All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 13, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:57
December 13, 2010, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That is exactly right.
If anybody's passing out game balls, I deserve one for that phone call with Tony.
And don't, no, no, don't misunderstand.
Tony's a great guy.
This guy, he's a he's a sharp football fan.
There aren't too many people that know, or who have figured out right now that if there is no football next year, it's going to be because the players strike.
And that's gonna if if that's I don't think there's gonna be a work stoppage anyway.
I'm this debacle in Minnesota is one of the reasons why.
I mean, look at the mess.
One snowfall caused.
Some guy in the Wall Street Journal has a great point about this.
Of all the things that have happened.
Snow in Minneapolis prevents a game from being played in the NFL.
Of all, who would have ever, ever thought that?
Back in the old ball yard in Minneapolis, Bloomington Stadium, Metropolitan Stadium, They played outdoors.
I mean, it was the biggest advantage the Vikings ever had.
They built this dome in '82.
They played inside ever since.
So here, snow in Minneapolis kills a football game.
Oh, we can't play over at the college stadium.
The wind chills too.
Oh, we can't.
Why there's no the Giants didn't bring their cold weather gear.
Well, you got 36 hours to fly it in there.
Well, no, a wind chill, too.
Right across the state in Illinois, they're playing in a blizzard.
We can't play outdoors in Minnesota.
No, no, no way.
So we gotta go to Detroit to play the game.
There isn't gonna be a uh work stoppage.
Anyway, it's just all this is posture.
There's too much money out there in a very, very rotten economy that's not going to improve that much by the time next season comes along.
What this is all about is playing 18 games in a regular season, and once they figure out a way to satisfy the players with more roster spots, figure out a way to make the players think they're getting more money for playing two additional games that count.
I mean, they already play 20 games a season with the uh the the starters playing two preseason games anyway.
We're gonna count those now.
So it'll it's gonna get done.
These people are not that stupid.
They're not that this dwell, now wait a minute, I say that, but the liberals all over this country willing to kill a golden goose that's America.
So I don't know.
I just I look at it and it just can't be.
All this posturing right now is exactly what you would expect.
The first real deadlines, not until March.
And the second real deadline is not till you get to August.
And everybody knows things like this don't get done until the real deadlines get close.
That's when that's when both sides will show ultimately what they're willing to lose and give up.
And uh, and not before then.
Could be I could even be done before that, I think, before next August.
But if it does happen, and if the if the players decertify, which they have, I mean, they've voted to decertify the union, every team's voted to do this.
Well, then they have to strike if there's no playing.
Owners can't lock out a union that doesn't exist.
And that's excuse me where everybody said, but I just I really have to agree with this Wall Street Journal reporter.
It is laughable that snow cancels a game in Minnesota.
Stop and think of that.
Minnesota prides itself, Minneapolis, on having its winter carnival.
They live outside during the winter.
They've made a they have to.
It's their life.
Anyway, Landmark Legal Foundation has released a statement on the federal judge, Henry Hudson today, ruling Obamacare is unconstitutional.
The statement says Judge Hudson ruled against the Obama regime on three essential points involving Obamacare.
Number one, individuals who do not actively participate in commerce, that is, who do not voluntarily buy health insurance, cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the U.S. Constitution Commerce Clause.
And there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise.
Number two, the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers.
And number three, the judge said there is a difference between a tax and a penalty.
There is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax, as the regime argues, but a penalty, and therefore is unconstitutional for it's applied to individuals, for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.
Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama administration and four, the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still have meaning.
Landmark legal foundations filed several amicus briefs in this case at the request of the Commonwealth and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.
Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.
Landmark legal president Mark R. F. Lee Levin declared it is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry, including those in Rio Linda.
Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad.
General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this matter.
We look forward to continuing to work with him.
So three essential reasons uh to herald the judge's findings, and they are solid, and they are constitutional in scope, not political, as the Democrat judges have found uh in saying the uh the deal is constitution.
Yeah, I got a fourth circuit.
This this case.
Florida has its own.
There are there are other courts which will probably under the under the under the uh uh auspices of a different circuit, but this will go to the Fourth Circuit, and they'll all end up probably as one, I don't know about that, but they'll all end up at the Supreme Court at some point.
When is the key?
When is the key?
Now, as as far as the Republicans are concerned, politically, they have got to start immediately on the effort to repeal this.
