All Episodes
Previous Next
April 16, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
April 16, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, I tell you what, have audio soundbite number 19 standing by.
I haven't made up my mind yet whether I'm going to use it.
Now, let me just tell you, folks, I don't know if you've been keeping up with it or not, but the left is just beside themselves, as you know, that I have not conformed and joined the crowd at conventional wisdom in praising Stephen Colbert for going over to the Letterman Show.
And there are even pieces, well, this is obviously the indication we've all been looking for that Limbaugh has jumped the shark.
For Limbaugh to make a big deal out of this proves he's losing it, and we are on the downside.
They're saying that.
They're saying that I'm just mad and contrarian, and I'm just trying to get my audience all jacked up, typically the way I do by saying things just to be different.
And of course, you, this is why I love you all.
You know that I don't do that.
You know that everything I tell you is rooted in what I really believe.
And you know a number of other things, too.
That's this unbreakable bond that we have here.
I just, I adore it, and I'm in constant awe of it.
Well, turns out that I have an ally now.
Another big-time media figure has joined in.
And I'm debating whether or not to play the soundbite and tell you who.
But, you know, well, I'll stop there.
To go further would be too inside baseball, and it would not be interesting to you.
But suffice it to say, I'll ponder whether or not to share this.
Some of you may already know, depending on how widely diverse your viewing habits are on television.
Other than that, let me stick, by the way, welcome back, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
Here, the Megan McArdle piece, I referenced this right as the previous hour was coming to a screeching halt, is Obama cooking the census books for Obamacare.
This is on Bloomberg.
And a couple of pull quotes.
But why, dear God, oh, why would you change it in the one year in the entire history of the republic that it is most important for policymakers, researchers, and voters to be able to compare the number of uninsured to those in prior years?
The answers would seem to range from total incompetence on the part of every level of the regime to something worse.
Yes, that's right.
I said every level, because guess who is involved in this decision beside the Wongset Census?
The White House is always looking for evidence to show the benefits of the health law, which is an issue in many of this year's midterm elections.
And if the regime is really serious about transparency and data-driven policy, then it'll immediately rectify this appalling mistake and put the old questions back into circulation double quick.
But we're more likely going to hear the most transparent, data-driven regime in history citing these data without an asterisk to tout the amazing impact of its policies.
But our last caller really nailed it.
Why, if there are far fewer uninsured than we thought, why did we need Obamacare, period?
Because that was the primary selling point to the low information crowd, you know, appeal to people's compassion.
We're a compassionate country.
We want people with pre-existing coverage conditions to get treated.
We want sick people to get well.
We don't want people left out.
We're good people.
We have a very compassionate nation.
And so the regime sold this as transforming the healthcare system because we need to insure the uninsured.
Nothing we've done has worked.
And so that, yeah, yeah, man, I'm for that.
I want everybody to have health care men.
I want everybody to have affordable insurance for all Americans, men.
And they just signed up right on and agreed to it.
And even with all of that, it still has never had majority approval on the part of the American people.
So now it's obvious to everybody.
My prediction isn't any big deal because everybody's making it now.
And Obama's cooking the books to show, you know what?
But what they're going to do in response to our first caller, they're not going to claim that we've always had a misunderstanding of the number of uninsured.
They're going to say, ah, that insured number was big.
It's Obamacare that has brought about this reduction in the uninsured in an election year.
What is another word for transparent?
This is a, you know, I'm a big linguist.
Words mean things.
When you hear, for example, and Megan McCartney writes here in quoting the regime, if the regime is serious, really serious, but transparency in data-driven policy, what does that mean when you have a government, a politician at present, we're going to have the most transparent administration in history?
What are they telling you?
Come on, it's simple.
Make a wild guess.
There's just somebody on the other side.
Tell me what, when you hear it, what do you think they're trying to tell you?
They're going to be honest.
That's what transparency means, right?
They're so honest, you'll be able to see.
We're so honest, we're not going to have to hide anything from you.
We're so honest, we're not afraid of what you're going to find out.
We're so honest, we don't have to disguise it or mask it or camouflage it.
That's what transparency means.
If you look at it, Vandergaard, it's an absolute joke with this administration and sadly with a large number of politicians.
If you have to go out and tell people you're honest, maybe there's some debate about it.
