All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
September 26, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 247 Podcast.
There has been a lot of rioting on ladies and gentlemen, rioting in both Spain and Greece overnight.
Apparently they have uh just found out about the anti-Mohammad movie over there.
They're protesting government cuts.
Greece may be leaving the European Union, all hell breaking out in Europe.
And it could have an impact here in the United States.
Have details on the ramifications of that as the program unfold.
They could be upset about the uh NFL replacement referees, actually, too.
Um in terms of why they're rioting.
Folks, I want you to hear something, by the way, great to have you.
800-282-2882 if you want to be in the program, the email address, L Rushball at EIB net.com.
I want you to listen to something.
This is on the Today Show this morning, correspondent Ann Curry.
Ann Curry.
Is she back?
Hmm.
Oh, must be on special assignment or some such thing.
So Ann Curry is talking to the Libyan president, Mohammed Maggadif.
And she said, What is your evidence?
See, here's the thing.
Obama and his administration, everybody in it, Jay Carney and the media supporting it, have lied to us for over a week about what led to the death of our ambassador in Libya.
They have lied repeatedly over and over, and they continue to.
They continue to lie about this movie.
In fact, folks, I'm gonna tell you something.
Barack Obama is a serial liar.
And I think it's time to call him out on this.
This, you know, this nice guy stuff, and and and playing it close to the vest is one thing.
But some things actually need to be said here.
Truthful, hard-hitting things.
And I'm the one to say them, and today is going to be the day.
So sit tight, hang in there and be tough.
They have lied to us for a week about this video.
Obama went to the UN yesterday and made most of his speech, or quite a large part of his speech about this video.
Which even now nobody has ever seen.
All they're doing is promoting it.
All they're doing is giving others who want to be agitated by it an excuse to be.
So Ann Curry is talking to the president of Libya today, Mohammed Magharif.
And she said, What is your evidence that it was a pre-planned act of terrorists?
This guy's out there saying it wasn't the video.
And so here comes Ann Curry representing the media.
What do you mean?
We've been told it's the it's it's a video.
Our president said it's a video.
What who are you?
You're this is a Libyan president.
What evidence do you have?
Just what she said.
That was your question.
What what is your evidence that it was a pre-planned act of terrorism?
Number one is choosing the date, 11th of September.
Has all the significance.
We take the facts about uh the way it was executed.
That is enough proof that it is a pre-planned act of terrorism.
This was a pre-planned attack, not in reaction to a controversial movie.
Yes.
I have no doubt about this.
Do you think the movie had anything to do with this attack on the continent?
Has nothing to do with September.
There you have it.
The Libyan president, nothing to do with it.
Were you all able to hear that?
It sounded odd to me, but um.
Good.
Everybody heard it.
You hear the you you you get the the narrative here.
Well, now wait a minute, Mr. Libyan president.
We've been told by our beloved president, the one that it was a video that led to the rioting.
And by the way, we've known before today that other sources have come out and made it clear.
Even the diary of the deceased ambassador makes it clear that he knew that an attack was imminent, and it all had to do with 9-11, and if it had to do with anything besides 9-11, it had to do with Obama taunting these people about Osama bin Laden being dead because he'd killed him.
So the narrative is that this video did it.
Some conservative Christian video led to all this, including the death of our ambassador.
Here comes a Libyan president, and she says, Well, what Evidence do you have?
So he answers her and she says, You mean it was pre-planned?
Nothing to do with the movie.
It has nothing to do with the attack.
There you have it, folks.
Barack Obama, his enablers in the media, members of his administration have lied to us for over a week about this.
And they continue to.
Folks, I can't, I'm not a liar.
I can't explain them.
It's pathological.
It's the same as trying to explain Bill Clinton.
These people construct with all of their lies an actual reality they live in.
I think they tell the lie so often, I mean, it's a definition of a pathological liar.
You believe the lies that you tell.
It is a sickness.
And this is just the latest illustration of Obama as a serial liar.
Look, you you you you and I know this, but I think it's time to call him out and say exactly that.
He went on 60 minutes.
He blamed Bush for the debt.
The fact is that Obama is responsible for five and a half trillion dollars in debt in just four years.
Bush had nothing to do with it.
And doesn't even count what's coming with Obamacare.
I'm not denying that Bush was a big spender.
