All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
November 30, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, some people not happy.
Well, that's not the right way to put it.
Well, maybe it is the right way to put it, not happy.
Some people disappointed at my characterization of the sissy yesterday, Julian Assange as a sissy, calling it gratuitous.
One of my fans, supporters, Ann Althaus.
So I will respectfully respond to this today.
Also, ladies and gentlemen, I have it right here from the New York Times.
Narcissism, magically now no longer a psychiatric disorder.
Right here, narcissistic personality disorder, characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and the need for constant attention, has been eliminated from the upcoming manual of mental disorders, which psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illness.
Well, how convenient.
Great news for the gifted one.
Great news for the narcissist Barack Obama.
This is reminiscent back in the mid-90s when the media all told us, you know, these little white lies are actually good for us.
Everybody does it.
It doesn't involve your sex life.
It doesn't hurt your sex.
It really helps your sex life.
It spares people hurt feelings.
It was just conveniently timed to accommodate the liar-in-chief at the time, Bill Clinton.
And now narcissism, which I mean, everybody recognizes as something that's not good, is okay now.
Hunky Dory, right, right from the pages of the New York Times.
All right, Alan Sinson Babe and Irksome Bulls are soon to be chairing the official press conference, announcing the actual aspects of their proposal.
There's also big news today about the Obama meeting with the Republicans on tax cuts.
And I just want to remind, I want to ask you a question.
When was the last time that Obama called for a meeting with Republicans?
And we got to talk this out amongst ourselves.
We got to come to some common ground.
You remember when it was?
That would be the health care summit in which Eric Cantor and a number of other Republicans were up there with Obama, the Democrats, and he listened and rejected all of it.
And every time Eric Cantor or Mike Pence or anybody made a brilliant point about something, Paul Ryan, Obama stared at them angrier at them than he's ever gotten at Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks sissy, who released all the data.
So there's nothing that's going to come of this.
We all know what Obama wants.
Obama does not want any extension of these tax cuts.
By the way, rich has been dropped.
It's now millionaires and billionaires.
That's the terminology.
And during the healthcare summit, I was alone.
I told the Republicans, don't even go.
Don't even waste your time showing up.
All you're going to do is add weight to Obama and allow him to say at the end of this whole thing that he is all for bipartisanship, that the people got together and so forth.
The healthcare summit ended with Obama saying that's what elections are for.
I won.
You lost.
I'm going to listen to what you say here, but I'm not even going to really hear it.
It's going to be the same thing here on taxes.
These clowns know they lost the election, but they're trying to turn it around and have the opposite impression created.
So we'll talk about the Thomas Sowell has a column on that, in fact, today, which I'll get to here in short order.
From USA Today, you people ought to be ashamed out there, especially now during the holiday season.
Americans are less responsive to flood victims in Pakistan.
The story reads this way.
Groups providing aid to millions of families displaced by flooding in Pakistan say their U.S. fundraising efforts for the disaster lag behind other recent major calamities.
This is not the first time that we've seen this story.
This story, this is the second or third time that somebody has started bellyaching about the lack of American compassion when it comes to the Pakistanis affected by the flood.
Flooding there killed about 1,700 people, destroyed 1.9 million homes, left 7 million people homeless, displaced about a million more.
All this according to the reliable United Nations.
Now, that compares to the 1.2 million people displaced in Haiti, the earthquake in January, 1.5 million displaced by Hurricane Katrina, 1.7 million displaced by the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
The floods resulted in the UN's largest ever appeal for funding, but only 49% of the $2 billion needed has been raised.
Now get this.
49% of the $2 billion needed has been raised.
42% of it is from America.
And yet, this story is about how Americans are less responsive to flood victims in Pakistan.
Now, how do you get there from there?
42% out of 49% of all aid has come from Americans, and we're not shoring up our end.
We are less responsive to the floods in Pakistan.
Another $239 million was raised for purposes not identified in the UN appeal.
Okay, so $2 billion was needed.
Another $239 million was raised for unknown purposes.
That translates to graft, kickbacks, and payoffs.
And now the government is taking more and more and more of our money, and still we make up 42% of the 49% that's been donated of the 200 billion.
And somehow we are not as generous.
So what's the fix?
I mean, it's easy to come here and do what I just did.
I'm good at it.
You know, jumping the chain of the UN, jumping in there, Chile, and so forth.
One other paragraph here.
Americans are concerned about terrorism and negative images of Pakistan as an incubator.