They must start, knowing full well that Obama is at first going to veto, and probably the votes will not be their override.
But I don't buy this argument that down the road, look at if if Democrats can be this panicked over taxes for reelection, who's to say we can't get them on board for a repeal of this?
Because nobody wants this.
The polling data on this far, far more damaging than the polling data on this tax business.
Actually, it's about equal, two-thirds.
Two-thirds of the people don't want this the tax cuts to expire, and two-thirds don't like health care.
So that's they've got to act fast.
They got to get going before 2012 on this.
Also, they got to get going before some of the freebies by law are implemented because the Obama strategy on this is very simple.
Remember Obama said when he heard Republicans are going to try to repeal, he said, go on, go for it.
What he's counting on is enough of the freebies, the perception of free health care or free this or existing coverage, pre-existing coverage.
As much of that gets implemented as possible.
Then if the Republicans come along and want to repeal it, the Democrats can say they want to take away your health care.
Just like they've always said Republicans want to take away your social security, so there's no time to lose in starting to fight for the re repeal of this.
And I know I'm I'm probably whistling Dixie here because they're going to do, you know, I'm I've even got people leaving me, you better talk to Larry Cudlow.
Larry Cudlow says it's 90% tax cuts and 10% spending.
There aren't any tax cuts.
By the way, uh Brian need to ask you your professional observance here.
As I'm getting emails, I don't know if it's one person complaining ten times or five people complaining twice, but they say they can hear me pounding my desk when I speak.
Like, can you hear this right now when I'm pounding?
Can you hear that?
Can you hear it when I'm speaking?
Or only when I'm not?
You can hear just a little win when I'm speaking or when I'm not speaking.
When I'm not speaking, you can hear it when I'm speaking.
Can you hear this at all?
Okay, is it is it enough to make you turn off the radio or is it irritating to you?
Well, I know I've always done this for 23 years, but these people are claiming it's driving them nuts and they're going insane.
Very soft.
I know it's not it's not.
It's not that.
But it's a you know, sometimes I sit here, I have my nervous energy.
It's just it's it's difficult to explain to you the feeling, the energy, um of being right and pounding that home to everybody.
You know, it just it just it's uh I know it's something that not everybody can identify with.
I'm gonna go out and see if I can buy a um you know a miniature coffin.
And I'm gonna send out to Tony to bury his team this season, the New York Jets.
Tony in Tampa.
I'm just having fun with it, snerdily.
That's cold.
Well, his coach is burying game balls.
Uh Rex Ryan burying burying game balls.
He buried the game ball after the Patriots game, and uh somebody in a New York tabloid said today they're gonna run out of real estate to bury balls at the Jets headquarters if this keeps up.
Here's uh here's Richard in Arlington, Texas.
Richard, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, Rosh.
I've listened to you for your couple of decades.
Thank you very much, sir.
Appreciate that.
Uh this tax proposal that's uh being considered, they were talking about a two percent uh pass on Social Security.
Uh that's gonna really have a negative effect on people who are, say, about sixty and above, who are approaching the time when they're gonna be looking at the Social Security benefits.
Well uh uh are you assuming that the two percent payroll cut the payroll tax cut for one year will result in less benefits to recipient?
Yes, it will, because when you go into uh sign up for your benefit, they will look at your uh payments.
Payments have been made on your behalf, and it's like an annuity.
Is that right?
Is what now I I did not think that they would be that petty.
Oh, yeah, it's in the rules.
It used to be well the more you paid in uh the more you'd get, and it was the most that you paid uh over a like an eight-quarter deal.
Uh the over, you know, uh highest couple of years.
You know, if you're if you're under under these last couple of state if you're right last five years.
If you're right, this is a great point, though.
This is gonna save the federal government billions.
Thing myself.
Well, I mean because they get to do a double whammy here.
They get they get to reduce people's taxes, and then when those people retire, oh g guess remember that tax cut you got twenty years ago?
Well, your benefits are gonna be reduced by uh two.
A couple of decades.
Yeah.
So you get four hundred dollars a year break this year, and it's gonna cost you ten thousand dollars over your retired years.
Yeah, that's right.
If you're depending on them, that's absolutely true.
And uh gonna look into it.
We gotta find this out.
I'm gonna find this out because this is this is uh for one, it's fascinating, it's interesting to me.