But the debt that we've got now, five and a half trillion dollars of it, took place in the last three and a half years with Obama at the helm.
It's his.
He owns it, he broke it, he owns it.
And that doesn't count what's coming.
With Obamacare and all the Tax Amageddon stuff coming with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Imagine what is interest rates when they begin to increase, and one-third of the federal budget is chewed up paying interest on this debt.
Wait till that happens.
Folks, we're headed for an economic collapse if something doesn't change.
It's difficult to pinpoint when, but it's going to happen.
This is unsustainable.
This kind of spending and this kind of debt and the debt service cannot continue and at the same time have a thriving and growing private sector economy.
Now, Obama gets away with these statements, which come fast and frequently.
But there's something not right about this.
These lies just flow out of his mouth and off of his lips as naturally as a baby's cries.
Now, I don't know.
As I said, I'm not an expert.
I don't know if it's purposeful, if he's delusional, or if it's strategic.
It could be a combination of those things.
He's running commercials.
He's running commercials in battleground states, claiming that Romney's tax plan would increase taxes on the middle class by $2,000.
There's nothing.
There is nothing.
There's not a single thing in Romney's tax plan that raises taxes on the middle class, period.
Romney cuts middle class taxes by 20%.
He doesn't raise taxes on anybody.
It's Obama who's going to be raising taxes.
Obama is in effect what he's doing is taking what his policies are going to be, his future policies and what his policies have been, and he's simply saying that they're Romney's.
It's an artful attempt at transferral or transference, whatever the word is.
Take what you're doing and take what you've done, blame it on the other guys.
As though you haven't even been president for three and a half years.
And you've got a supportive media out there helping to spread the lies.
Obama's using a report that has been conducted by a group where some of his supporters work.
They claim that Romney's tax cuts would result in cuts in services when in fact one has nothing to do with the other.
Romney hasn't proposed any tax increases on P and his tax cuts.
Now they're saying he's going to increase taxes on the middle class.
He's going to cut taxes on the rich, right?
And then these tax cuts are going to result in in the uh result in services.
How does cutting somebody's taxes result in a cut in government services?
Mr. Limbo, that's because there's less money going to the do you want to understand, Mr. New Castradi, that there isn't money going to the government, five and a half trillion dollars in debt and growing.
We have a national debt of $16 trillion.
We are out of control.
This is utterly irresponsible.
This set of policies that's taken us here shows absolutely no respect for this country, no respect for the people in this country, no respect for this country's greatness or its past, and certainly no respect for the pe for the for this country's future.
The architect of all of this and Barack Obama and his buddies in the Democrat Party.
They have all this dumped on Romney.
Look, I know some of you people are not excited about Romney, but let me tell you something.
There is a shift, by the way, in Romney's campaign, in his strategy, he's going ideological.
He started off uh yesterday or today in Iowa.
I'm sorry, Ohio.
But he's doing it.
It's it's better late than never.
Needs to do it, needs to go.
The Obama nice guy uh narrative is gone.
If they've tossed it overboard.
But the bottom line is, folks, I don't care who you are, uh if you are a gay, one-armed amputee on the upper west side having coffee at Zabars writing, there's not one thing Mitt Romney's done to you yet.
And there's not one thing Mint Romney plans on doing to you.
But whatever your economic circumstance is, Mitt Romney's had nothing to do with it.
Zilch, zero nada.
Everything that you live today is traceable right back to the Oval Office, right back to the White House.
Every bit of this.
Barack Obama, he's out there, well, people here on the other side of the glass nervous, I call him a serial liar.
I don't know.
Okay, forget, not serial liar.
Unless it's we'll go with delusional.
Does that make you feel better?
Isn't delusional.
Says he created four and a half million jobs.
Now, to arrive at that figure, four and a half million jobs.
It's absurd.
The math doesn't work out.
There aren't any jobs being created on a net basis.
We're losing jobs.
There are more people unemployed today than there were when Obama took office.
There are over two and a half million fewer jobs to be had in this country since Obama took office.
This idea that there's job growth and Obama's created jobs, he would not have created a job if he had to.
He wouldn't know how to get a job if he had to.
Now you come to this figure, four and a half million jobs created.
You have to ignore all the people who've lost their jobs.
You have to ignore all the people who have dropped out of the workforce.
