All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:43
January 23, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, no, the um long range forecast for New York for the Super Bowl weekend.
We're just now getting into the 10-day forecast range for some of the uh weather department wild guessers.
And most of them are saying we got forecasts up to Friday or Saturday of Super Bowl weekend, which is Sunday, of course, and they're forecasting Sunshine 32 for a daytime high.
There is one, there is one weather system.
Uh sorry, one weather forecasting outfit that says they have a model that is showing potential serious weather.
Super Bowl weekend in New York.
Most of the forecasts, normal winter day, 16 overnight the night before the game, 32 for the high on Sunday, and of course the games at nights will be in the 20s.
That's long range, except there's this one model out there that is suggesting there could be a major storm.
So that's what everybody's looking at.
No, I'm not going.
I'm I'm uh this is uh other plans will not be in New Jersey or New York for this Super Bowl.
Anyway, greetings, folks, and welcome back.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882, the email address El Rushbo at EIB net.com.
And here is I want you to hear the second Scott Walker soundbite.
He's just told the people of his state in the State of the State Address that they have a 911 million dollar surplus.
And he explained how they did it.
It was genuine economic recovery.
It wasn't a one-time windfall.
It wasn't a budget gimmick.
It wasn't something that was one year only.
It was something that has resulted from the implementation of Scott Walker economic policy.
He's got more people working.
That means there are more taxpayers.
That means there's more money co coming into the state of Wisconsin, and as a result, he can cut people's taxes.
Now the left would see a surplus, and they would have already spent the money.
They would have already allocated it to some union or group of unions or uh an expansion of some existing welfare program or whatever to buy more votes.
Scott Walker is gonna give the money back, and here's how he said it.
What do you do with a surplus?
You give it back to the people who earned it.
It's your money.
I propose that we deposit a portion of these new revenues into the state's rainy day fund and use the remainder to provide much-needed tax relief to you, the hardworking taxpayers of Wisconsin.
Tonight I will propose a blueprint for prosperity, which will continue to improve our economy while preserving our strong fiscal standing.
And I think the primary uh tax cuts will be income and property tax cuts.
Those are the two primary areas.
Now, this is noteworthy.
Folks, if we sit here and we talk about conservatism all the time, we sit here and espouse it philosophically, uh and and we we do it from the outside looking in.
And we do it sometimes from a standpoint of complaining about things that are being done a certain way that if we had power, we'd do them a different way.
And we speak theoretically to people.
We say, look at if we did it our way, here's what well, here it is.
We're not dealing in theory now.
We're dealing in reality.
And it works.
It is working famously.
It's working just like it did in the 1980s.
And despite all of the fear-mongering and all of the lies that have come from Democrats around this country about Scott Walker, and about despite all the lies about his policies, he withstood this onslaught that was at least two different attempts to get him out of office.
They did everything to ruin this man's reputation.
They tried to destroy his political life, and he fought them.
He had a lot of help.
He had a lot of people rallied to him, and they did it trusting That he would stay who he was, that he would not get frightened, that he wouldn't compromise, that he wouldn't start sounding frankly like an establishment Republican.
I think it's also important to point out that Scott Walker is very closely attached to the Heritage Foundation.
And that's important because they are genuine conservatives, and they provide strong backup, moral support, and policy advice as well.
This is, I'm telling you, it's a great little microcosm of what can happen to the country and in state after state after state if it's just tried.
And frankly, uh, this is why so many of us are frustrated at the establishment of the Republican Party.
Why not do this?
What harm has come to the Republicans of Wisconsin?
What harm has come to Scott Walker?
He didn't have to become a Democrat.
He didn't have to start talking about amnesty.
He didn't have to start pursuing Hispanics or any of the things that the establishment Republicans say they have to do in order to win.
He just remained true to his own ideology.
He remained true to his beliefs and his desires, remained dedicated, implemented this stuff after promising people this is who he was, and after promising people this is what he was going to do, he's done it.
And it's working.
And so we're not dealing with theory anymore.
And it happened in a blue state.
A blue state capital, by the way.
There are blue states and there are blue states.
This is a huge blue state.
It is rife with Union control, rife with rabid radical leftists, extremists all over that state, who tried to destroy this guy.
And not only did he keep his job, not only did he beat them back, he succeeded in implementing exactly what he promised he was going to do.
