All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 19, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:36
September 19, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And well, let me take a cigar out of my court meeting.
Here we are, back at it at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, Rush Limboy, at 800-282-2882.
And the email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
You know, I could be wrong about this, but Bill Crystal, who is saying that Romney, let me get this quote in front of me.
I always put this stuff at the bottom of the page.
Bill Crystal says, stupid and arrogant.
And every Democrat under, talking about Romney on the tape, 47% of Romney, stupid and arrogant.
Every Democrat under the sun's retweeting that all over the place.
And I, Donna Brazil and others.
You know what struck me about this?
During the primary, all these people, not all of them, but a lot of the people who were telling us Romney's the only guy, the only chance we got, Romney's the guy, they've bailed.
Now they're bailing on him.
Now they're running out.
Well, he's not the candidate.
We're not going to candidate as we thought he was going to be.
He's stupid and arrogant.
And those of us, you and me, who were said to be problematic during the primaries, we're the ones supporting Romney.
We're the ones trying to do everything we can to help the guy get elected because this election's about stopping Obama.
This election is about stopping the Democrat Party.
This election is very important.
It's very crucial.
I say it again.
I don't think that the inside the Beltway glitterati look at it at all that way.
I don't think they think anything's really at stake here except committee chairmanships in the Senate or control over the federal budget or finding enough people to tell you to go on a cruise with you after the election.
But for all of us, this is ballgame, the way we look at it.
I find it interesting.
We're the ones supporting Romney.
And the guys that were all in at the beginning say, yeah, well, Romney's the only guy can win elected.
He's the only guy who's electable.
Now they're bailing on him.
And you know all they're doing is trying to protect their own reputations.
They think everybody else sees Romney as stupid, so they got to say so too to make sure that they're not looked at the same way people are supposedly looking at Romney, but they're totally misreading the American people on this.
The American people, Democrats are wrong about this too.
The American people are not fit to be tied, angry, insulted, what have you, over what Romney said on that tape.
Let's go back to the audio soundbites.
Frank Luntz, well-known, what does he do?
He's a well-known focus grouper.
He's a pollster.
No, there's a mental block there.
He does all the focus groups with Hannity and so forth.
He was on CBS this morning today, and they had a discussion about the secret video.
Mitt Romney recorded at a May fundraiser.
Again, there are two minutes of this thing missing.
David Corn, Mother Jones, hey, tweak us the whole thing.
Here it is.
The whole thing's there.
And Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection Block says, no, it's not.
There's two minutes missing.
And nobody knows what's in the two minutes.
Nora O'Donnell, the hostette, Says to Lunt, so you see a number of Republicans, former Republicans, criticizing Romney for his comment.
Is this a turning point of campaign, Frank?
Everybody thinks Romney lost the election yesterday.
The glitterati, the intelligentsia, the stars inside the, they think Romney lost the election yesterday.
They really do.
That's why it's so hard for you watching television at night because you see all these people on all these networks.
Oh, it's over.
I've never met a bunch of quitters like these in my life.
I've never met a bigger bunch of defeatists.
We haven't even had the debates.
It's not even October yet.
Anyway, here's what Lunt said with Nora Donald said, well, that's a turning point in campaign, Frank.
What she means is, okay, has Romney stepped in it?
Is that it?
Is it over now?
First, we had the 99 to 1%.
Now we've got the 47 to 53%.
Americans do believe that there's too much dependency on government and they want more personal responsibility.
What they don't like is that line in Romney's statement where he says, I don't care about them.
They want a president to care about everyone, regardless of whether you vote for them or not.
First, you're trying to decide, are you in the 53 or 47?
Then you're trying to decide, do you pay or not?
Now, Frank spends all day with these independents who can't make up their minds.
They're now trying to figure out whether they're in the 47%.
But they don't like that Romney said he doesn't care.
Now, did Romney actually say that?
Did he say he don't care about them?
If he did, it's a problem.
That still is the opportunity that was presented.
And I think he's gone places on TV now.
It was Cavuto.
We'll have it coming up.
He didn't.
Right.
He's exactly.
What he meant was, in the terms of the election, those people are already committed to Obama in his view.
And Obama starts out with 47% of the votes, what he means.
