How dare you say that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama want people unskilled and dependent for crying out loud about the only thing that's going to grow the Democrat Party is unemployment.
The only thing unemployment stimulates is a Democrat Party, pure and simple.
I can't say it any plainer.
They hit you right between the eyes with it.
Unemployment stimulates the Democrat Party.
Unemployment grows Democrat voters.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
Look, everything since 1965, every Democrat welfare initiative, folks, has been to grow a bigger and bigger crop of Democrat voters who are dependent on the government.
Europe has had a permanent underclass for a long time.
That's why the communist socialist base is so tremendously strong in Europe and has been since World War I.
The whole point of these social welfare programs is to create more Democrats.
Because that's who these people end up depending on for what meager existence they end up with.
Now, the Democrats in the United States have wanted to accomplish that here, a permanent, growing underclass.
And they've been working on it since 1965.
And they're well on their way to accomplishing it.
This is why the numbers are what they are.
There's five to six, maybe ten years to stop this and turn this around.
Look at every initiative.
Welfare in general, money for not working, food stamps, making it even more painless not to work, and more money for each child, aid to women with dependent children, more money for every child, a substantial amount of money per child, and a disincentive to get married.
The Democrats in this country have wanted to accomplish all of that here.
They've been working on it steadily and steadily and steadily.
And now they're trying to create more government dependency from the middle class with endless unemployment benefits.
Nobody in their right mind, nobody daring to be honest with you would tell you that extending unemployment benefits is going to grow employment.
Nobody in their right mind would tell you that unemployment benefits and their extension is stimulative to the economy, yet they do.
And the only way they can say this is if, you know, under their breath, behind closed doors, they say stimulus for our economy, meaning for our party.
Let's go back to Bernanke here and his four to five years to lower unemployment.
He said something very interesting here.
Well, you're absolutely right.
Between the peak and the end of last year, we lost 8.5 million jobs.
We've only gotten about a million of them back so far.
And that doesn't even account that the new people are coming into the labor force.
At the rate we're going, it could be four or five years before we are back to a more normal unemployment rate somewhere in the vicinity of, say, 5% or 6%.
Ain't no way.
But we've only gotten about a million of them back so far.
I thought Bite Me and Obama out there saying they saved or created 3 million jobs, right?
And here's Bernanke.
We've only gotten about a million of them back.
What happened to those 3 million that Obama created?
Now run the numbers on this.
If we create 200,000 jobs a year, And in November, we created 39,000.
I mean, you could take it up to 500,000 a year, but if we create 200,000 jobs a year, that's five years for a million jobs, is it not?
That doesn't count, as he says, people entering the workforce.
So five years to create a million jobs.
We've lost eight to ten million jobs.
I mean, you run the numbers here.
It doesn't happen five or six years.
But by the way, an economy creating that many jobs, I mean, it's got to be cooking.
In a million jobs a year, that's seven years.
And we're, but it didn't, it's, it's, it's a, it's a dire circumstance.
It really is.
But do you see anybody reacting that way?
Is anybody reacting as though it's dire?
No, what are we doing?
We're not trying to put people back to work.
We're extending unemployment benefits.
And at the same time, you know, Obama's out there trying to prevent extending current tax rates, which themselves are stimulative.
Since we're not talking about stimulating the same thing Obama is.
He's trying to stimulate the Democrat Party while at the same time stimulating the decline of the United States.
Here's more Bernanke.
Scott Pelley said, well, some people think that the $600 billion, this is the quantitative easing too.
Some people think that's just a terrible idea, essentially printing all that money.
What I think they're doing is they're looking at some of the risks and uncertainties associated with doing this policy action.
What I think they're not doing is looking at the risk of not acting.
This fear of inflation, I think, is way overstated.
We've looked at it very, very carefully.
We've analyzed it every which way.
One myth that's out there is that what we're doing is printing money.
We're not printing money.
What we're doing is lowering interest rates by buying Treasury securities.
And by lowering interest rates, we hope to stimulate the economy to grow faster.
Yeah, it hasn't worked yet.
Fear of inflation overstated.
That's the Fed chairman.
Retail gasoline pump prices have hit a 26-month high.
Now, of course, Obama's drilling moratorium had nothing to do with that.