And here's a one billion dollar tax cut.
He's got not a gimmick, but he's got economic policy generating this surplus.
And he's got more people working.
That creates more taxpayers, that creates more revenue flowing to Wisconsin, and even at that, he's able to cut taxes.
Because there are more people working, and because as more people are working and paying taxes, you need to decrease the amount each person pays.
It's just simple mathematics.
And it works every time it's tried.
So kudos from us here at the EIB to uh to Governor Walker.
Because this hasn't been easy.
It hasn't been easy for him, and it hasn't been easy for his supporters.
He's been going up against a Democrat machine led by no less than President Obama and all these other personages.
So we're no longer in the realm of theory.
Once again, it has been demonstrated to people.
And I think it's great.
And I think he deserves his kudos and uh all the respect in the world and guts for hanging in.
It would have been so much easier to do something else.
It would have been so much easier to compromise.
So much easier just to let the Democrats have the state.
Hell they've had it forever anyway.
It isn't worth any of this.
He could have said, but he didn't.
And I should point out that these policies that he's implemented are not the policies that you'll hear espoused by, say, Governor Christie or Governor Romney or any of the establishment Republicans.
This is conservatism here.
It is on parade, and it's now front and center for everyone to see.
No gimmicks, no accounting tricks, no one-time finagling of the data in order to create the surplus.
It's real.
I mentioned at the top of the program there's a lot of polling data out.
There's a Fox News poll out.
And the headline here, as Obama starts his sixth year, 74% say the U.S. is still in a recession.
A third of voters say they like Obama and his policies, a dramatic drop from 47% who felt that way in October of 2012.
This is a dramatic plunge.
33% say they like Obama and his policies.
That used to be near 50% just a year and a half ago.
In addition, 62% now say that they dislike the president's policies.
That's up from 51% the month before his re-election in 2012.
So again, in a year and a half.
62% dislike used to be 51, it's 11% increase or plunge from the Obama standpoint.
And of course, according to Obama, this is all because of me in Fox News.
That's what he's just told a New Yorker.
Yep, it's me in Fox News because we are lying to you about him and his policies.
And if it weren't for me in Fox News, you would be liking Obama.
You'd be liking his policies.
And you'd be understanding that it's all working, he says.
I'll tell you what's appalling to me, although it may be amazing.
Although mathematically, again, it makes sense.
It's stunning to me that even 33% still like his policies.
I guess when you figure that that's the percentage of people on the dole, knowingly on the dole.
Not everybody on the dole looks at themselves that way.
Let's say statistically, 50% of the country receives a government check.
Not all of them are going to think that they're on the government dole.
Some of them are going to think, oh, I'm owed that.
You know, I'm trying to find a job and I can't find a job, and I'm owed this unemployment, but they don't want to be there forever.
So of the the hypothetical 50% getting a check, probably 33% are happy to be on the dole as a lifestyle.
And that would explain 33% being satisfied.
But a question presents itself, and that is this.
Why haven't we seen more polls asking people if they feel like we are still in a recession?
Because the regime is saying that the recession ended in 2009.
The regime is saying the recession ended in 2009, I think in June, and that the recovery began, and that there's been a recovery going on ever since.
And that's where the 44 months of consecutive job growth uh have their roots.
You know, I seem to recall during the Bush years, there were all kinds of polls asking people if they felt like we were in a recession.
When we weren't in one, by the way.
When we weren't even close to being in one, but the media was trying to create an impression that we were in a recession and that it was deepening.
I mean, even without polling data, the drive-by's used to tell us that most people felt like we were in a recession under Bush, even when the economy was booming.
Probably because the drive-by's kept telling us that we were in a recession.
They kept telling you, well, you might have been doing okay, but your neighbor isn't.
It's really bad out there.
That's the trick they pulled during the uh Bush year.
By the way, according to this Fox poll, among all issues, Obama receives his highest approval.
What do you think it is?
It's 39%.
But what do you think the issue is on which Obama gets his highest approval?
No.
No.
His highest approval.
Income inequality.
I kid you not.
I kid you not, Obama gets his highest approval on income inequality, 39% in the Fox poll.
But according to all the other polls, nobody cares about income inequality.
In fact, there's another poll out there that says something like 74% of the American people don't think it's the federal government's job to deal with income inequality.