We're a place that has tolerated the Taliban and other terrorists.
This is from Patrick Rooney, who is the executive director of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
So Americans are concerned about terrorism because Pakistan tolerates the Taliban.
Where would we get that idea?
Where would we get the idea that Pakistan is sympathetic to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and terrorism?
Where was the Christmas tree bomber from again?
It was in Pakistan, right?
So it's not a false impression under which we are labeling.
But still, still, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, this is a program, and I am a man of solutions.
What needs to be done, therefore, to alleviate this horribly incompassion, and I know it's not a word, but it works here.
Horribly incompassionate American response.
No, no, snerdly.
It's not to snap the.
Well, one Christmas tree bomber was from Somalia.
The Somali-born, anyway, the guy in Portland.
Folks, the response here is not to shut the wallets, snerdly.
It is to raise more money.
No, no, how do we do this?
Well, the objective of the story is to raise more money.
I mean, if that's the objective of the story, how do we participate in making the story influential?
It seems to me that what we need is a handsome Hollywood actress to make this their cause.
You know, for a while, having an orphaned black child from Africa as an accessory was a Hollywood cause.
Madonna, once Madonna did it, a whole bunch of people had to do it.
You had to have a young black orphan baby, or maybe not even orphan, just go over there and you steal the child from his own family under the pretense that his own family is horrible and you are more compassionate as Hollywood actress.
Madonna, much better to raise black children from Africa than their own families are.
So we need to come up with something similar here.
Madonna or Kim Kardashian or someone to find some aspect of Pakistan and make this an accessory cause.
You've got to have this.
Don't know what it would be, but this is the way these things work.
Now, whether they raise any money or not doesn't matter.
The impression will be, once again, that America cares.
And that's what's, of course, at stake, right?
Not the substance, not actual results, but just the impression that we care.
I mean, we didn't care about Africa, right, till Madonna went over there and established this new fashion accessory that you had to have if you're in Hollywood.
An African baby.
Well, I mean, you can laugh at me and you can think, my gosh, Russia's.
But look how many of them followed her lead on this.
I mean, and that fad is now gone.
We need a new one because that fad has worn out.
Thomas Sowell, can Republicans talk?
This is about the fact he's worried that we might lose this tax extension debate because there aren't any Republicans who can articulate properly here to persuade people what this is all about.
This is the argument about tax cuts raising revenue.
And the simple fact of the, what Seoul wants is some Republican to say, look, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires raises money, which it does.
Tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and the rich raises money and will create jobs.
He wants a Republican in Washington in this debate to say that.
Now, admittedly, there are going to be some Republicans gun-shy about defending the rich and defending the super-rich.
I, of course, do not have that problem.
But then the question is, does what happened on this show, will it influence the outcome of what happens in this debate in Congress in Washington?
It might, but that's something we can't count on.
So, 10 words or less, how to articulate what really is going on.
We've done this for 23 years.
For example, we've made the point, this is not even about tax cuts.
Nobody's taxes are going to be cut here if the current tax rates are extended.
There are no tax cuts being discussed.
The Democrats and the media want you to think that what's on the table is tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
Nobody's taxes will be cut, regardless of what happens here.
Nobody's even suggesting tax cuts.
Soule is worried that Republicans don't even have the ability to articulate that.
Here, let me give you a couple of excerpts from his piece at the end.
He goes through and lists the facts, as I have just done here.
And he says, most important of all, these tax rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.
These are the facts.
But facts do not speak for themselves.
In terms of facts, the Republicans have a stronger case, but it doesn't matter unless they make the case, which they show little sign of doing.
Democrats already understand the need for articulation.
Robert Rice, is the only one of many articulate Democrat spokesmen.
But where are the articulate Republicans?
He asks, do they even understand how crucial articulation is?
The outcome of this lame duck session of Congress may answer that question.
Now, so far, not one Republican is off the reservation on this.
The Democrats wanted tax increases during all this, and no Republicans gone along with that.
I would also add that if a Republican does come along and properly articulate this, will we ever hear about it?
I mean, there is that component here.
Will the drive-bys ever report it?
The drive-bys are totally interested in disinformation and presenting the conventional wisdom or the cliché on this.
That this is all about tax cuts, additional tax cuts for the rich, which during an economy like ours is only going to benefit the rich, instead of saying millionaires and billionaires, also known as the people who save and create jobs.
It's not hard to say, but there is some fear.