If you have to tell people you're going to have the most transparent regime, then there might be some question of whether or not you are transparent or not.
It's just anyway, that's apparently obvious now, ladies and gentlemen, that they're monkeying with this for the express purpose of, again, affecting the outcome of an election.
From Katie Pavlich at townhall.com, according to new IRS emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, the former head of the tax-exempt groups at the IRS, that would be Lois Lerner, contacted the Department of Justice in May of last year, almost a year ago, about whether tax-exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for lying about political activity.
So Eric Holder and Lois Lerner not only are liars, they're in cahoots.
Lois Lerner was asking the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute people like Catherine Engelbrecht.
You know, this woman, this learner, this is a witch.
This is a very unhappy.
This way, you can tell.
I mean, if everything's going her way, this is a kind of woman person, not because she's a woman.
She's just not happy.
I don't, just don't doubt me on this.
She's just seething with rage every day.
So she's in charge of tax-exempt status applications, and here comes the Tea Party, and we all know what happened.
None of them were granted tax exempt status.
They were denied their constitutional rights to political free speech.
And furthermore, now we learn that she was sending emails up to DOJ asking that they be criminally prosecuted.
The new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the Department of Justice could prosecute the very same organizations the IRS had already improperly targeted.
This is from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a statement.
The IRS emails show that Eric Holder's Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal.
No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents from the Freedom of Information Act requests.
Again, who is surprised?
I know very few of you are surprised that there'd be corruption.
Department of Justice.
This is, in my lifetime, that's the best perspective I can offer, factually.
This is without question the most politicized Department of Justice.
Now, ideally, it should never be.
That's the whole point.
We are all equal before the law.
The richest, the poorest, they are identical in a quarter law, but not with this bunch.
And everybody that pays any attention knows it.
Everything that this administration does and its party is politicized.
Everything, as is whoever is going to host late-night TV comedy shows.
It's political.
The decisions are political.
They're not based on who's funny.
They're based on the right kind of funny.
Now, last week, news broke that Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings' staff was in contact with Lerner about the conservative group True the Vote, despite denying any contact occurred.
In this specific instance of Lerner discussing possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt groups through DOJ, Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse seems to have been the person that got the ball rolling.
But the headline here, new emails show Lois Lerner contacted DOJ about prosecuting tax-exempt groups.
Fascinating stuff.
Not really, just every day it's something new that doesn't surprise us.
And of course, the question, well, what is anybody, what can anybody do about it?
Lois Lerner has been held in contempt.
She could be arrested.
She could be prosecuted.
She could be held in contempt.
Well, she is being held in contempt.
She could be imprisoned.
Now, in an email that Lois Lerner wrote, she said, I got a call today from Richard Pilger, Director of Election Crime at the DOJ.
He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ people could talk to about Senator Whitehouse's idea at the hearing that the Department of Justice could piece together false statement cases about applicants who lied on their 1024s.
So they were emailing back and forth.
She was emailing a DOJ and the DOJ was emailing her back.
There was collusion going on.
The IRS and the Department of Justice targeting Tea Party groups with Lois Lerner desiring to have them criminally prosecuted.
United States of America.
This is all the stuff, by the way, that if you talk to Democrats old enough that they'll tell you Richard Nixon did all of this, they will tell you.
Richard Nixon didn't do anything like this.
Richard Nixon may have wanted to.
Richard Nixon may with loose lips have talked about it now, but he never did anything like this.
No Republican president ever has gotten close to anything like this.
Republican presidents go overboard the other way to prove that they're not partisan, to prove that they're not politicizing the DOJ or whatever cabinet position or department.
Before we go to the break, you remember, ladies and gentlemen, in the not so distant past, I was part of a group that hoped to buy the St. Louis Rams.
And I was a small investor in this group, and somebody leaked that I was part of this group, and all hell broke loose.
Black sports writers started inventing quotes that I had never said and published them in websites and newspapers all over the country.
Quotes where I was supposedly longing for a return of the days to slavery.
Actually, printing this stuff and writing it.
And then it was discovered that I had never said it and all that.
They said, well, it doesn't matter.
He probably thinks it.
This kind of stuff was going on and on.
It was just, it was relentless.
And it's starting up again with Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has expressed interest in buying the Buffalo Bills.