And he's got to focus on the remaining that he can get to vote for him.
But anyway, you also hear Lunt said, Americans do believe there's too much dependency, and they want more personal responsibility.
So O'Donnell said, but Romney was suggesting that these people are mooching off the system.
He wasn't offering a helping hand.
That's how they might interpret it.
That's the whole issue.
It's the interpretation versus what is meant.
I want to make this clear.
The race isn't over.
It's not a game changer.
Not only is it not over, if Romney can change the focus with 23 million unemployed, it's got a tremendous opportunity.
Well, there you have it, folks.
The expert, it's not over.
Nowhere near.
And it's not a game changer, but everybody in the media thinks it is.
You ought to.
There was a politico, somebody sent me last night, a politico headline or story.
Literally, the race was over last night.
It was finished.
It was done because of this Romney comment.
Now, Lunt says, not only is it not over, if Romney can change the focus with 23 million unemployed, he's got a tremendous opportunity.
I guess what that means, there's some in the 23 million unemployed who would vote for Obama because they want a continuation of unending benefits.
In my way of thinking, which I know is crazy, cockamame-y, down to the mainstream.
In my way of thinking, I don't understand why more than 10 or 20% of the unemployed would want anything to do with Barack Obama.
Why are they unemployed?
Romney hasn't had anything to do with them being unemployed.
Not one Romney policy has had anything to do with unemployment in this country.
Not one.
The only candidate in this race who can be tied to high unemployment is Barack Obama.
Now, somebody explained to me how the 23 million unemployed wouldn't automatically want an alternative to Obama, at least a majority of them.
Mr. Limbaugh, you are forgetting, sir, what do you remember?
Many of these 23 million unemployed really blame Bush, George W. Bush, who's really responsible for this.
I bet there probably is some of that because of the media.
But again, common sense is rearing its head here.
And I don't know how you make the case that a guy who has not been in office, who has never been president, who hadn't had his hand on one aspect of federal policy is in any way linked to unemployment.
Mr. Limbaugh, you're forgetting Clemmen Golds.
There are the guys like Romney who are going to increase unemployment by giving all the money to the rich.
Well, if we've got to that point where people think that, then this is all academic anyway.
And I just refuse to accept that.
I just think this is all cockamin.
I think way too many people on our side fall.
It's hard to avoid it.
I must admit, the media bubble every day, it's snurdly.
It traps him every night.
He leaves here with one view of the world after having listened to this program.
And after absorbing the news for three hours later that night, he's back down so low when he looks up, he sees the gutter.
And if you choose to expose yourself to the modern day so-called news media for any length of time, you're going to end up thinking the same thing.
And if you don't think that, you're going to say, my gosh, there's no way we, how can we overcome this?
And it's true.
There has never, ever in any of our lifetimes, we've never seen a news media so activist in the tank like this for a candidate.
Never, never.
I mean, to the point of making up news stories, to the point of being ridiculous.
The guy in the video caused the riots in the Middle East, and ultimately it's Romney's fault.
And they try to do news stories, serious news stories with that premise.
I've never understood how the rich steal from the poor anyway.
I've never understood the math on that, how the rich got rich from taking from the poor.
Nobody has ever, I know I didn't go to college, but nobody's ever shown me mathematically how that formula works, that the rich got rich by taking from the poor.
There was a CBS poll last Friday oversampled Democrats by 13.
Let's see, APGFK.
Now, this is interesting.
Obama job approval numbers back up 50%, but race with Romney still tight.
This is a story about an oversampled poll.
This story, 32 paragraphs long, this story on a poll result, 1,200 words, almost twice as long as your average op-ed column.
And don't tell me the AP isn't nervous about the outcome in November.
They're writing 1,200-word stories on polls.
But let me just tell you, before you begin to doubt your own sanity, be aware that the Associated Press has oversampled Democrats in this poll by 13%.
The same, I think it's exactly the same 13%. that the CBS New York Times poll oversampled Democrats that was released last Friday.
For total voters, they polled Democrats 50%, Republicans 37%, Independents 7%.
The Independent number 7% is so low because the poll lumps in independent leaners with Democrats and Republicans.