Look at decades of pounding by the media.
We know this is what happens to Washington Republicans.
We know this is what happens.
They get pounded and pounded and pounded, lied about, misrepresented.
False associations are made, and they become queasy about speaking up.
And Sewell's frustration is, for God's sake, who just won the election?
Who just won a huge landslide?
Why are they afraid to show up and speak up?
And I understand everybody has that frustration.
I have it less than others because I have the ability to speak up.
You know, I have this, the golden EIB microphone, and I get to satisfy my frustrations.
But people who don't have a microphone are looking for others who do to speak for them.
And in elected politics, that's elected office holders, like Republicans.
And if they don't speak up on this, and people, you know, people want whatever will bring this economy around.
People want whatever will create jobs.
People are not interested here in what's going to best benefit Democrats or best benefit Republicans.
They want an economy rebounding.
Therefore, Republicans, half of the people who understand this, Paul Ryan understands it.
Eric Cantor understands it.
In fact, we've got some soundbites.
Eric Cantor, Matt Wauer, grilled Eric Cantor on this on the Today Show today.
We'll take a break and have those soundbites when we come back.
And then I want to get to this.
This is Ann Althaus, who I like.
Ann Althaus has a blog, and she has written a poll.
She's posted a piece, Julian Assange.
He's a sissy.
He's a wave purely and simply an internet creation.
That's quoting me from yesterday.
He said, that's how Rush Limbaugh talked about Julian Assange on his show yesterday.
What I'm interested in here is not Assange per se or what Limbaugh thinks of him.
I'm interested in the gratuitous disparagement of men whose looks and person style fail to track the masculine stereotype.
She's not altogether happy with this disparagement of effeminate men as effeminate.
Limbaugh, well, then she, you know, Michelle at the website, just a perfect graphic associated with this because I call Assange Peter Pan.
So she got it here as Peter Pan with his arms spread open, his Robin Hood outfit there, and Hillary Clinton.
Also doesn't like this, this masculine women stereotype that we put forth in comparison to Julian Assange as a sissy.
But anyway we'll uh, we'll get to this and i'll respond because I think.
I think what is missing here is, why do I say that?
Because i'm concerned about the chickification of things in uh in our culture, which is something that should not come as a surprise to anybody.
So uh, lots to do on the program from the Washington POST.
Today, new front opens in the war against global warming.
Co2 reductions are now tabled.
They're getting rid of that.
They're getting rid of carbon dioxide emissions.
That's gone because it hasn't worked.
Now it's on to refrigerants, methane and soot.
Those are the three new enemies that the pro-global warming crowd tends to use.
So sit tight back with much more.
Right after this, it's RUSH Limbaugh, the Excellence IN Broadcasting Network nice, to have you here, folks.
Telephone number, 800 282 2882.
Email address, Lrushbo Eibnet.com f-yi.
If we don't extend unemployment benefits, this country will be over.
Uh, it's a worse circumstance than 2008, where he needed to do the TARP bailout or else the world financial system was over.
I'm not.
I'm not kidding you, it's in the ap today, if we don't extend unemployment benefits, there won't be christmas.
All right, today's show today, Matt Wauer talking to Eric Canner.
During all the discussion about extending the Bush tax cuts.
Laures said so, no compromise there at all.
I mean, could you not see possibly raising taxes?
It's a little bit on the people who make 250 000 a year.
I mean, what is all this about?
I think that what we heard on november 2nd from the people of this country is number one.
They want to see Washington start producing results, and so i'm hoping this meeting at the White House is going to be in that direction and different from those in the past, that we can actually set aside some of the ideological extremes and come together where most Americans are.
We want to make sure that we're doing everything to get people back to work right now, and that means we've got to ensure that taxes don't go up on anybody, especially on the small businesses that we're expecting to create jobs so we can finally bring the unemployment down.
All right, so they're putting it.
A lot of hope here is invested in the meeting with Obama, hoping that it will be different from all previous meetings and it won't be.
We know who Obama is.
This meeting is being called, so Obama can try to get a good result for himself politically.
This meeting is not about saving the economy.
It's not about creating jobs.
And it certainly is not.
Obama doesn't want to extend these tax rates.
He doesn't want to do that.
He's not going to give the Republicans a chance to persuade him.
This is all for show.
This is all to make it look like he heard and noticed the election results.
But he's not going to change on any of this.
The end of the day, if the Republicans don't understand this, it's just a total waste of time.