But isn't it Christmas time?
And look at this from CNN.
Motorists could see $3 gasoline at the pumps by Christmas.
Well, a lot of it's the dollar, but it doesn't matter.
When people pay the $3, they're not going to care why.
It's still going to be $3.
Merry Christmas.
And Congress is talking about upping the gas tax.
Barrowing a steep drop in crude prices, U.S. motorists can expect to see gasoline prices exceeding $3 a gallon if they're not seeing such prices already.
According to a new survey of filling stations, the retail margin for retail is less than 6 cents per gallon.
Retailers have to raise prices at the pump to make up for their own price increase, the wholesale price.
He says they're not printing money, but if they're not, where's the money coming from to buy $600 billion of debt?
It's just laying around in a closet at the Fed.
Where is this money coming to buy these treasuries?
I mean, that's just, that's just a question from an average ordinary guy who doesn't understand all this stuff all the time.
Where they get the money.
Here's Obama.
He's in Winston-Salem, North Carolina at the Forsyth Technical Community College.
He went a speech out there.
And here's, we got three sunbites.
Here's the first of three soundbites of what he said.
Republicans want to make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
I have argued that we can't afford it right now.
But what I've also said is we've got to find consensus here because a middle-class tax hike would be very tough, not only on working families, it would also be a drag on our economy at this moment.
So I believe we should keep in place tax cuts for workers and small businesses that are set to expire.
We've got to make sure that we're coming up with a solution, even if it's not 100% of what I want or what the Republicans want.
This is another thing, this idea that tax cuts for certain Americans stimulate the economy, but tax cuts for other Americans don't.
How does that work?
Now, here he is talking about, well, he just doesn't get it, folks.
It's just not in his DNA.
We are the home of the world's best universities, the best research facilities, the most brilliant scientists, the brightest minds, some of the hardest working, most entrepreneurial people on earth right here in America.
It's in our DNA.
Think about it.
People came from all over the world to live here in the United States.
That's been our history.
And those were the go-getters, the risk-takers who came here.
The folks who didn't want to take risks, they stayed back home, right?
What in the world is he trying to say?
What in the world is he talking?
He's trying to define, I guess, American exceptionalism.
He's trying to say this is what it is to him.
A bunch of go-getters moved here.
And the people who wouldn't want to take risks didn't come here.
It's capitalism and freedom that define American exceptionalism.
He just, he talks about DNA.
It's just not in his.
And now he lectures Americans on borrowing.
This guy lectures Americans on borrowing.
So 50 years later, our generation's Sputnik moment is back.
This is our moment.
If the recession has taught us anything, it's that we cannot go back to an economy that's driven by too much spending, too much borrowing, running up credit cards, taking out a lot of home equity loans, pay-per-profits that are built on financial speculation.
We've got to rebuild on a new and stronger foundation for economic growth.
We need to do what America has always been known for, building, innovating, educating, making things.
We don't want to be a nation that simply buys and consumes products from other countries.
We want to create and sell products all over the world that are stamped with three simple words, made in America.
This guy has borrowed and spent all the money he lectures.
A Sputnik moment?
Fitting if he would describe some communist event, talk about it.
Checking the email again.
People want me to elaborate here on this five to six, 10 years to turn it around.
Something, let me elaborate on this.
I mentioned that we have, if you look at a pie chart of the budget, if you look at discretionary spending, there's not very much of that.
Discretionary means we have our choice about it.
The mandatory spend, the entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, all those things that are said to be unchangeable are going to have to be changed.
Now, you look to give you the things that Minnesota, the governor there, Tim Polinti, went to the mat with bus drivers over a they went on strike, and the bus drivers in Minneapolis were demanding that after 15 years of service, they got health care and pension or something like that for the rest of their lives.
I think he broke the union in opposing this.
That kind of stuff is unsustainable.
It can't happen because the people who are paying that are the citizens of the country.
And the citizens of the country are paying these public employees more than they make.
You go to California, Illinois, New York with all these unfunded or underfunded pension requirements.
None of this is real.
None of this can happen.
We don't have the money for it.
It's simply, it is not logical.
The problem is these deals have been made.
We don't have the money for it.
We don't have the money to continue to spend what we're spending on Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security.