But still, the sample in this poll is Democrat, and they're projecting that that's the vote turnout in November.
That's why they do the sample this way.
So AP is telling us that on Election Day in November, half the turnout is going to be Democrats.
37% of the turnout is going to be Republicans.
And 7% of the turnout is going to be Independents.
Do you believe that?
Well, these are the stretches that they are going to in order to be able to report what they are reporting.
Let's take a time out.
We'll come back.
Romney's sticking to his guns.
He was on Cavuto yesterday on Fox.
Plus, your phone calls continue to be mixed into the whole bag after this.
Okay, let's listen to Romney.
Have you heard this, Snerdley?
Have you listened to Romney?
Did it leave you?
Did you see Romney yesterday afternoon?
Well, okay.
I was going to ask you if you're depressed.
Over.
So it's your world with Neil Cavuto on Fox, and Romney's on yesterday afternoon.
And Cavuto said, obviously, you've seen the fallout.
The regime quickly coming back at you.
Governor's saying that you essentially disdainfully wrote off half the nation.
How do you respond to that?
We have two very different views about America.
The president's view is one of a larger government.
There's a tape that just came out today where the president's saying he likes redistribution.
I disagree.
I think a society based upon a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that's the wrong course for America.
That will not build a strong America or help people out of poverty.
I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those that are in need.
We're a compassionate people, but then we let people build their own lives, create enterprises.
We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution.
The right course for America is to create growth, create wealth, not to redistribute wealth.
Cavuto says, well, you said that your wording might have been inelegant, but others have said that you just kissed half the electorate goodbye this election year, and you all but call them moochers.
Is that what you meant?
No, I'm talking about a perspective of individuals who are not likely to get to support me.
I know some believe that government should take from some to give to the others.
I think the president makes it clear in the tape that was released today that that's what he believes.
I think that's an entirely foreign concept.
I believe America was built on the principle of government caring for those in need, but getting out of the way and allowing free people to pursue their dreams, free people pursuing free enterprises is the only way we'll create a strong and growing middle class and the only way we'll help people out of poverty.
No, because, see, some people are hearing this.
Oh, my God, this guy thinks I got to have to work.
Oh, my God.
I can't vote for this guy.
This guy's going to make me get a job.
Now, the question is, is that 50% of the country, 50% of the people who vote?
And I'm here to tell you I don't believe that it is.
But clearly, in fact, I actually think that it is a minority of people who actually think that way.
I really do.
So Cavuto finally says, well, a lot of these seniors, the seasoned citizens, are in that camp.
They're not paying income taxes, governor, and it might have boomeranged on you with an important base.
Do you worry about that?
I was talking about the fact that I don't expect to get 60 or 70 percent of the vote.
I understand that some portion will be the president's, some portion will be mine.
I've got to get as many as I can from every single cohort in this country.
But the intent that I want to talk about and that that was intended to speak about was the fact that you have a great divide about whether we want a government that's larger and more intrusive and redistributing income or whether instead you want a government that sees its role as protecting freedom and opportunity and letting free people build more wealth for all people.
They tell you what happens at these fundraisers.
I've been to a couple presidential, actually, it's not even a fundraiser.
It was a fundraiser, but at the same time, he's thanking big donors.
I'll tell you what happens at these things.
And I've not heard the tape at this one.
I've just heard Romney say it.
But what happens is, since they're big money people, you get to ask them questions.
And some of these people, I've been there.
Well, what are you going to do about what are you going to say about?
And I'm sick and tired of people sitting around.
And the candidates, they look, there are just certain people in this country that are gone.
They're lost.
They agree with the other guy.
47% of the people, I got to focus on the people that I can get from that larger 53%.
A lot of this, this is why, by the way, at these events, gosh, folks, I could really get in trouble here.
I have been to these things.
I have had to say this just to make a point of what goes on at these things.
I have been pointed out and looked at by top dog candidates, and they have said, don't you say a word of this on the radio tomorrow.
And they launch and they tell these donors.
And every time I hear it, I say, why don't you say that tomorrow?
There is, and it's the consultants combined with the fear of media.
You remember all those times during the Bush years?
People call, even you, people who are like, I guess, Rush, you put him on TV, looked dear in the headlights, looks like he can't talk, sounds stupid.