It's going to have no impact on how this ends up.
Folks, there's not even any need for you to think about it.
We do that for you here at the EIB network.
Our telephone number 800-282-2882.
Back to the audio soundbites.
Matt Wauer berating, tempting, trying to screw up Eric Cantor here.
And of course, the notion is compromise.
Yeah, since the Republicans won big, somehow that logically translates into the fact that they, the big winners, need to somehow compromise with the vanquished.
So Wauer's question, what you're telling me, Congressman Cantor, is no compromise whatsoever on the Bush-era tax cuts.
Listen, Matt, one or two things is going to happen in January.
Either taxes go up or they stay the same.
Nobody's getting a tax cut here.
So there's no compromise or not on that particular issue.
We're just saying that we don't think tax rates should go up when we're suffering in such an economy.
All right, so Lauer's in there going, yeah, right, right, right.
We've put together a montage of Lauer's questions to Eric Cantor.
Here they are.
Are you walking into that room today in the mood for compromise or confrontation?
So no compromise there at all?
I mean, could you not see possibly raising taxes just a little bit on the people who make $250,000 a year or perhaps raise taxes a little bit on people who make over a million dollars a year?
So what you're telling me is no compromise whatsoever on the Bush-era tax cuts.
Let me try this again with you, Congressman.
Are you willing to perhaps raise the Social Security retirement age?
Are you willing to make cuts in Medicare?
Are you willing to make cuts in defense spending?
Are any of those issues on the table?
Matt, we're going to cut everything 10% across the board.
Everything.
A genuine 10% cut across the board.
Hey, Matt, you know, Michelle, my Bella First Lady, is trying to everybody stop eating.
She wants people to stop eating much more than 10% of what they eat.
If you're going to lose weight, what do you do, Matt?
You've got to stop eating.
Some people have to eat far less than 10%, have to cut more than 10% of their daily diet, man.
They live and they survive and they get healthier, don't they, Matt?
What is this notion?
Where are we going to cut?
We can cut everywhere.
It's a bottom line.
You know, this tax meeting today with Obama, it's all for show, just like this federal pay freeze is all for show.
Obama's pay freeze does not stop the in-grade seniority pay increases.
We told you yesterday there are, what, I don't know, 18 pay levels in the federal government, GS1, GS18.
I think it might be 15.
I don't care what it is.
But within every level, there are steps.
You could have somebody at GS9, step 9, making much more than somebody at GS18, step 1.
So the freeze is nobody's going to go from GS5 to GS6 or GS5, GS7, but there's no stopping them from going GS5, step 1 to step 7.
And you can still hire more people here.
There's no pay freeze.
What's been done here is permanent hires at exorbitant federal salaries have now been locked in under the guise, under the trick of a pay freeze.
There is no pay freeze.
There are no tax cuts being debated here with Obama.
Obama's not going to change his mind on anything here.
There's no, what is it, insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Now, on this pay freeze business, Congress would have to pass such a freeze before January 1st, which means the current Democrat-controlled Congress, which means it'll never be passed anyway, which means it's all for show.
This is just an announcement.
And even if it does happen, we're talking $28 billion saved over 25 or 30 years.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
It's an insult to anybody with anything larger than a pencil eraser for a brain.
And it's the same thing with this tax cut business.
And I understand Tom Soul's frustration.
This meeting ought not even be happening.
The Republicans won big.
It was a giant shellacking.
And Democrats ought to be quaking in fear.
And, you know, rather than sit here and talk about, well, well, we're kind of compromised.
They're not compromised.
You know, stick to the essential facts of this.
And what, because Saul says we own the facts, but nobody's going to know them unless we say them.
And the facts are that reducing tax, look at, we had the cigarette tax story yesterday.
Look what's happened there, which is totally predictable.
They have raised taxes on cigarettes in New York to the point there's now a black market.
They've raised taxes, and the whole point of the New York Post story was to chronicle how much revenue the state's not collecting.
They have raised taxes beyond that point where people are willing to pay.
They're willing to create crimes now, i.e., buy black market cigarettes.
They're willing to run a risk in order to not pay these exorbitant prices, which are now totally owing to these tax increases.
If they wanted to really raise revenue off of cigarettes and tobacco, they'd cut taxes.
And they would collect more revenue, by the way.
They'd sell more cigarettes and they'd cut more revenue.
But of course, that won't work because we've got to create this notion here that we think tobacco is the killer.