If this two percent cut for one year will actually result in a reduced benefit payment for everybody who gets the cut.
For everybody who gets the cut who qualif who who goes in to put in for Social Security uh in the next five years.
Yeah.
People who are 60 and 61 to 65, that kind of thing.
And so it's those folks like myself who've been paying into Social Security for 45 years, thinking that, hey, I'm gonna get a check.
And they used to send us uh a statement that said uh, you know, you're gonna get the next three thousand dollars a month because you've been paying in a lot.
And then they send a note saying, Well, we're gonna pay a couple thousand dollars a year because um we're only gonna use the last couple years.
Right.
What's your what's your favorite football team, Richard?
The cowboys?
He used to be.
I'm looking for one.
I maybe that Tony guy could suggest somebody.
Yeah.
You know what I think?
Maybe you could have him as a as a guest host, and then he could look behind the curtain and see what the powers of a liberty.
Maybe you can speak a little bit.
No, that that that he might he might be a good host, but that that wouldn't tell him what I couldn't tell him.
He wouldn't learn that simply by being might learn other things, but he wouldn't he wouldn't learn that.
Anyway, Richard, thanks for the uh for the call.
I appreciate it.
This is Keith in North Palm Beach, Florida.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hey, good afternoon, Russ.
Uh while I was holding, I heard you talking about a giants.
I'm a Giants fan.
I have to agree with you.
The Meadowlands has no roof, so I don't know what the problem is.
But I wanted to make a comment about no labels.
Um I'm a conservative libertarian, and at first I was pretty skeptical about this site, but having now been a member of it for a month, it actually goes back before the election, a few months.
Uh there's a lot of Republicans, conservatives on there.
They're just tired of the uh the hyperpolarization, the name call and all that.
They just want stuff to get done.
So I wanted to make sure I don't know if you were aware of that.
Oh.
Republicans tired of polarization?
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm I'm gonna people, you know.
Uh yeah.
I've well, I'm aware of that.
It's it's not as many as you would think, but I'm aware of it, yeah.
Well, I mean, because I, you know, we go on there every day, and I talk to a lot of people, it covers a lot.
I mean, you got Republicans on there, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, I mean, whatever you want to call them, and that's really the point of this organization is to get rid of labels so that we can get stuff done and work together instead of this constant, constant gridlock.
Like uh, I mean, what do you think about this tax card compromise?
Oh, wait, now are you asking me?
Yeah, with them saying, oh, the Republicans are holding us hostage and all that.
I mean, what do you think of that?
You think that's effective?
Is that going to help anybody?
Now, I'm I'm not sure what you're asking me.
Are you asking me if the Republicans if if saying the Republicans are holding us hostage is is helpful?
Or if you are saying that you think the Republicans are holding us hostage and that's a w which No, I'm not saying anybody, I'm not saying anything.
I I I'm not saying Republicans don't make sure I'm talking about the other side making, you know, that statement, you know, that I think the President Obama himself said that, right?
Yeah, he did.
He did.
And so I mean, do you really think that helps this debate at all?
No, but it's typical.
I laugh it off.
It's something about it's somebody to make a joke of to me.
I don't know, I live in I'm sorry, go ahead.
But no, the reason I'm confused, you started out talking.
There are a lot of Republicans who think that there's too much partisanship and they and uh the uh they just want to get things done.
So you s you agree with the no labels bunch?
That's where I'm stuck.
I'm still back there.
Do you agree or disagree with no labels?
I agree with the premise of it, you know, that we need to put the name calling aside.
So I'm a tea, you know, I'm a Tea Party.
It isn't possible.
See, this is no labels is not possible.
And the fact that it but it was founded by three want to work who are out of work, Democrat political consultants.
No, I understand that, but what I'm saying is the people who actually go on the site, not the organizers, not the leaders of the no labels, but the people like me who go on this site.
It's a it's a Facebook application.
So we can contact each other all throughout the country, and we can form our own groups.
You know what I'm saying?
It's not like uh it's not a party, it's not uh we can do whatever we want.
We could do what we want to do in our district and our each individual congressional district.
We you see what I'm saying?
Yeah, uh look.
Well, I I think I do.
Well, here's here's what I know.
What I know is that conservatism is named two to one when people say, what's your ideological preference?
Forty percent conservative, twenty percent liberal.