And Donald Trump has said if he buys the Bills, he'll keep them in Buffalo because it's a lot shorter trip from his house to Buffalo to watch his team than it would be if he moved them to L.A. 45 minutes to an hour versus five hours.
Anyway, so Trump's talking about it, and it came up on ESPN.
Yesterday afternoon, ESPN2 is highly questionable.
I haven't watched ESPN in months, not even Sports Center.
So I've never heard of this show.
The co-host, Gonzalo Labetard.
That's right, Gonzalo Labetard.
The co-host speaking with the other co-host, Bomani Jones, about Trump possibly buying the Buffalo Bills.
And Gonzalo Labetard said, should Fidel Goodell let Donald Trump buy the bills?
And this is what Bomani Jones said in reply.
This is the last man you want anywhere near this league.
And if this is a league that says that Rush Limbaugh having part ownership basically meant that he couldn't own a team, there's no way in the world you're talking about having Donald Trump there.
Sure, have Donald Trump get up there and say racist things on Twitter about the president of the United States if you're Roger Goodell, where you don't even let dudes have touchdown dances.
There's no good idea about letting him be there.
Why?
He would be Steinbrenner-esque except for one thing.
Steinbrenner, overall, good for the game of baseball.
Donald Trump, totally in it for self, it would mess it up for everybody else.
And there's still olders who are old enough to remember that dude from the USFL.
So you see, this is how it works.
So Trump's an automatic racist.
And that's a reference, I'm sure, to the birther effort that Trump made.
Trump's automatic racist.
You can't have a guy up there saying racist things about Obama and then tell a brothers in the NFL that they can't do dances after scoring touchdowns.
Fidel Goodell cannot let this happen, this guy says, Fidel Goodell.
Anyway, I take a break.
More of your phone calls are coming right up.
Don't go away, folks.
Sit tight.
We're doing Open Line Friday on Wednesday today.
I'll be out the next two days.
Mark Stein will be here tomorrow.
Here is Virgil in Columbus, Ohio.
It's great to have you on the program, so I'm glad you waited.
Thanks a lot, Rush.
How are you today, buddy?
Just fine.
Thanks much.
It's wonderful to talk to someone with a backbone.
I don't have a question or anything.
I just want to tell you that I sent my son to school one day for show and tell with your book, Rush Revere.
How old is your son?
Was against it.
How old is your son?
Nine.
Nine.
Okay, so your nine-year-old son, and the teacher was against it.
Yes, because of the author of the book.
And he started reading it, and she soon found out that, you know, it's a really good book.
It's, you know, four kids, and now she wants to borrow my copy for her other classes.
You are kidding me.
No.
And I told her, I said, you know, if she would just read a little bit of it, that maybe she would get some insight on the actual history.
And, you know, she didn't like that too well, but, you know.
What is the copy?
Help me out.
I want to know what is show and tell.
What is it?
Does your son?
It's like when you take something that you like very much, you take it into school and you show it to the class and you talk about it and things of that nature.
Whether it's a student.
Okay, so the students get up and face the students get up and face the students alone and they talk about what it is they want to share with the class and so forth.
Pretty much, yes.
And the teacher was opposed to it.
It's a female until she saw the book and said, wow, this is not bad.
Yeah, I thought it was just hilarious that she actually called me to borrow my copy of the book.
And I told her that I'm, you know, before too long, I will be getting the second one as well as the audio.
Well, you know what I'm saying?
She said she wanted to borrow those as well.
Which book did your son take to school?
I'm sorry.
Which book did your son take with him?
The first one.
Your first book.
Okay, I tell you what I'm going to do.
I am going to, I need you to hang on here when we finish so that we can get your ads.
I'm going to send you autographed copies of both books and the audio version, and you can take the teacher one.
I would appreciate that.
Yeah, you can take her the second one if you want.
I'll send a couple because we've donated 15,000 books to schools all over the country, but obviously we missed this one.
We can't hit them all.
But this is an amazing story.
And this kind of stuff, just it's exciting.
It continues to encourage me.
This is great news.
So if you'll hang on, we'll get your address in Columbus.
And you can, since the teacher called you, I mean, this is, I mean, you have every reason to call her back and say, hey, I've got something for you.
And then you can take it over to her and make sure it's the second ones.
Maybe give her both.