Stunning.
And yet, income inequality is the focus, we are told, of Obama's upcoming State of the Union address.
One more little polling update here before we get back to the phones.
This is the um Associated press.
And it's their own poll.
The AP GFK poll.
And the headline of their story is people see Obama as a nice guy, but a so-so president.
And this poll finds that less than a third of us, less than 33%, for those of you in Rio Linda, consider Obama to be above average.
Now that's going to come as a shock to both the regime and the media, because I'm telling you, they are living in a fantasy world where they believe, despite the polling data that's out there, I'm telling you, they believe that people are still swooning over Obama.
They know there's some problems with Obamacare, but they think that Obama still has people at wrapped attention, for example, when he makes speech.
They're living in this illusion that Obama still has this messianic hold on people.
So this is going to come as a shock.
I'm sure it did to the AP people.
Less than a third of the American people consider Obama to be above average.
But nearly twice as many find him likable as a person.
Now why would that be?
I mean, maybe you don't automatically have to dislike somebody when you disapprove of them as the president or when you think you're doing a bad job.
Frankly, I think disliking Obama is somewhat explainable.
I mean, this is a guy that lied to you about keeping your doctor if you liked him.
This is a president who lied to you about keeping your health insured.
That's something deeply personal to people.
And he lied to people for three years.
It'd be very understandable if people didn't like a guy that lied to him.
A lot of people that bought into Obama, young people that now don't have careers and can't find careers.
They can't find jobs that'll pay them more than 29 hours a week.
I mean, if you look at it strictly human sense, there's all kinds of reasons to be angry if you want to be, in addition to finding him a so-so president.
So there's got to be something else going on here that would oh, yeah, I really like the guy.
You know, kind of a so-so president.
But I really like now.
You tell a pollster I said I really like him.
I think Obama's great.
He's not a very good president after all, but you tell him I really like him.
I wonder why that would be.
I don't know.
There's got to be an explanation for it.
I mean, imagine you're the pollster and it's not a robocall.
You're actually on the phone, you're taking somebody's opinion, and you call them up and say, and they agree to talk to you.
And uh, well, I'm not sure.
I think his job is a president.
I'm somewhat disappointed, he's so-so deal like, oh, yeah, I love you.
In fact, you tell whoever's taking this poll that I really like Obama.
Thank you.
But I think it needs to be pointed out.
It's it's not.
It's not as if the American people disagree with Obama because they don't like him.
On the contrary, at least according to this poll, they find Obama likable despite the fact they disagree with his policy decisions.
And uh, and despite the fawning and the misleading coverage by his PR team, uh, the drive-bys, they still think he's a so-so president.
Fascinating to me.
Here's Rich and White Plains in New York.
Welcome, sir.
I'm glad you waited.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
I'm just fine, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Mr. Snerdley says that um I should talk about football, and it's not openline Friday.
You're the general.
I'm just a foot soldier.
You want to talk about football?
Go ahead.
I wanted to talk about politics.
Actually, I had an epiphany while I was listening to you talk about Scott Walker.
Did you notice Scott Walker took on the teachers' union and he won?
He's doing well in Wisconsin.
Christie took on the teachers' union.
He won and he's doing well in New Jersey.
John Kasich, on the other hand, took on every civil servant and got beat.
I find that interesting.
What's that got to do with Colin Kaepernick?
Why did Colin Kaepernick have to go into the end zone?
Hey, Rush, how much time was left on the clock when he threw that pass?
I'm gonna have to well guess I don't know, 36 seconds.
Was it was it that little?
It wasn't long.
There wasn't he didn't have minutes.
Well, do you think it was enough time?
They would only take in a one-point lead.
Okay, and you would have left yourself open to something.
They had to score a touchdown.
They had to go to the end zone.
There was no way they didn't have time to kick a field goal, run for an onside kick and come back down.
They had to get the DNZone.
I'm thinking he could have he could have used the clock a little better with with more strategic passes and score with absolutely no time left.
But the other controversy in that game, and I think That play ended.
That play ended the game, if you'll recall.
Oh, yeah, I know.
So there wasn't a whole lot of time left.
I'm just I thought there was more.
My recollection was there was more time and that you didn't have to go into the end zone.
That was my recollection.
Well, I don't remember.
I don't know if it was fourth down.