And you remember all the people who would tell you, you ought to be with this guy when there's not a camera around.
This guy can go 45 minutes without a single stutter, without repeating a word, without a pause.
You ought to see this guy when the cameras.
How many people have you heard say that about George W. Bush?
A lot.
My only point is that things go on at these fundraisers or parties for donors.
It's a little looser.
And these are the big money people.
They're asking questions.
And it's a more relaxed atmosphere.
The candidates, not just for president or everybody, are a little bit more open and forthcoming.
Because after all, this is the end of the day, it's all about money.
It's all about you wouldn't believe a number of people bragged to me over the years.
Yeah, I went to this party with the president.
Really, how much money do you give?
Oh, you know about that, huh?
They wanted me to think they just got invited because they were popular.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm here.
I'm here.
You wouldn't.
You know what I'm doing today?
Every break and sometimes during the program content, I am going to three websites.
I got two FedEx websites open.
I got an ATT website open.
I'm trying to find out if my iPhones have been shipped.
There's some confusion out there, and I'm trying to figure it out.
And so I'm busy on the web tracking down tracking numbers and order pages and so forth.
And I'm doing the radio program trying to stay current with the news, doing show prep while the program having take your phone calls, keeping track with a soundbite.
It is a jam-packed day.
And this iPhone thing, there was a.
I'm not going to bother you with it.
You don't care.
No, it's my Christmas Eve and it may get delayed a week.
So that's got me somewhat not ticked off, but I'm just, I'm trying to see that maybe that won't be the case.
I'm looking for any evidence I'm wrong about this.
Anyway, get this.
This is hilarious.
Yeah, the new iPad, does the iPad mini, do I see the pictures of it?
Do I see the pictures of it?
Yeah, yeah, you just saw it?
The iPad mini?
Yeah, I saw it.
I saw it like six months ago.
Anyway, don't distract me.
This is funny.
I have a story here that yesterday from the Washington Post by a guy named Sean Sullivan.
Here's the headline: Romney draws attention to Obama redistribution remark from 1998.
Listen to this.
Facing intense scrutiny over comments at a May fundraiser, Mitt Romney sought to change the subject Tuesday by drawing attention to an audio released online of Obama saying in 1998 that he believes, to an extent, in the redistribution of wealth.
What do you mean to an extent?
It was full bore.
The Drudge Report linked to audio uploaded Tuesday on YouTube that is described on the video website as Obama, then an Illinois senator speaking at a 1998 conference at Loyola University of Chicago.
The audio clip is 96 seconds long, and toward the end, Obama says, I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody's got a shot.
The audio cuts off right after the word shot, so it's unclear what's said next.
The Obama campaign confirmed that it is Obama's voice on the recording, and a spokesman moved to rebut Romney's criticism.
The drive-bys were hoping it wasn't Obama.
This guy at the Washington Post actually called the White.
Is that Obama?
Tell him, tell me it's not the pro.
Tell me it's not Obama.
Yeah, it is.
Oh, no.
Oh, they were hoping and praying it wasn't really Obama.
Here, what is it, sunbite number two?
Is it one, two, three?
What number is it?
Is it number one?
Grab sunbite number one.
This is what the Washington Post was hoping wasn't Obama.
They had to call the White House to confirm it.
What we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all.
There has been a systematic, I don't think it's too strong to call it a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy.
I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot.
By the way, can I don't want to muddy the waters here, but when you hear Obama in 1998 say that he wants to make sure everybody's got a shot, what does he mean?
A shot at what?
Seriously, I'm being serious.
What do you think he means when he says he wants everybody to have a shot?
Ah, not so automatic, is it?
Not so.
You think you know what he means?
And then when I pose the question, what does he actually mean here by everybody having a shot?
At well, wait a minute.
Is that right?
Is that right?
So Snerdley says, no, he wants everybody to have a shot at having money, but not having to work for it.
Really?
That's what he means?
Everybody having a shot.
I wonder how many people think that means that everybody has a job or that everybody has a chance to work.
You don't think that's what he means?
No way?
No way that that's what Obama's talking about?
Not possible.
So everybody has a shot is not code lingo for everybody has an opportunity to work and make something of themselves.