I'll send enough so that you can give her both of them.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
You know, folks, this is so cool.
We might be educating some teachers as well as the students.
That is, look, I don't want to make it bigger than it is, but in my experience, you mention my name in a school and the teacher's going to have the predictable reaction as this one did.
But then the book changed her mind.
That is, it just, it just really, really small, but nevertheless, indication of potential that it is possible.
Anyways, that kind of little feedback that encourages me on the mission aspect of this.
Remember, doing these books just to write books just because it's been a long time and it's time to do another one.
There's actually a mission behind this.
This country is just wonderful.
No reason to be ashamed of this country.
Not perfect, but it's the best place on earth to be born, the best place on earth to live, the best place on earth that man has ever devised for himself to thrive in the history of humanity.
The absolute best.
There's no reason to be ashamed, to feel dishonored.
There's no reason to hate this country, and yet that's all being taught.
The truth of the founding of this country is been distorted, some cases lied about now.
And so this is one small effort to get to young people.
They're never going to listen to the program, obviously, but it's a way to get to them in a non-politically charged way.
The truth of this country.
I think back to when I was in kindergarten and grade school and learning this stuff.
And since I started this project, I've actually asked myself, what kind of person would I be if I had not been taught what I was taught?
If I hadn't been taught patriotism, if I hadn't been taught love of country, if I hadn't been taught about the great people, the founders, and people who followed them.
What would I be?
Well, I wouldn't be qualified to do this program.
This program would not be a success if I had not been taught what I was taught.
If I had been taught what's taught today, I'd just be your average run-of-the-mill person in the media that thinks this country is unjust and immoral and has got to pay a price for all the mean things it's done to people.
And that's not what people want to hear about their country.
But they're being taught that.
And at a young age, if that's all they're taught, that's what they're going to think.
And then they're going to grow up thinking the country is in vast need of reform.
And it's just an absolute shame.
If you love the country and I do, and if you are proud of it, and I am, there's no reason for anybody not to be.
You know, I'm naive, admittedly so.
And I also live in great conflict.
For example, one part of me says, I don't understand how people could hate this country.
Then the other side of me says, yeah, I do, if they're taught it.
Maybe African Americans, that's a huge hill to climb, slavery, and to turn something like that into love of God.
I can understand that intellectually.
But at some point, you have to realize that was then, that was way back then, and we're one of the few countries that's ever abolished it and gone to war with ourselves to do so.
There's even a positive ramification from that.
But the opportunity, the freedom, the just, I don't understand hating it.
I literally don't understand elite leftists and their hate for the country.
To me, it's irrational.
But then the other side of me understands their irrationality because I know who they are and I understand what their inner needs are.
And so I just, but it still makes no sense to me.
And so the mission here is to try to get to these kids before they are totally gone.
And we have to get to them sometime later in life.
When I get a call like this with a story like this where the teacher didn't want the book even brought into the school for the show and tell and then called the student's parent asking for it, you'll excuse me for taking a positive out of that.
Here's Stephen Biloxi, Mississippi, as we head back to the phones.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
How you doing, Rush?
Honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
Glad you called.
Yes, I was telling you the caller, in a nice way now, you have a deceptive voice or deceptive way of dealing with things.
Not deceptive as far as the content, but for instance, like you're soft-spoken, so to speak.
You're humble.
You don't ever really seem to get mad at your callers, you know what I'm saying?
And your content is like on point all the time.
Now, I'm a conservative black, you know, African-American pastor, you know, and I didn't vote for President Obama in 2008 or 2012, but it bothered me how so-called pastors or preachers could, 93%, 96%, I believe, voted for President Obama in 2008.
And also 2012, it was 93%.
I couldn't understand that how.
I could understand maybe the first time they didn't do their research to figure out what was going on.
But I just really been listening to you for the last six months.
I've been listening to people like Sean Hannity.
I still do.
And, you know, Michael Savage or whatever.
And I kind of like bypassed you for the last couple of years, but the last six months, I just kind of zoned in, really started listening.
I was like, oh, my gosh, everything this guy is saying, 99.99% of what he's saying is correct, you know, right on the money.
Not that you were not, not that I thought you were saying it before, but I just thought maybe it was kind of soft or whatever.