It was fourth down, they had to go to the end zone.
They were close enough, I don't think that uh look at at what there was so little time they had to score.
That was the only hope they had.
There was no finesse time left.
And Capernick went with whoever he felt most comfortable with, and he went with his uh uh what what they I guess they think is their hands receiver, Cape uh uh uh uh Crabtree.
And I don't know, you know, you never know.
It could be that they had only thrown at Richard Sherman, the cornerback one time previously.
They might have run the uh risk and figured that Sherman's head wasn't in the game.
They hadn't used him, hadn't thrown at him all game.
Now just to expand on my point, uh time crunch there.
I don't remember the game situation.
I don't know how much time is all I know is okay.
I was right at 40 seconds.
That was it.
It was it was third or fourth down.
That play ended the game.
That interception ended the game.
So at 40 seconds um third or fourth down, I think you know, people say, why'd he go to Sherman?
I mean, Sherman is admittedly the number one quarterback.
He's got he's he set the record for the most interceptions the NFL in the last two years consecutively.
And it could well be that they might have just rolled the dice that that uh Sherman's head wasn't in the game.
They had only thrown at him one time in the previous three hours.
And on that play, they was called for holding.
Now, I know it doesn't make sense after you know Sherman the way you've got to know it.
What do you mean head wasn't in the game?
Uh if you're sitting out there, it's the last play of the game, and you're thinking they're not coming to you because they haven't come in your direction the whole game.
Uh it couldn't the 49ers could have thought this is my point.
Could have been some of their strategy.
Okay, let's go to Crabtree, because maybe Sherman's uh playing off.
Who knows?
Yeah.
Yeah, holding in the end zone would have put it on the one.
Well, uh the pass interference would have put it on the one.
Holding would have been a five-yard or half distance to the goal line.
And uh because the game can't end on a defensive uh penalty, but uh maybe they were shooting for that, who knows.
Uh but it could well be nothing more complicated than Crabtree's their hands receiver, and Harbaugh said that.
I'm gonna go with my best receiver.
I don't care who's covering him.
It's gonna be any number of reasons to explain it.
Well, look at it, wasn't a bad call.
I mean, this is the kind of hindsight.
What why go to Crabtree with Sherman at?
Well, you didn't think that during the game, you didn't even know who Sherman was.
What?
Yeah, I think I think yet the the the Navarro Bowman uh fumble recovery.
Yeah, I think where we're headed on review is that every play is gonna be re reviewable.
Uh that a fumble that does not involve an end line or an out-of-bounds line.
The recovery fumble cannot be reviewed.
That's the current rule.
And that fumble uh did not involve an end line, didn't a touchdown or an out-of-bounds marker.
So it wasn't reviewable.
But I think that was such a blown call.
But don't forget, karma was at work.
The football gods were at work because the Seahawks did not score.
And in fact, lost the ball on a turnover three or four plays later.
So that's what the NFL uh breathing a huge sigh of relief.
If the Seahawks had gone and it scored after that, that's all we'd have been hearing about.
Richard Sherman would be competing with that for the top news item coming out of that championship game.
Because that would have been the refs once again blew something big that resulted in perhaps a team winning on a bad call.
And that would have been horrible PR.
But that was all wiped out when the Seahawks didn't score on that bad play, that fumble recovery that wasn't, because they lost the ball themselves four or five plays later, or three or four plays, or whatever it um, whatever it was.
Here's uh here's Karen in Langhorn, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you called.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's such an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
Great to have you here.
You know, I was listening to you earlier when you were talking about CNN and their advertising demographic and how they target.
And they can't target, they can't change their target from young people because then they'd have to admit that they've been expousing the policies that have ruined their ability to have uh disposable income.
Now wait a minute.
That sounds like it makes sense, but I got to hear that again.
Run that run that by me again.
Sure.
I think that the reason CNN and their advertisers keep saying that they're aiming for young people.
But okay, give it everybody does.
It's not just CNN that shoots for 25, everybody except us.
I mean, we target it, but 2554 is not our number one demo.
It's is i uh our in terms of advertising here at the EIB network, we push 55 plus just as hard as we do 2554, because dirty little secret, they're the ones that have the money.
Anyway, well everyone shoots for 2554.
It doesn't matter who except the teenage-oriented uh outlets.