We just don't.
Now, Social Security started with FDR under an entirely different premise than what we have today.
It started much smaller.
It was to be supplemental.
Now look what it's become.
It can't be sustained this way.
These are the things that are going to have to be dealt with, but not by some blue-ribbon commission of old has-bins that have no skin in the game.
I mean, these elected officials are going to have to have the guts and the courage to do this themselves.
And they're going to have to do it relatively quickly or we're going to lose control over it.
It just, you can't pay people not to do anything.
And you can't pay people.
How many of you have a job where when you quit, first place, all you have to do is work 15 or 20 years at the place, and then you get a pension of 70 to 80% of what you earned, plus your health care for the rest of your life?
It just doesn't happen because it's not sustainable.
And the places, businesses like automobile companies that have made these deals, look what they're doing.
They're offloading the pension plans of the government, which is us.
The taxpayers, these kinds of things are going to have to be dealt with.
You look at Bush.
Bush tried after his victory in 2004 to spend some political capital on Social Security reform.
And nobody was ready for it at the time.
I think they could have done a better job of selling it.
You know, you have a program called Social Security, and then you put the word privatize in there, which allows Democrats to demagogue the upward and downward movement of the stock market.
You had very little chance of getting it passed, but it was the guts of the plan were as sensible as anything I've ever heard.
Made perfect total sense.
And it would have ended up with every Social Security recipient having a larger benefit at the end of the day than leaving it in the government's hands totally.
And it was yours.
I mean, you kept some of it, invested in it in a private sector account.
It would grow much faster than so-called gross in Social Security.
And it ended up being yours, but it was demagogued.
Why?
Why are the Democrats opposed to fixing it?
Because that tampers with the number of Democrats there will be.
The more self-reliant people there are, the fewer Democrats you'll end up having.
Pure and simple.
But these things, folks, are going to have to be dealt with.
Nothing is going to is for this to get righted, nothing is going to be off the table.
Nothing should be.
You could do 10% across the board, virtually everything.
There are certain things you could eliminate.
For example, there are things we can't afford.
Cut them.
Just cut them.
Going to have to at some point.
We either cut them or they don't get paid out.
But one way or the other, when you don't have the money, it isn't going to be there.
And printing it, QE2, QE345, what have you, is not a solution to the problem.
Why don't we ever hear about how many jobs are going to be lost if the rich have to pay higher taxes?
We always hear about how many jobs created if the government does this or government does that.
But people who own businesses, you've heard them, they call here all the time.
They'll sell their yacht and they will cut payroll.
But whatever else they have to do, they will cut payroll.
Now, keeping the current tax rates in place as opposed to raising taxes will do a hell of a lot more to keep this economy from slipping into a depression and a Democrat's phony stimulus bill because it'll provide some certainty and some confidence.
And people will be able to know whatever the temporary nature of these tax rates is, whatever it is, they'll be able to start making some plans.
Right now, nobody knows what the hell's coming.
And with this guy, you don't know what's going to get reneged on anyway.
But they are serious, serious problems.
And the length of time here that we have to deal with it is shrinking.
Why don't we see any polling of the business community?
Ask how many employees they have had to lay off to pay their taxes.
I would love to see that poll.
How many of you had to lay off employees in order to pay your state and federal taxes and every other payroll, workers' comp, whatever it was?
We get polls about everything under the sun, but why not that?
How many jobs have you fired, have eliminated at your business in order to pay taxes?
Oh, what a poll that would be.
Denver, North Carolina.
Carmen, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Josh, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I had a quick comment.
You've sort of been addressing this along the way.
I think you've kind of made my comment for me, but I'll make it anyway.
Good.
I think if you view how Democrats legislate and make decisions in terms of how many votes they think they can secure, extending tax cuts for everyone seems to be tacit agreement on their end with our position that a tax increase in this economy would be bad for everyone.
I think this for one reason in particular, they've been telling us forever that the tax cuts that Bush gave were for the rich and it's only the top 2 or 3 percent who get the benefit of these tax cuts.
But if they lost that 2 percent, say totally in terms of vote, they really wouldn't lose sleep over that.
I think if that 2 percent trickles down into affecting 40 percent or more in the economy affecting those people, then they have a problem.
