although tax Tuesday twice came into mind.
All right.
Wealth we distribution Wednesday.
How about thoughtless Thursday?
Fried steak Friday.
We liked sausage link Saturday, and my daughter, who is eleven, came up with Social Security Sunday.
Social Security Sunday, and uh this is no meat Monday.
Right.
He's an idiot.
You know that these people are just playing if you don't want to eat on Monday, fine.
Sir Paul, don't eat it.
But you know, but but keep your damn no meat Monday to yourself.
Start trying to force on everybody else.
I I I'll tell you, I wonder, Now that carbon dioxide, now that carbon dioxide is officially a danger to human health, how long is it gonna be before we start seeing news reports of hybrid cars running down and killing joggers?
Well, well, well, well, well.
Don't you just love this?
I have just learned, uh, ladies and gentlemen, that the NAGS, the National Association of Gals, which is what we uh affectionately call the the Now Gang, have come out against a tax on Botox,
on cosmetic treatments of the and and I I just love this because I and I'm thinking of a study, but but I I thought the purpose of feminism was to be judged by your brains, uh, not your looks.
I'll tell you what, I know they've got mirrors too, and that's the reason they're feminists.
▲
Export Selection