But I think they can't aim for anyone else because they'd have to admit that they've truly destroyed the earning power of the young people with their policies and and what they're putting on their channel.
Well, uh you're giving them credit for foresight that I don't think they have.
You you you are assuming that they can't change their targeted advertiser demographic because they know that the people that are in that group don't have any money because of the economic problems caused by Obama, right?
Yes, and just liberalism in general, that they're always spouting.
I'm stuck in airports a lot, so I have to listen to CNN, and it makes me a little crazed.
Yeah, I know.
That's why I can't, even with like you're a captive audience.
You can't do anything but watch CNN, right?
You have to ask the bartender to change the channel.
And the thing is, in the airports, there isn't any other news network on it.
CNN, they've got the contract.
You're trapped.
You are trapped, exactly right.
So I'm still what what is your theory that CNN knows they've destroyed the economy for young people?
Well, I think that it would they would have to admit, you know, if they started targeting other demographics in order to bring money in, they would have to admit that the money's not there for for the the young people.
And if they admitted that and they had to ask why, they might have to actually look at themselves and what they're putting on.
Oh, I see.
Well, perhaps, all although the advertiser community as a whole has not given up on the financial health of the 2554 demographic.
I mean, if you want to see it in action, if you want to see advertising in action.
If you want to learn everything about advertising, you can.
Just watch the Super Bowl.
And just watch the commercials in the Super Bowl, and you will see.
I've often said, because I know it to be true, and I believe it to be true, that it really competent advertisers have a better handle on the pulse of the culture than anybody else.
It's their job.
They have one job to separate people from their money willingly.
Their job is to convince John Quix to give up his money for whatever they convince John Q public he wants.
In fact, socialists decry this.
And communists John Kenneth Galbreth, who I must say was one of Mr. Buckley's closest friends, big time leftist economists, hated consumerism, hated advertising, because he looked at it as a total uh what's the word it was an insult to him.
He thought it was it was dehumanizing.
He thought the whole idea of convincing people that they needed or wanted things that they didn't need or want was an abomination.
And it was, as far as he was concerned, it was exactly what's wrong with capitalism.
His theory was that capitalism couldn't survive unless you made average people want things they didn't have.
And he didn't think that was healthy.
Now that's sophistry as far as that.
It's absolutely silly, because he was denying that people have aspirations.
He was offended that people wanted to improve their standard of living.
He was offended that people wanted to acquire new things in as part of their pursuit of happiness.
He thought the acquisition of material things, and he's not the only one by, by the way.
Every communist socialist economist in the world thinks this, that the artificial way of selling a product, and selling a product is artificial by definition, he thinks there shouldn't be any advertising, and whatever you want should be there because you want it, not because somebody has invented it to try to sell it to you.
I kid you not.
I mean, he's he wrote books about this, this Galbert, uh John Kenneth Galberth did.
Um he was known as John Kenneth Galberth uh to the media.
He was known as Ken to his friends.
And advertising and consumerism, I mean, it was like showing Dracula the cross.
You shouldn't want anything other than the basics.
And if you did because some advertiser came along and showed it to you, that was artificial and it was mean because it was showing a lot of people things they couldn't have.
I mean, the way that would manifest itself as if Lamborghini advertised.
That would be horrible.
That would be mean because 999 people out of a thousand will never be able to afford one.
And to show them what they can't have, that's mean, and that's what capitalism is.
It mean and it breeds resentment and jealousy.
So he didn't like advertising at all.
You know, like consumerism, and he's not the only one.
He just was the most eloquent at uh at expressing it.
On the other hand, I've always believed that if uh a company hires an agency to sell its product, to market and sell its product, that agency has to know the culture.
That agency has to know cool, it has to know hip, and it has to be able to predict it.
And it has to be able to personify it.
It has to be able to hire people who are it or who recognize it, who can write it, who can produce it in TV commercials.
I mean, there's all kinds of different advertising.
There's cost per thousand, there's results-oriented, uh, there's some impressions, any number of ways of going about it.
Television advertising in the Super Bowl is a combination of cost per thousand reaching eyeballs, but also results-oriented and branding.
And if you watch the advertising, actually in anything, in any primetime show, for example, um prime time, you watch any show that's targeting the 2554 demographic, and you will learn what those people think is cool, hip and where our culture is.