The net figure.
When everything is factored in, the best I've been able to find is 1.3 million jobs lost.
A universe of over two million jobs that have just gone away, not jobs that were filled, just the jobs from the universe of jobs, the labor force participation rate.
It's down by two million.
And it's even worse when you consider that in four years the working population of the country has increased by eight million or so.
You know, we continue to graduate kids from college.
We can argue about whether the degrees are worth anything, but they still graduate.
We still have people coming out of high school who theoretically still want to go get jobs.
We're still producing people who want to work in the midst of an economic decline outside of the Great Depression, unprecedented.
And it has been authored.
It is the direct result of specific policies implemented by Barack Obama.
It's his.
His fingerprints are all over this decline, all over this failure.
You consider it in four years, the working population of this nation has increased by about eight million.
That's the number of people who want to work since Obama was elected.
Male participation in the workforce is the lowest it has been since 1948.
Obama's out there claiming that he created four and a half million jobs.
Obama hasn't created anything.
What's happened is destruction.
What happens, what has Happened is a chipping away of the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.
That's the net result of three and a half, almost four years of Barack Obama.
Not job creation, not economic growth, not increased opportunity, not increased prosperity.
There's none of that.
None of that's on the horizon.
That's why so many millions of Americans are literally fearful, literally scared of the future.
And not just for them, but for their kids.
These eight million people, there's so many kids, some of these kids that are just into the workforce.
Eight million of them out, and there's nowhere for them to go.
The jobs aren't there.
But created four and hair.
Million jobs took off.
You didn't build that.
You didn't make that happen.
Now, while all this is going on, what's the big deal to Obama?
Obama's out there claiming that he will ensure that the women of America have access to contraceptives.
As though they don't now.
As though Mitt Romney is standing at every Walgreens and preventing any woman that walks in from finding the birth control counter.
That's the picture he wants you to have.
No matter what store you go at Wall Green, Walmart, CVS, there's gonna be Mitt Romney hoarding the birth control pill so that you can't have them.
Why?
Because Mitt Romney wants you pregnant barefoot in the kitchen, rubbing your husband's back, massaging his feet while he's drinking beer or whatever and beating you up.
And sadly, a significant portion of the female population of this country seems to react to that.
So here is our wonderful leader, Barack Obama, claiming that he will make sure that women have access to contraceptives.
Is there a woman in America who wants contraceptives who cannot get them?
Is there a woman in America who wants to have a birth control pill or who wants to have an abortion who can't?
Does anybody with half a brain in this country think that a change in administration will somehow affect access to birth control pills?
Apparently some do.
This is why we wonder if we've lost the country.
But apparently there are some people.
There are some women who actually believe that if there is a new president, that it's Mitt Romney that somehow birth control pills will not be able to be found.
Were contraceptives denied during the eight years of the Bush administration?
How about the first Bush administration?
How about Reagan?
Were contracepts and uh birth control pills denied.
No way.
No way.
Most it's just the exact opposite.
They practically give them away.
Along with Viagra here.
Go have a party.
Be back in just a second.
Don't go away.
Folks, a couple of polls out there today that just are outrageous.
And one is the CBS New York Times poll, the other is the Washington Post poll, and I'm telling you, they are irresponsible.
They are designed to do exactly what I have warned you to be vigilant about, and that is to depress you and to suppress your vote.
These two polls today are designed to convince everybody this election is over.
And Jan Greenberg at CBS looks at one of these grab grab audio somebody number six.
Even says that this over.
Because this Ohio poll.
It's not over.
It hasn't even really begun yet.
I don't want anybody thinking this is over.
I don't want anybody falling for this.
I'll analyze these polls and explain to you why they're bogus as the program unfolds.
But here on CBS this morning, Jan Crawford reporting on a new poll showing Obama with a lead.
Both candidates are focused on Ohio this week.
It is getting tough here for Mitt Romney.
Our latest poll now shows the president is up by 10 points.
The poll says the president also has a significant lead with women voters in all three of those swing states that we surveyed, but here in Ohio, the president is up by 25 points with women voters.
Now today Romney will be focused on the economy.
That's an issue that's been the cornerstone of his campaign, but there's trouble in our poll there for Romney too.
In our poll for the first time, the president has taken a lead on that key issue in all three states.