So what you've been saying sort of goes the other way, though.
You've been saying that you think they want people to be dependent on government.
I do believe that.
But I guess my question then becomes, in addition to my comment, if you don't mind me asking a question, which side do you think they'll fall on then?
Do you think they'll let the economic reality that bleeds into the political reality win the day?
Or do you think that they'll take the ideological stand and not really give a crap what happens to the rest of us?
Well, I'm going to need some additional time to answer this question at a break coming up in five seconds.
But there's another alternative that you haven't mentioned that takes priority over either of those.
I'll mention it when we come back.
There is another priority, in addition to the two our previous caller from Denver, North Carolina, only Snerdley could find a call from Denver, North Carolina.
I didn't even know there was a Denver, North Carolina.
At any rate, that is getting elected.
Before they can wreak this damage, they have to have the power to do it.
They got shellacked.
Now, look, if they are willing to compromise, and of course they're making a big, big voice deal out of hating it, but they are the majority.
They do not have to go along with this extending of the Bush tax rates.
And if you listen to their rhetoric, their rhetoric is that these tax rates for the rich are counterproductive.
If you listen to what they say and take them at their word, only tax cuts for the middle class grow the economy.
Giving the rich more and letting them keep more doesn't help anybody but the rich.
Doesn't grow the economy.
Now, they profess to want to grow the economy.
That's what they claim.
If they really believed that extending tax rates, current tax rates for the rich, was going to be destructive, then they wouldn't do it because the economy in 2012 is still going to be theirs because it's going to be Obama that's in the White House.
In fact, this is something folks to get prepared for here.
What Obama knows is, is that what the Democrats know is that extending these tax rates is going to benefit the economy.
The Republicans, on the one hand, are going to get blamed for this.
On the other hand, Obama is going to get the credit if the economy rebounds, which it will at some point, if he is still in the oval orifice.
Get ready for that.
The media can't wait to write that story.
So the real question is, what do we want?
Do we want what's best for us politically, which would be Obama continuing to be mired and troubled, or do we want what's best for the people of the country?
We want what's best for the people of the country who'll deal with Obama on another matter.
Democrats, if they really believed that maintaining tax rates for the rich was going to harm the economy, if that was something that they firmly believed, they wouldn't cave on this.
And by the way, what does Obama have to do with this anyway?
Obama, this is not really.
What's he have to do with it?
Congress writes tax laws, so if the Democrats want to stop this, they can do it.
I know he promised the liberals he's going to put an end to all this stuff, but my point is at the end of the day, they know this is going to help the economy.
They know that what they believe is deleterious for the economy.
It's just that they like that.
Having the economy in bad shape grows Democrats.
Putting more people on unemployment grows the Democrat Party, creating depend.
That's been their agenda since 1965, even longer than that.
They, folks, the modern-day Democrat Party does nothing but lie, mislead, camouflage, mask itself.
Obama should not have any negotiation role in this deal.
The White House has no role in taxing, according to the Constitution.
Now, you can veto it or sign it, but they don't have to bring Obama in on this.
And if the Democrats really cared about the unemployed, they wouldn't tax their benefits, would they?
You know, unemployment benefits are taxed.
Social Security benefits are taxed.
Who raised taxes on the unemployed and Social Security resilience?
The Democrats did.
It's a relatively new phenomenon, too.
They can't help themselves.
They have to wring taxes out of everybody.
But Obama really has nothing to do with the negotiation.
At the end of the day, he doesn't have to have a role in it.
But they want him to have a role in it because they want Obama to be perceived as the power broker here, the guy around whom all these decisions are made, good or bad, because they can't afford to have him, the office diminished any more than it already is.
So they've got them.
So they're in a noose here.
They're in a noose, folks.
They got shellacked.
They're in a total.
They are the majority.
If they didn't want to extend these tax rates, they wouldn't.
They make the Republicans come back and start anew and do it all over again next year with Obama ready to veto it.
They could stop this from happening.
Why are they compromising?
That's why all these libs are going crazy over this cave.
Why are they compromising?
It's because they can read the tea leaves and they have more.
They got a lot of Senate seats exposed up for re-election in 2012.
And before they can do anything else, they have to get elected.
That's their job.
First priority is to get elected.