That's not what he means.
Well, then you're going to tell me what he does mean.
It gives everybody some stash.
That's what you think is given some.
Okay.
You realize to do that, if he's going to give everybody some stash, you got to take some stash from somebody.
Well, then you know what he's doing?
That there goes bye-bye productivity because the people from whom you're going to take the money and put in your stash to give somebody else are going to what stop working.
Why if the regimes are going to come take what you got, why work?
All right.
I just wanted to put it out there as a think piece because I just wonder how many people, when they hear Obama say everybody's got a shot, I'll bet you a lot of people think that everybody has a shot equal shot at working, at making something of themselves with a career.
You don't think that's what he means?
Interesting.
Okay.
Karen in Williamsburg, Virginia.
Let's go back to the phones.
You're next.
It's great to have you here.
Hello.
Hi, great to talk with you.
Regarding Obama's statement, I found very enlightening that I don't hear much coverage on was his comment about pooling resources.
We all know he loved to just redistribute wealth, but that was pretty plainly stated.
Let me grab the transcripts.
I already put it at the bottom of the stack.
I see here.
Pooling resources.
Said that in the soundbite?
Yes.
Oh, yeah.
I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources.
Yeah.
And hence facilitate.
Well, that's the taking.
Yeah, exactly.
And you think people...
I'm not hearing much made of that.
No.
No, but that's the taxes.
Yes.
Pooling resources is taxing the producers.
Exactly.
And that's why, but if you're going to tax the producers to give everybody a fair shot, then the people you're taxing are going to stop producing after a while because the regime is just going to come along and take it.
Right.
It's a pretty comprehensive.
Yeah, but you know, that lingo, pool resources, I don't know the exact term, but at the Democrat convention, this whole thing, everybody has a fair shot, was a theme at their convention.
And working together, they might have said pooling resources.
They said something very similar.
Pooling resources sounds a lot nicer than stealing.
It does.
Which is what he's talking about.
Right.
So we are Obama's stash.
Yes.
And the 47%, yeah, whatever number it is, they are the people who are getting screwed by us.
They don't have a fair shot.
We've got to give them a fair shot by pooling our resources, i.e., stealing from us.
Exactly.
That's a good point out there, Karen.
Thank you very much for the call.
Thank you.
You bet.
Here's Dawn, Statesville, North Carolina.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
I'm the 47%, and I am not offended.
I support you.
Wait a second.
You are admitting to being in the 47%.
How do you know?
What is it about you that makes you in the 47%?
Well, it is a little hard to figure out, but my husband and I both work, and with us both working, we earn a total of about $80,000 a year.
We are not dependent on the government.
So Romney got that slightly wrong.
You know, I support him.
But with earning about $80,000 a year, six children with all of our deductions and our mortgage home deduction, we pay in the taxes, but at the end of the year, the federal government sends them back to us.
Yep, there you go.
Earned income tax credit.
Yes, so I'm calling to say I am the 47%.
Right, okay.
I am not offended by what Romney said.
I'm a conservative and I support him, but he misspoke just slightly because a lot of us pay in our taxes, but the federal government kicks them all back to us, and we're not all dependent on the government.
We take our $6,000 tax return every year and we use it for vacation money because we trust Mickey Mouse more than we trust this administration to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
This administration can send it to Solyndra, foreign countries we don't agree with, or crony companies.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
So you use the roads and bridges to get out there to souvenirs.
It stimulates hotel workers, the travel industry, the flight industry.
So we use it to stimulate the economy and spend it in the most prudent way.
We do not think we deserve this federal income tax return each year.
But since the federal government sends us to it, we think we can spend it more wisely.
But I don't think in Romney's thinking, I don't think you are the 47%.
I think what he really meant was: how's he going to win over those who are dependent on the government and want to be, or maybe are because they don't have any choice.
You don't look at yourself.
You are proving my point.
You know you're in the 47%, but you're really not.
I mean, you don't think of yourself that way.
Well, we're not dependent on the government for any of our income.
It's just that they sent all of our tax money that we've sent to them back to us at the end of the year with one large check of $6,000, which we would not normally have.