That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Obama ahead by 25 points with women in Ohio.
And finally taking the lead over Romney on the economy.
Because yeah, the economy's gotten so much better in the last week.
If it's this good for Obama, I have well a bunch of questions, but one central question.
Why is he there?
Why is he campaigning in Ohio today?
If it's that wrapped up, he got a 10-point lead.
Why is he there?
Why not go to some other state where it's not that big a lead?
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, depression, despair, murkiness, and tumult.
And yes, even the good times, Rush Limbaugh here at 800-282-2882.
Let's look at this poll.
In fact, let's look at some of them.
The mainstream media's no, I'm not through with my Obama rant.
I barely got started on that.
I'm just I'm making I I'm melding it here all into one perfect presentation.
Mainstream media's efforts to suppress your vote is now at full speed.
It's getting tiresome to me.
But it is it is taking place now at full speed.
Every day I get emails from people.
So how do you feel about it today, Rush?
Every day.
People looking to me for guidance.
Leadership, how do you feel about it today?
I don't know.
I think it's lost today.
You really do it.
No, no, no.
I'm just, what do you expect me to say?
It is, it's a roller coaster.
This is why.
This talked about it yesterday.
Why do you think so many people in this country is stupid?
Because a poll's like this.
Obama's up ten points in the economy.
Or not ten points in the economy, but he's leading Romney in Ohio on a question of who's better suited to run the U.S. economy for the first time in the campaign.
What does that make any sense?
How does that make any sense at all?
The economy's getting worse.
So this effort to suppress your vote and depress you at the same time, folks, they're ratcheting it down.
This is—they're— They're trying to wrap this up before the debates even start.
Because I think they're worried about the debates.
I think they're trying to get I think they're trying to get this election finished in a can by suppressing your vote, depressing use that you just don't think there's any reason to vote.
It's hopeless.
They want you making other plans.
We are told that according to the latest New York Times Quinniphy CBS news poll, Obama is leading Romney by nine points in Florida, by ten points in Ohio, and by twelve points in Pennsylvania.
All among likely voters.
If that's true, it's over.
If that's true, it's over because there's no way to recover that kind of ground in the number of days left.
So the question is, is this true?
Is it anywhere near true?
Well, the pollsters will all tell you what's in it for us to be wrong.
There's no poll, but folks, these pollsters can massage the sample in any number of ways to get what they want out of a given poll, and they will always be able to go back as a look according to that sample.
Our poll was right on the money.
There is no doubt in my mind.
Because the problem out there's Rasmussen.
Rasmussen has the race tied at 46.
And Rasmussen has been one of the leading polling units, presidential races for a long time.
And so here comes CBS and New York Times and Quinnipiac, and they've got they've got this race over in these three swing states.
And yet, there's Rasmussen out there today, 46-46.
There's Gallup out there.
And Gallup doesn't show any of this.
And Gallup's got Obama disapproval rising.
Okay.
Well, it's all over the place.
Nine points in Florida, ten points Ohio, twelve points in Pennsylvania.
What we aren't told, let me tell you what we're not told, and this according to their own data.
They oversampled Democrats by 7% in Florida, where Obama is up by nine points.
They oversampled Democrats by 11 points in Pennsylvania.
Where Obama is up 12.
Oversample Democrats, here are the numbers.
In Florida, Democrat 43, Republican 36, Independent won.
In Pennsylvania, 48 Democrat, 37 Republican, Independents won.
So they got 11% plus advantage for Democrats Pennsylvania, 7% Democrat plus advantage in Florida.
What they're telling us, what Mr. What's this guy's name at Quinnipiac?
Uh Miren Goff, Lee Mirengoff runs this.
But what he's saying is that he expects the turnout in Ohio, I'm sorry, the turnout in let's say Florida to be 43% Democrats, 36% Republican, and 1% Democrat independent.
That's what he expects to turn out to be.
These guys are going back and using the turnout from 2004 and 2008.
They're ignoring 2010.
Every one of these polls is ignoring the actual turnout in 2010, which was a referendum on Obama and was a referendum on health care.
They're using turnout in previous elections, where Democrats came close or won, say uh congressional races, Senate races in off-year presidential years, such as 2006.
And of course, 28, when Obama won by seven, they go back and use that turnout.