So naturally the no labels crowd wants to come over and try to race that.
No, what whenever Democrats come up with a new strategy, it's it's always to accommodate when they just got creamed.
They just got creamed.
It's Democrats forming no labels, so of course they want to come up with something that's gonna denuter or or neuter uh conservatives and Republicans.
They want to get rid of labels because the brand names do not help them.
Democrat and liberal are albatrosses.
And they're doing it under the guise that there's all these people in the middle who don't like being labeled and so forth.
It's a scam.
It's a total scam, and it exists because of two reasons.
The founders want to make some money, and they want to also the Democrats are going along with it because their labels are not helpful.
Democrat and Liberal are losers right now.
Pure and simple.
That's the only reason this is happening.
And everybody else that goes for it is getting sucked in.
Because they buy into the substance of, yes, we all would rather get things done.
And we can't get things done because we are all held hostage to the far left and to the far right, and we are all in the middle, and we think the solutions to problems comes with each issue, not with an ideological litmus test.
So we want to be free to have our opinion on every issue counts, okay?
Fine.
So you no labels people.
I have a tryout for you.
An audition.
A test.
Show me, show us, all of you no labels people, how to handle the abortion divide.
Tell me how to get rid of pro-choice and pro-life.
Where are you no labels people on the abortion?
If you can show me where you guys at No Labels can implement your belief and solve that issue, I would be most interested.
I don't think they can.
I think that's the test for this no labels bunch.
But again, it's a false premise.
It's not about no labels.
It's about everything else.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Uh by the folks, I I I got a splendid fundraiser promotion package from Hillsdale College.
And it sounds to be very interesting in it.
There is a there's a uh a blurb here that you people will find fascinating.
I did.
In 1932, Hillsdale College trustees cut faculty salaries 20% to provide more funds for student scholarships during the Great Depression.
Did you hear that?
1932 Hillsdale College trustees cut faculty shares 20% to provide more money for student scholarships during the Great Depression.
You know, when teachers didn't talk about the children but actually cared for them.
Would you ever think of this happening?
All these teachers and all these administrators run around, and what's their answer?
Raise tuition.
In an economy like this, Hillsdale College in the in the middle of the depression cut teacher salaries to enable more education for the kids.
Uh Hillsdale, you know them.
We love them here.
They have their publication in Primus.
Monthly Digest captures the brilliant words spoken by bright, interesting conservative who has spoken recently, Mike Pence from Indiana is the is the latest.
It's a great gift.
It doesn't cost you anything.
It's free to everybody.
You go online, rush for Hillsdale.com, sign up, uh, and and you'll be able to print a gift certificate that describes what your friends will be receiving.
In Primus, I mean, it's a great, great gift.
It doesn't cost anybody anything.
It's inspirational, it's motivational, it's informative, and it is from Hillsdale College.
Rush for Hillsdale.com.
Alan in Atlanta, it's great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, hey, Russ, how are you doing?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
Uh on this uh Obama Clinton uh situation about the podium.
Uh I was telling certainly it I had fans tell me that it reminded me of the same thing when Sammy David Jr. kissed uh Nixon I'm I don't know how many years ago.
Not racial, but it's still, you know what I'm saying?
As far as him walking away from that podium, leaving another president.
It would have been all it would have been no problem if it had been somebody on the staff or somebody uh you know as far as uh politics lower than him.
But once you get somebody the same level as another president, then he in other words, he gave up his podium for another president.
Well, you know, now that's that's that's the way I looked at it uh from the standpoint, you just lowered yourself.
You when the president finishes talking, that's the end.
Presidents don't cede the podium unless there's a joint presser with another head of state.
But but presidents don't see.
Now your analogy here is interesting.
I remember I was alive.
This would have been I think 72, and it was in Miami at the Republican convention.
Sammy Davis Jr. came out, and I remember he caught a lot of grief, not just from uh African Americans back then, from the Hollywood crowd, too.
I mean that was most males, most males in general didn't like the idea, but yes, from the fund the from the black American crowd uh he he was dropped like a a hot potato.
So you think that you do you think you really think that that Obama has lost some respect in the in in in uh uh uh African America African American male crowd here because of that?
I'm 65 years old, and that was my first thought when I when I seen him walk away from that podium, and I I do believe that.
But you didn't know and I've also been watching the the uh his uh uh polling is going down rapidly.