And a lot of people with children at Disney or on vacation might use that to stimulate the economy in other ways by spending it more prudently than what our federal government and what this administration we feel would spend it.
Now, the 47%, that should actually be assumed to be the percentage of people who watch the mainstream media.
Not the percentage who do or do not pay taxes because I am a conservative.
It's about government waste.
If the government spent our money more prudently, we would gladly like to pay more to the government.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
They have plenty.
They have more than anyway.
I'm glad you called, Dawn.
Thank you.
Thanks very much.
It might be useful, ladies and gentlemen, if I were to tell you the question that Romney was asked that produced that answer about the 47%.
You may have heard the tape.
You may not have heard the tape, but I will take a brief time out.
We'll come back and I'll give you the question that he was asked that brought forth that answer on the 47%.
Okay, we're back.
Great to have you here.
El Rushball, Cutting Edge, Societal Evolution.
Where is it?
I just printed it.
Oh, there it is.
I'm not kidding.
This is media.
And it was about an hour ago.
No, not even 30 minutes ago, this cleared.
NBC News not airing Obama's redistribution video because they have not yet authenticated it.
I don't know what good it does to say it, but folks, I know.
Look at it.
I never, never have seen media this way.
It's almost indescribable making up stories, refusing to run real stories, making themselves look like utter fools.
There's no journalism, there's no media go, they say pure, full-fledged advocacy.
It's breathtaking to behold this.
They're scared.
They are scared.
Folks, when Obama loses, I am worried about what's going to happen.
I know the White House already said it's him.
The Washington Post already called the White House and asked, is that him?
And the White House said, yeah.
And the Washington Post guy said, ah, damn it, and ran the story.
But NBC says they haven't authenticated it yet.
I just, I'm worried about what's going to happen when Obama loses.
We're not dealing with people to whom winning and losing is a natural ebb and flow in politics.
And when you lose, you regroup, you come back and you go for the gold again.
This is an entirely different bunch of people that we're facing.
They are, I think they're scared to death.
The way the media is behaving, they're scared.
They are, you know, when they run stories like they were last night, the political, damn it, I wish I had it in front of me, the headline.
It was over.
There were two guys, byline story about this is over.
Romney stepped in.
It was dead and bury him.
And I'm telling you, if they're running stories like that, and it's not even October yet, they're worried.
They're trying to make that reality occur.
But I shudder to think what's going to happen when he loses.
Will they accept it?
Will they refuse to leave?
Will they look at, when you have these reporters, at least the reporters for Pravda, Izvestia, they had an excuse.
They could be sent to the gulags if they didn't do the right thing.
These guys are doing it on their own.
No, no, no, no, no.
Obama hasn't threatened these guys with the gulags.
He doesn't have to.
NBC News not airing redistribution video because they haven't authenticated it yet.
That's just Vies, but no, I can't take this call.
I've only got a minute and a half.
I can't take the call from Vies.
I don't know how long she can hold on.
I better start.
Viesbaden, Germany.
Angelo, I'm going to get you.
How long do you have here with us?
I can stay with you as long as you need, Roger.
Oh, cool.
Okay, we'll get started with you.
And we'll have to pause during it and come back later.
But what's on your mind?
Well, sir, first off, thank you very much for taking my call.
You bet.
But I was listening to you during the Republican convention and the coverage after the convention, and it struck me that the advisors to Mitt Romney sound to me a whole lot like rhinos that just don't want to lose their jobs.
They're so entrenched in the status quo that they just want to keep it the way it is.
That's why they're giving him all this, I would say, questionable advice about not running on Obama's very public lack of a record.
Yeah.
And he hired him.
Yeah, but wait.
It's a known quantity.
He hired them.
Is it their fault or his?
He hired them.
He's the one.
He doesn't have to listen to them.
No, you're right.
You're right.
It could cut both ways.
If you go hire the people, the architects of McCain's defeat and expect something different.
I mean, they're who they are, is the point.
I don't, I don't, there's not a, there's not a thanks for the call.
I really appreciate it.
We got to do.
Don't go away, folks.
I got the constraints of time here.
I can't, I can't stay on.
Thanks for being with us today, folks.
No, we're not through.
I just wanted to thank you.
I always appreciate it.
▲
Export Selection