So if you watch the Super Bowl and really take time to watch the commercials and study them rather than be entertained by them, you will find out you'll have a pretty good bead on where the country is culturally.
I've always believed this.
I've always believed that good advertising is a great window on where we are.
And again, the reason, even though it's it's established that people older than 55 have all the money, they also have everything they want.
Or most of it, and they've already established their brand loyalty, and it would simply cost too much to get them to change their minds.
That's why.
You start studying this, and you'll see that most commercials are done and aimed at people in their teens and twenties.
Other than a qu now, every there's an exception, everything.
Uh hemorrhoids, they're not going to advertise those to an 18, a preparation H or whatever.
You're going to see those during soap operas in the daytime and so forth.
But use a little common sense here and you'll understand how this uh all works.
And they the 55 plus hasn't been abandoned.
But the advertising aimed at them is simply aimed at maintaining brand loyalty.
And establishing that the products they love are still good and still work and maybe are being improved, but you will not see advertising aimed at those people that's designed to get them to switch brands.
But the advertising aimed at 2554 is all about that.
I find it all fascinating.
And by the way, not every advertising agency knows what it's doing.
That's why some are better than others, and it's like any other business.
Some Super Bowl commercials, you'll look, what the hell was that?
Utter failure, if that's your reaction.
Uh well, now this now this Schwarzenegger spot, Snerdley just mentioned the teasers they're running.
That's a new one, by the way.
They're now running actual previews of upcoming Super Bowl commercials.
That's what the Schwarzenegger things, playing ping-pong in the Budweiser spot.
That's going to be a two-minute commercial in the Super Bowl.
And they're teasing.
I'll explain that when we come back.
I have to take a break here, don't.
Okay, then the Schwarzenegger thing, all during the football games on Sunday.
They ran this to, I mean, to the point of irritation.
These little 10-second, 20-second uh Arnold Schwarzenegger dressed as Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High, trying to play ping pong, making fun of the guy.
They were uh making fun of the Schwarzenegger character.
I mean, it's obviously dressed up to look like an absolute buffoon.
And the buffoon is what, of all things playing ping pong.
And the whole thing is a tease to set you up for the full two-minute commercial that is going to air during the Super Bowl.
Okay, so now how would you advertise this in an advertising sense?
I mean, what is Budweiser doing?
Why did he need to have Schwarzenegger out there dressed up like a 60s hippie playing ping pong?
Which by the way, he can't play, in order to sell beer.
That's my point.
Somebody there, somebody that does Anheuser Bush's marketing, has come up with a way to have their Budweiser commercial stand out from all the others.
Now, I have read that those little teasers, they had a lot of trouble.
Apparently, Schwarzenegger really can't play ping pong.
That took take after take after take, just in fact, they couldn't use any takes of Schwarzenegger actually hitting a ping pong ball because he couldn't.
So every one of those was an earshot.
Now, what they're trying to do is get people excited or anticipatory, for whatever reason, to see the whole thing.
Okay, what is this about?
What in the world?
Because it it teasers, see, there, you know, whatever it teases it with the full thing coming during the Super Bowl.
Anyway, uh Jim Central Illinois, welcomes her to the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Thank you.
I'm uh looking forward to speaking with you.
Appreciate that, sir.
Um, Rush, um.
There are a lot of ways to know that uh Obama's well, I consider Obama a pathological liar.
Um Obamacare, for instance.
Um there are a lot of ways to know uh that the whole thing was set up not to work.
Uh for instance, uh cost drivers.
I uh I assume you know what I mean by a call.
Yeah, but let me ask you a question here, Jim.
Would you know that if I hadn't told you?
Because Obama thinks you wouldn't know that if I hadn't told you.
Well, I would have because I worked uh in an industry that uh I was responsible for product and I had to uh do cost reduction efforts on it.
Uh, to make sure that it's Well, he thinks that you don't like it because I've told you lies about it.
Now, Jim, I picked up the phone and I had the clock red wrong.
I need to ask you to hold on some more.
Don't go away, please.
We'll be back.
Okay, folks, uh we've done it.
We have activated push notifications at Rushlimbod.com.
If you're using Safari as your web browser on a Mac, go to Rush Limbod.com and click yes when you get the dialogue box asking if you want push notifications.
▲
Export Selection