Now did I did I hear you say at the beginning of your call that you y di it's not because of race, or did you say it is because I mean it it it's because well I had a friend I didn't want to I didn't want to bring it up, but since you said like like that, I I'm not gonna explain myself.
I had a friend that we normally go into the house and she's a Democrat and and she uh clear about how you like this open change, you know, stuff like that.
Well, she her comment was that he uh just like Clinton being the first black president, she said, Well, yeah, now we got the first uh uh uh uh uh what is it uh mo uh light-skinned uh Uncle Tom, but that was her last word I'm a Tom.
Because of that situation.
I wasn't looking like that, but once you said that, then I thought that's when my question is.
Wait now Alan, just so I understand, who of the two is the light-skinned Uncle Tom?
Obama.
Obama was the white skinned Uncle.
Yeah, she she was she was comparing the DC that yeah, we had uh uh uh Clinton as being called the uh first black president, and he's and and so Obama was called what is the uh I can't think of her name because I'm nervous, but it's when uh during the slaver times was when they had uh uh uh uh of the racial uh uh child um uh You think of mulatto?
There you go.
That's it.
I I know you get it.
That's it.
I think she called him the first mulatto uh Uncle Tom.
Well, that's by the way, I was 1970 that Sammy Davis Jr. hugged Nixon as 1970, not seventy two.
That's the reason why the uh uh the the black race didn't care for that because uh that's what they called him.
So he just pop up popularity all the way.
Mulatto Uncle Tom.
Mulatto Uncle.
Well we'll we'll see if if if you happen to be right about this, it manifests itself.
I don't know how we'll know.
Um short short of short of a uh you know of an election coming up, but Alan that's that's uh fascinating.
Well, no, I wasn't I wasn't sh Snurdley's laughing himself.
So which one was the light-skinned Uncle Tom?
Well, because Clinton was the first black president, you know, and I'm I I just wanted to make sure that I had the picture right.
I was just trying to get the picture right.
As far as what Alan was talking about.
It was just an effort to be accurate here and and and make sure I understood what he was saying.
Remember, I live in Littleville.
Symbolism doesn't always do it for me.
I need to know the facts about things.
Alan, thanks much.
This morning in Washington, Harriet Tubman elementary school, the signing, and I watched a little bit of this, the healthy hunger-free kids act of 2010.
This is this is a Michelle My Bell deal modus.
This obesity stuff.
Anyway, Obama was there, and this is a portion of what he said.
Uh the majority leader in the Senate, uh, Senator uh uh Mike McConnell, the ranking Republican who helped facilitate the smooth passage of this bill.
Mike McConnell.
The Senate minority leader Mike McConnell couldn't remember that it was Mitch.
It still didn't come to him, it was Mitch.
Finally came out.
Mike McConnell.
And they said that Bush was the idiot.
You know, I mean, I guess, Alan, I know you're still out there.
I guess I guess we can be thankful that uh Clinton didn't ask Obama to go fetch him some coffee, because you know during the campaign, Clinton was caught off mic saying, I just I don't believe this.
I don't know, but two years ago we'd be asking this guy to go get us our coffee.
And I was joking a moment ago about Michelle my butt.
Shh damn it.
Michelle my bell's obesity thing out here.
Look at this.
Speaking at Monday AP, it's at Newsbusters, it's a number of places, speaking at Monday's signing ceremony for the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act, or Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act.
See, I didn't know if I keep getting confused.
If today's bill is to stop kids from starving to death or to keep them from getting fat.
I I still don't know what it's all about.
Is it is it to keep them from starving to death or keep them from getting fat?
At any rate, that's not the point.
The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act is a law that'll subsidize and regulate what children eat before school.
Regulate what children eat before school, at lunch, after school, and during summer vacations in federally funded school-based feeding programs.
First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat, quote, we just can't leave it up to the parents.
We can't just leave it up to the parents.
Your first way, our first lady.
We can't leave what our kids eat up to their parents.
They had to leave it up to us.
Michelle and Barry.
Speaking of that, a new study provides real evidence for the benefits of imaginary eating.
When I I saw this over the weekend, when people imagined themselves eating MMs or imagined themselves eating pieces of cheese, they became less likely to actually gorge on the real things.
Findings from the study at Carnegie Mellon University were reported in the current issue of science.
So if you sit around and imagine of eating a lot of MMs, you won't.