Wrecking the country comes after that happens.
You can only wreck the country if you have the power to do it.
I don't care if noose is a hate crime.
I'm going to say the noose.
They're in one, and they made it.
And here's Linda in the villages, Florida.
Nice to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Did us rush?
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Obama's had another disaster other than the economy that he screwed up.
The Gulf Oil Spill.
Yeah.
He did.
See, now, from your perspective and mine, he screwed up, but not from his.
If he wants to wreak havoc on the domestic oil business, he's had a very successful maneuver here.
Well, that's true, and I'm sure that was the point.
There's still a moratorium on drilling.
He's extended it.
That's why I say, you know, talking to Mark Halperin, Mark, you got to, you know, I'm sure Obama would read your piece and say, what am I doing wrong here?
I've got 70% of my agenda already accomplished in two years.
What more do you want?
I guarantee you, if we had won the White House in 2008 and in two years implemented as much of our agenda as Obama has of his, we would be throwing parties left and right.
We've been talking about that kind of progress not being possible.
It's just that Obama's interests don't dovetail with ours.
They don't dovetail with the nations at large.
This is a guy who's trying to, when he talks about transform the country, he means it.
Folks, if you're like me, you got a lot of pictures, hundreds of them.
And the numbers are growing each and every day with the ease of taking pictures, the ease of transferring them to your computer.
Everything that's important to you photo-wise is on your computer.
And you're going to be adding holiday pictures.
Probably started already with Thanksgiving.
Here comes Christmas now.
And then if you haven't come to grips with this, it's time to come to grips with you.
Going to lose them.
Your computer, particularly, well, your computer is going to go south.
Your hard drive is going to freeze.
Somebody's going to spill something on it.
Somebody's going to steal it.
And then you're out if you haven't backed up.
And a lot of people who are new to the computer thing don't even understand backing up.
Well, I don't have to back up my TV or my dishwasher.
Why do I have to?
Believe me, there are people like that.
I've given some people some engraved EIB engraved iPads, and they're stumped with connecting it to iTunes.
Well, what is that?
Well, you can't use it unless you connect it to iTunes.
Well, what's iTunes?
So there's a lot of, if it's a burgeoning thing, there's still a lot of ignorance out there.
And backing up computers is something people still, some people are not up to speed with.
But it's very simple to back up.
It's called Carbonite Online Backup, and it's off-site.
So every time you're connected to the internet, which for me is all the time, your computer's backing up.
And then when that inevitable failure happens, you don't have to worry because your files are restorable.
And it doesn't cost very much money.
In fact, you can access all of those backed up files from your iPad, your iPhone, your BlackBerry if you just get a free app.
Unlimited backup for your PC or your Mac is just $55 a year at Carbonite.com.
That's only 15 cents a day.
And it's even less than that if you end up buying after your 15-day free trial because then you get two free months.
That's if you use my name.
My name is valuable in so many ways, you can't even calculate it.
Bottom line here is back it up and get it back at carbonite.com.
And remember, offer code RUSH.
Hey, Snurdley, can you remember the first time I said on this program that environmentalism had nothing to do with the climate and everything to do?
When was the first time I said that environmentalism, militant environmentalism was the new home for displaced communists?
It had to be back during the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It had to be around 1990 or 91.
So we'll figure 20 years ago.
Now, this is what being in the cutting.
What?
Well, that's right.
1991, the Berlin Wall came down right after Gorbachev.
When I said that militant environmentalism has nothing to do with the climate, it has nothing to do with green trees and all this clean water garbage.
It's the new home of displaced communists, right?
Well, there's a website out there called What's Up With That?
W-A-T-T-S.
What's up with that?
More on the Wikileaks climate cables.
It turns out that there are a bunch of cables that have to do with climate change in the WikiLeaks dump.
And a number of them prove my point.
Reading through the few Wikileaks cables related to climate, the tip of the iceberg becomes visible.
The most interesting seems to involve the usual pressure related to top-level nominations.
In this case, the nomination for the IPCC Group 2 organization comes to light for their Nobel Prize nomination and Al Gore's nomination.
The original cable is still not known, but it's said to state that Christopher Field had no opposition.
The other proposed position for co-chair, Mustafa Jafari, an Iranian scientist, was not acceptable, although a qualified scientist.