We want people to stop smoking.
But the last thing that any government wants is for people to stop smoking.
It's the last thing they want.
And they know people just can't.
They know we're dealing here with an addiction, and nicotine is the most addictive drug on earth.
It's not a criminal addiction, but it's still the most addictive substance on earth.
Nobody has a pleasant first experience with it, and yet they can't stop using it.
I mean, the first time somebody takes a marijuana toque hit, I guess they like it.
Some people get sick of their stomach, but they're still back at it.
But most people get, you know, some sort of mellow high, whatever it is, cocaine, heroin, all that stuff, a big, big high.
But nicotine, the first time you use that, you get a coughing spasm.
You think you're going to die.
Some people throw up and they can't wait to light the next cigarette.
That's how addictive this stuff is.
So these people know nobody's going to quit smoking.
And the objective here is not to get them to quit smoking.
That's the public pronouncement because the state, these phony baloney, plastic, banana, good time, rock and roller government people want to make you think they care about your health and they care about your welfare.
They don't give a rat's rear end about any of that.
This is all about power for themselves because they've really cared about raising revenue.
They'd lower taxes.
They same thing here on the Bush-era tax rates.
If they really wanted, if raising revenue here to reduce the deficit were really what this were all about, they would be advocating cutting taxes, particularly on the people who create jobs, the rich.
But it's not even about raising revenue.
It's not even about closing the deficit or lowering it or any of that.
It's not about that at all.
It's about class envy.
It's about class warfare politics.
It's about getting votes.
It's about pitting one group of Americans against another, which is what liberalism does.
So all of this is a waste of time to go talk to Obama about this, as it was a waste of time to go talk to Obama about health care.
There's no, you could beat him upside the head with nothing but pure logic and total sense.
It still isn't going to matter.
It's not going to penetrate.
Total waste of time.
And people are frustrated with this.
Just use the power you've got.
Right now, the Democrats still run the show here.
This is a lame duck, and it's their majority.
But they lost.
There is an opportunity there.
And people, Saul, for one, frustrated that that opportunity is not being taken care of, not being used to people's advantage.
Let me grab a quick phone call here before we go to the break.
I'm guessing you're going, yep, Hillsborough, New Hampshire.
Jeff, you're first.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Dittos.
Dittos from New Hampshire.
Thank you very much, sir.
Live free or die.
Yeah, yeah, what an honor.
You've already eloquently made this point, of course, but the people making $250,500,000, a million dollars a year are spending that money here in this country.
And people naturally want the best that they can have and spend their money on those things.
They're not shipping their money offshore, if you get my point.
Well, the point is, you're saying people always spend more than they earn.
And yes.
And therefore, your point is that at $250,000, people do not have a stack of money they're not using and they can painlessly pay increased taxes with.
They've got two kids in college.
They bought the most expensive house that they can afford.
And yes, and I'm one of those people.
I will from time to time spend.
Of course, there's a lot of us out there that spend more than 100%.
Well, of course.
Look, people who are young and on the climb always buy a car more expensive than they can afford because they know they're going to be able to down the road.
Everybody does this.
It's called debt.
But your point is right.
No matter 250 grand, people are not sitting around with a pile of money they're not using.
Oh, you want it for tax?
Fine, take it.
It doesn't exist.
You're basically saying that the human nature is people live beyond their means.
Absolutely.
I'm one of them.
Well, you're right.
You're right.
Most people do.
Wow.
Yep.
So thank you.
You bet.
I'm glad you called out there.
Thanks much.
Here's Keith, Keith in Morgantown, West Virginia.
Nice to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Megan Dittos, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
I can't disagree with how you look at animals.
Now, be very, very, very careful here.
I love animals.
Right.
Now, I was kind of curious, are your pets spayed and neutered?
My pets spayed and neutered?
Yes.
Two of them are, yes.
So, I mean, wouldn't you advocate that maybe people have their pets spayed or neutered?
It's their business, not mine.
If they want to get their pets spayed or neutered, feel free to do so.
None of my business.
Well, I mean, I understand it shouldn't be legislated that they would have to.
Well, but I don't care.
It's none of my business.
If my neighbor has a dog and they want to get it spayed, I'm not going to say don't do it.
It's none of my business what people do with their own dogs.
My philosophy is hands off our pets' bodies.
Well, what about the overpopulation of pets and so forth?
I mean, isn't that kind of disturbing at all?
No.