But is anybody expect that to be the case?
Do we really expect that in Florida?
I saw a story, I can't remember where.
And it was either the beginning of this week or late last week about Romney really gaining ground in Florida.
It was just going gangbusters, crowds larger than anybody'd ever seen.
It was a news story, not a poll story.
And here comes this thing.
The CBS, New York Times, Quinnipiact poll.
So they expect that the turnout in Florida is going to be 43% Democrat, 36% Republican.
In Pennsylvania, Mr. Miren Goff is telling us that he expects the turnout in November to be 48% Democrat, 37% Republican, 11% more Democrats are going to vote in November in Pennsylvania than Republicans.
That's what they're trying to make reality, by the way.
This is what they're trying to create.
They want you so depressed, only 37% of you show up.
In Ohio, in Ohio, now where they have Romney down by 10, they didn't even report party affiliation.
They didn't even ask party affiliation in Ohio.
We don't know what it is.
Their own poll does not tell us.
They list something called NA, which I guess means not available.
So we don't know how many Democrats are in the Ohio sample.
We don't know how many Republicans are independents in the Ohio sample.
All we know is, as CBS New York Times is telling us that Obama is up 10 in Ohio.
He's up 25 with women in Ohio, and in Ohio, they think Obama is the guy to fix the economy.
But they don't tell us what the party affiliation of the respondents in their poll was.
Now, as we've noted Before.
The poll numbers do not reflect the party affiliation in the country as found by the latest Rasmussen poll, the party affiliation, which goes back to August 31st.
On August 31st, Rasmussen reported that people identify themselves as Republican 37.6%, Democrat 33%, independent 29%.
So why are the polls oversampling?
The Democrats by anywhere from seven to eleven points.
Do they not believe Rasmussen?
Obviously not.
What are we to do, though?
What are you to believe?
Here's Rasmussen, August 31st, latest national party affiliation, Republicans up four over Democrats.
Never reflected in any poll.
If, by the way, you do that, if you take all these polls and you change the samples, some guy did this at non-skewed polls or some such thing in it.
It's been all over the internet.
If you do this, if you take every one of these polls and you exchange the sample for what Rasmussen found, you find Romney up by anywhere from what is it, six to nine points, some cases ten points.
If you use an accurate sample of Republicans and Democrats as reflected by Rasmussen's party affiliation report on August 31st.
And maybe even not even using Rasmussen, just using actual turnout numbers in previous elections.
You don't even have to use Rasmussen.
And I get one more thing I want to add to this for you to consider.
In this CBS poll, there aren't any independents.
There's one percent independent in the poll in Florida, 1% in Pennsylvania, and they don't tell us the breakdown in Ohio.
But yet, Rasmussen found 29.2% of Americans identify themselves as independents.
Mr. Mirengoff at Quinnipiac here used 1%.
And there's also no mention that all of their sampling is based on past exit polls.
How else are they gonna know?
They don't have access to the ballots, I don't think.
Maybe they do, but they're that they're using exit polls in order to determine the turnout in previous elections.
They're using exit polls well.
know how notoriously inaccurate they are.
And you throw in the fact that more and more people are not using landlines, more people use cell phones, but it's landlines that the pollsters use.
No, no, I am not grasping at straws.
I want to make this very clear.
I am not looking at a situation where I know, but I'm not telling you that I think it's over.
That's not the case at all.
I'm not sitting here trying to be falsely positive or optimistic.
I'm trying to analyze this stuff as honestly as I can.
I don't understand.
When I hear Obama up 25 with women in Ohio, I don't understand that.
I haven't seen anything in the news in the last three months, two weeks, whatever, to reflect that.
What...
What would have caused Romney to plummet by that much with women?
What, on the other hand, would have caused Obama to magically surpassed Romney on the question of who's better able to handle the economy?
What's happened?
What where has it gotten better?
and you can tie Obama to it.
And people say, "Well, it may not be that rush.
It may just people think that the incumbent is the best guy.
They don't want to change horses in the middle of the stream." Okay.
Well, that's not what the pollsters are saying.
But okay, if you want to say that, it could also be the Raspberry effect of the not Raspberry, the Wilder effect, could be people just don't want to admit that they're not going to vote again for the first black president.
Fact.
I've got it here somewhere.
I don't know what number it is.