If you sit around and imagine yourselves eating a bunch of cheese, you won't.
I don't know if it works with sex.
If you imagine yourself having a lot of sex, you won't.
I don't know where this ends, but I just do it does have some important implications for the food stamp era.
If you imagine yourself eating, period, then you won't.
How much money could we save?
We should try this on the food stamp recipient crowd.
Just imagine yourself drinking that six-pack.
You're full.
Just imagine eating all those cashiers.
Just imagine it.
And you won't have to go buy them.
Frankly, I can't see it.
Something you don't want to imagine eating, something you really want to eat.
Sherry's berries.
You got somebody on your Christmas list.
You really want to impress them.
Spouse, future fiancee.
Suck up to the boss or whatever.
I folks, send them a box of hand-dipped gourmet strawberries from Sherry's berries.
These are not.
Well, you can't get these strawberries at grocery store.
They're not available there.
When you go to Sherry's Berries, just that's berries.com.
Go to berries.com, B-E-R-R-I-E-S.
Look at the pictures.
You'll see what I'm talking about.
They take these colossal strawberries.
They hand dip them.
They roll them in delicious toppings, chopped almonds, coconut, chocolate chips, whatever.
And they have a Christmas deal specially for you.
You can send anybody a box of these hand dipped gourmet strawberries, just $19.99.
$15 off.
I send these out, I send it to family.
I mean, I I send them out because people don't believe them.
Even after I've talked about you, are those strawberries really that big?
Okay, wait and see.
And everybody is shocked.
Call 866 Fruit Zero 2.
Or rushBerries.com, rush B-E-R-R-I-E-S dot com.
And get the hand dipped strawberries for just 1999.
It's rushberries.com.
They're delicious and they're unbeatable and they're unbelievable.
Try them.
Now there's no labels business.
I've been thinking more and more about this.
And I just well, nope, nope, I didn't just see anything.
Yes, I did.
I just saw a guy talking about them, and I the guy said exactly what I imagined them saying.
For those of us in the middle who don't really want to be held hostage to a far right or the far left, but we have our solutions to issues.
We want to be heard too.
Okay, fine.
Somebody explain to me in what walk of life there are no labels.
Religion?
No labels.
Business?
No labels.
Gender.
No labels?
What?
Somebody tell me where there aren't any labels.
Go to the grocery store and get rid of the labels.
And then what would you have?
Well, you'd have a lot less government because you wouldn't have those phony ingredient labels on there.
How many, how many of these people are registered with a particular political party?
Most of them are a bet, and most of them are registered Democrats.
We know who they are.
We know the founders are left-wing political consultants, and we know that Democrat and Liberal are labels that do not help political people these days.
Of course they would want to get rid of them.
By the same token, conservative is a good label.
Naturally they'd want to get rid of that.
And naturally they'd find some so-called pseudo-smart Republicans who would agree with them on this.
How many of these people belong to a particular religion?
And why?
Because of their belief system.
Nothing wrong with labels as long as they are appropriate.
As long as they are true, as long as they are properly descriptive.
It's called language.
So it is not possible.
It's impossible to have no labels.
Oh, it sounds wonderful, Mr. Limboa.
It sounds right up the Olimother Limbaugh.
It sounds like it would be fweet.
Every it would end part of them thip.
No, it wouldn't, Mr. Castradi.
Here's the bottom line.
No labels is founded by a bunch of people who don't like the labels that do apply to them.
Liberal, statist, fraud, democrat, Marxist, what have you.
They don't like labels that appropriately describe them.
So they want to get rid of them.
And as I say, a bunch of foolish Republicans, conservatives want to just, oh yeah, sounds so sweet, so wonderful, get rid of partisanship.
What we're for here, uh, ladies and gentlemen, is truth in labeling.
The no labels people want to do away with truth in labeling, which is consistent.
Liberals are confounded always by the truth.
It's no wonder they would form a group to get rid of the truth.
Well, that's it for another exterling uh finding uh uh uh uh uh a great excursion into uh broadcast excellence.
Um ladies and there's a lot of stuff I didn't get to today, such as David Epstein, 46, Columbia University political science professor been arrested, charged with having a three-year-long consensual sexual affair with his own daughter, 24 years old, and supporters at Columbia say what's wrong with that if they consented, what's wrong with it?
▲
Export Selection