I mean, maybe just what you mean, do I like seeing a bunch of pets in shelters?
Well, this is not stuff that keeps me awake at night.
It is what it is.
I know that the way God created things, life is going to make sure that it procreates.
Life, I mean, look at it.
A dog is ready to have puppies in six months.
That means that whoever created the dog want that there to be a lot of them.
Well, I mean, don't we have some sort of stewardship on this, especially on our pets?
We do.
And I think a lot of people do have stewardship of their pets.
But it still is none of your business, sir, what people do with their pets.
I mean, I was gracious enough to answer your question about the productivity status of mine, but there's nothing you can say that would maybe make me feel guilty about what I've done or change what I'm going to do in the future.
There's one we're on the cusp with.
The old English sheepdog puppy Wellesley, we're at the point here.
We've got to make a decision quick.
But this dog is so cute, it looks like a punk rocker, this dog.
It might like a litter of them before we spare.
We may not.
You know, it depends on what do we want the hassle having bunch of little puppies running around throwing up on the house.
Um, these are real-life decisions that you have to make, okay.
Um, well, thanks for kind of clearing that up for me, Rush.
I'm glad to help.
You know, I'm glad to be here.
It's like, but you know, the thing about this, my pets have no clue that any of this is being done.
They don't know what being spayed is, they don't know what productivity is, they don't know whether they've been fixed or not.
You know, all they care about is: are we being nice to them, or are they eating?
They don't even know other animals exist until they run around and see one.
I was talking to Abby the other night.
Does Abby, do you know that Wellesley is an old English sheepdog, just like you?
When you look at Wellesley, do you see yourself?
Do you know it's the same kind of dog as you are?
And Abby's looking at me like it's the funniest dog face I've ever seen.
Well, you're somebody.
And I'm thinking, I'm the idiot.
She doesn't know that she's even a dog, much less an old English sheepdog.
She doesn't know anything.
She's not, she has no clue because she didn't name herself.
She didn't have the ability to name herself.
Anyway, I'm sure there is an application for this to the tax cut debate.
And if you give me five minutes, I'll find it.
You know, you can talk about spaying dogs.
You're going to be neutering dogs.
If you want fewer dogs, tax them.
It is well known that if you want less of anything, raise taxes on it.
If you want more of something, don't tax it.
So if people are worried about an overpopulation of dogs, then raise taxes on having one.
An exorbitant pet tax.
I mean, what it costs now to register your dog and inoculate it and get the proof of that.
That's nothing.
Start raising tax, like cigarette taxes.
If you put those kind of taxes on it, and then raise health care costs for dogs to the point you have to have health care insurance for dogs.
There's any number of ways to limit dog and cat population.
Speaking, we had to take Cat to the vet.
Punking had to go to the vet last week.
Vet call.
She went in for checkup, blood samples, took her home, vet calls.
You better get her back here quick.
We got a bad situation here.
She had some toxin that got into her liver and her enzymes are way high.
She's still there.
We might get her back today or tomorrow.
You worry the cat's 13 years old, but she's showing no signs of the age.
Got a great vet, and we'll probably get pumpkin back, hopefully today, maybe tomorrow.
But these two old English sheepdogs, I mean, they're hilarious.
This puppy, which is now eight months old, Wellesley, looks like a punk rocker with the hair on top of the head.
It's just, they're just hilarious.
But they've never once spoken to us about being spayed.
They're both females.
Abby has been spayed and so far has not expressed any anger about it, nor has she told us that she's happy about it.
To the best of my knowledge, she doesn't know that she's been spayed.
Now, Wellesley is another matter.
We don't know, you know, because Catherine loves these dogs and is tempted with the idea of having a litter of these little things running around.
But the dogs don't know any of this.
No, they don't, Snirdly.
Boy dogs do not know when they've been tampered with.
They haven't the slightest idea.
Unless if you do it without anesthesia, they'll know.
But if you knock them out, they have no clue.
This is, I can't tell you the number of people that get irritated.
I have learned how fun and easy it is to irritate people.
And all I have to do is say something like, does a fish even know it's wet?
Does a fish know it's in water?
You would not believe a number of people who get ticked off at that kind of thing.
Now, that's just the essence and epitome of reality.
Just to show you some people can't deal with that.
Well, here's a shock.
Obama saying he didn't reach any agreements in a White House meeting today on tax rate code.
Whoa, who could believe that?
They didn't reach any agreement whatsoever.
▲
Export Selection