The cable states that Rajendra Peccari, a Pachari, the head of the IPCC, promised background collaboration and non-identification of the U.S. pressures.
The Austrian delegate, which led the selection process, also agreed to veto this Jafari guy.
In other cables, it is seeing the unreal demands being made by some countries in the world.
The developed countries, pressured by alarmists, are falling all over themselves to browbeat them into taking money to go along with a plan to give them more money.
This is all about climate change.
It's all about Copenhagen and it's all about Cancun, all about all of these various seminars and meetings around the world that they've had.
And the last paragraph of this post is what really strikes us is the fact these guys are stunned to learn what's in the cables.
What really strikes us is the fact that all this Copenhagen Cancun stuff has nothing to do with the climate or saving the world.
It's about political positioning, money, and plain old fascism cult promotion.
But as referred before, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
More is to come.
I wouldn't be surprised if we're going to be answered about who was behind ClimateGate or who was behind Al Gore's Nobel nomination or the facts behind all the IPCC mess.
Stay tuned.
So these cables, and there's some on the climate.
In fact, the UK Guardian has a piece, WikiLeaks cables reveal how U.S. manipulated climate accord.
Now, I think these guys at the Guardian totally misunderstand what they're reading.
It's written by Damien Carrington.
Hidden behind the save the world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky real politic, money and threats by political support.
Spying and cyber warfare are used to seek out leverage.
The U.S. diplomatic cables reveal how the U.S. seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming.
How financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing.
How distrust, broken promises, and creative accounting dog the negotiations.
And how the U.S. mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial Copenhagen Accord, the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009.
Now, The Guardian, if you read this, and you know, they're a bunch of leftists.
The Guardian seems to believe that Obama, the regime, was trying to limit the Copenhagen Accord and thereby hurt the global warming movement.
But there isn't a lot of evidence.
In fact, the evidence is just the opposite in these cables.
Now, what is the Obama position on global warming?
What is it?
They believe that we are destroying the climate, that America is playing a lead role in this with all of our industrialization and our bigness, our superpower status, that we alone, among nations, are contributing greater to the destruction of the climate.
And so these cables talk about how the U.S. is browbeating other nations into going along with our view of things.
Now, The Guardian thinks our view of things is to downplay Copenhagen.
Now, that was Bush, but Bush didn't go to Copenhagen.
Copenhagen happened with Obama.
So once again, folks, cutting edge of societal evolution.
And I had no evidence.
I have no evidence.
All I had was full knowledge of liberals, how they operate, what they think, and how they go about implementing their beliefs.
And I know for a fact That global warming, climate change, whatever term they attach to it, is nothing more than an attempt to create socialist nations as far around the world as they can and to separate us from our money.
That's all it is.
And now the whole thing's been exposed as a full-fledged 100% fraud.
Speaking of this, this is from Edinburgh, Scotland.
Children have been banned from playing in the snow during recess at city scruples due to health and safety fears.
Pupils in some primaries have been kept inside during their morning and lunchtime breaks since the scruples reopened on Wednesday.
Unstated here is a record cold winter in the UK.
The decision to, no, it's not jackets, it's no helmets for the little sled riders.
They're afraid they'll sled, they'll run into trees, or maybe the sleds will go too fast and they'll turn over.
I remember, my gosh, my parents gave my brother and me a flexible flyer one year for Christmas.
I mean, that was, the flexible flyer was, I mean, that was the gold standard in sleds.
Big, long, flexible.
We prayed for snow.
We went up to the top of the hill where the hospital was, went down that hill, and I mean, the hill ended at a street, a sidewalk in a street.
And there wasn't anybody out there making sure we didn't hit into the street.
We were smart enough not to let the sled go into the street.
And now in Scotland, I can't wait to let these little twerps go out and use their sleds anymore because it's just overall too dangerous.
It's just out there.
We are wimpifying this whole world.
We just are.
Got a quick time out here, folks.
Back after this.
Some towns in upstate New York have actually outlawed the flexible flyer sled because they're afraid the little kiddies will run over their fingers.
Yep.
That's right.
They'll put their fingers down too far over the side and they'll run over their fingers and their hands with the blades of the sled.