Doesn't matter.
Don't tell me enough time to play it right now.
Some reporter asks Romney, well, how are you gonna feel if you if you're the one who actually defeats the first black president?
I mean, uh what do you think that's gonna say about you?
He said, Yeah, what would you tell black American you're the guy that beat the first black president?
Here it is.
Well, who is it?
Who number seven?
What's the uh Jim Acosta?
Jim McCon says it uh what number is it?
C and it's situation like Jim Acosta interviewing Romney and uh it's I guess it sounds like seven and eight.
Here's the first one.
African Americans have a tremendous sense of pride that there's the first African American president in the White House.
If you were to somehow beat the first African American president, what would you say to the black community to assure them that you would be their president also?
Yeah.
What would you say?
So let's point a gun at Romney.
Okay, you beat the first black president.
What are you gonna say to African Americans?
What do you mean?
Here's what Romney said.
I want to be the president of all the people of America.
You don't get into a race like this with myself and my family and do the kind of work and commitment that we put forward without the passion to help all of America.
And the people who really need the help right now, other people in the middle class, people who've fallen into poverty.
I know how to get them helped.
President doesn't.
I gotta take a break.
Um we'll be back.
Don't go away, folks.
We're only just getting started here.
Hey, we're back.
Great to have you here.
Ill Rushball on a roll on the EIB network of the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There's something else going on with those polling data.
Early voting is taking place.
Everybody wants to be on the winning side.
Everybody thinks if if if you put a poll out, early voting in Ohio and and Obama's up ten.
25 points is women, and you're Republican.
That a hell would it screw?
You know, early voting.
As many Republicans as Democrats vote, but you just never hear about it.
Everybody thinks early voting is Democrats only.
It's why you get depressed.
You think the only people early voting are Democrats.
You think the only people early registering are Democrats.
We are out there too.
Don't doubt me.
Our grassroots people on the ground are getting this done.
No, I don't like early voting, but that's we'll save it for another time.
I'm just, it's it's there, it's a reality you have to have to deal with it.
I think it's a bogus.
We got one election day.
And Obama's out there, by the way, trying to suppress military votes in some state.
I forget where that is.
Maybe Iowa.
Why is Obama in Ohio?
If he's 25 up with women, if he's 10 points up overall, why is he there?
Other place, if he wants a slam dunk win, go someplace where it's a little tighter and spend money there.
What's he doing in all these states he supposedly has locked up?
I'll tell you something else about this, folks, and I want you to really consider this.
I take you back to 2004.
We had the the first wave of exit polls at two o'clock, and it looked bad.
Oh my god.
Look, Carrie was, I mean, it was huge.
Kerry was winning, but 5 o'clock, second wave exit polls.
Even worse.
Carrie winning.
And there was a story that Bob Schrum, who was Kerry's campaign guy, walked into his office and said, May I be the first to say, Congratulations, Mr. President.
The polls hadn't even closed.
When the actual vote started being counted, the exit polls were as wrong as they could be.
And then what happened?
The Democrats started accusing everybody of cheating.
Remember?
55,000 votes in Ohio.
If they just swung 55,000 votes in Ohio and Carr would be president, they actually, these numbskulls on the left actually believe the exit polls were right.
The real votes were tampered with.
So if you have nothing leading up to this election, but one poll after another, with Obama up five, up 10, up 12, up 8, up 7, and Romney wins, then what happens?
Then you've got riots.
So there's a there could be, I'm just throwing out possibility, it could be a lot of political reasons why all this.
You got early voting, and you've got uh uh uh an attempt here to set up the idea that there has to have been some fraud because every poll had Obama winning by double digits or high single digits, and then Romney wins by five points.
The left, you know these people.
The first thing they're gonna think of is they've had the elections stolen from them, and they're gonna start raising holy hell.
The real vote will not matter to them if it's that drastically different from all these polls.
Hillary Clinton told an acorn audience that elections were stalled in Ohio in 2004.
She told an acorn audience that.
They're not incapable of all this.
They're totally capable of everything I'd be describing to you.
Damn, I gotta take another break.
Yeah, it's a shame, folks, but uh have to do it.
There are no other.
We have an agreement in principle between the National Football League and the real riffs.
They could come back as soon as week four.
So the fun will now leave the NFL.
▲
Export Selection