But I can see why you say that this, you have a gift on loan from God as far as being a radio talk show because it was somewhat deceptive, you know, to me.
And then I kind of started listening more and more.
And I say, oh, he's really saying something and saying everything that he's saying is correct.
Now, wait a minute.
And so that's kind of like how we started on that end.
But I was calling on the other end of saying, you know, everybody's talking about the problem.
I believe there's a solution.
And the only way we're going to really resolve this thing, and I think a lot of people with President Obama, they're bringing a knife to the gunfight.
And this guy ain't playing any games.
And he's going to continue to push it down the road.
He'll give in.
He'll take whatever you can give him.
He's like Putin, so to speak.
If you don't bring the fight to him, he's going to take it.
Meaning, like with Ted Cruz, and this is where the solution is, I believe, briefly, I believe the moderates are going to have to come over.
They're going to have to either go with the conservative Tea Party or they're going to have to go the other way.
Stephen, Stephen, let me tell you right now, and I was looking at some most recent polling data on this.
About the only strength that Obama has right now is among self-identified Democrats.
He's got 79% of them.
But the Republicans have a majority of men, a majority of married women, and a majority now of the independents.
It is single women, single mothers, and Democrats that really make up right now what is the Obama base.
But when you're about moderates, it's another word for independents.
They are trending to the Republicans.
They're trending away from Obama right now because the Republicans are really not offering an alternative to anything other than they are the alternative, but they're not offering specifics yet.
But I want to go back to what you said at the beginning.
You described me as deceptive and bold.
Now, deceptive, the root word there is deceit.
I'm not deceiving you, am I?
No, no, no, no.
When I say that, I mean that in a good way, meaning deceptive, meaning the voice, just the tone of your voice is deceptive.
Because, you know, you know, normally when you listen to radio talks, your host, they get angry, they're hanging up, they're doing this or whatever, and you don't seem to have that tone.
You keep like the same tone.
Even if someone tries to ridicule you or try to push you over the edge, you like kind of hold that same tone.
And, you know, I was like, how can this guy do this?
You know, normally, you know, you push anybody hot, but they got to jump out.
And now you may, you may get irate at what President Obama is doing or is allowed to do, but when it comes to the callers and people that you are having a conversation with or debate or whatever, you kind of stay on that same key.
And I believe it agitates people more because they're not really causing you to like just jump off the couch or off the edge or off the chair.
Okay.
I get it.
I get.
I now know what you mean.
I know exactly what he means.
You only found this show in the last six months.
You're conservative, but you only found this show in the last six months.
But you thought you knew what this show was about.
And you thought that I was mean and would hang up on callers or was belligerent, bombastic and so forth, my way or the highway.
Then you started listening.
So, wow, this is deceptive.
This guy actually has conversations with people and he's polite to them and so forth.
And so, in that sense, it's deceptive in the context of what you're told about it versus what it really is.
And of course, you said bold, and you're absolutely correct about that.
And it sounds like you know what bold is yourself.
But it's great that you're out there.
I'm glad that you called.
I appreciate hearing from you.
And you keep on.
Every one of you keep on.
And you say we need the moderates.
They're trending in the right direction now.
Thanks much.
We'll be right back.
So I got an email from Mr. Snerdley.
He's not here today, taking a day off.
He said, you know, you really don't know how to market yourself.
He says, here, you just spent five minutes talking about your book and you never gave anybody the title.
If he'd have been here, he'd have been shouting at the IFB, What's the title?
What's the title?
Well, there are two: Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims at Rush Revere and the First Patriots.
And they're both concomitantly on the New York Times bestseller list for children, concomitantly.
It's an amazing thing.
You all have made it happen.
Audio soundbites, back to that.
You know, in the past, ladies and gentlemen, I have oftentimes explained things that are mysterious to other people.
And for the longest time, people wanted my opinion on why I thought Oprah was so successful.
I mean, there have been many talk shows before Opri or Phil Donahue and Sally Jesse, Sally, Jesse Raphael, right?
And it'd been Mike Douglas out there.
What was it people wanted to know?
What is it about Oprah?
So, June 30th, 2000, which is one of the most recent examples, 14 years ago, of my explaining why Oprah is popular.
The question's been raised in this program a number of times since I've been hosting it.
Rush, why is Oprah so popular?
What is it about that show?
If you've ever watched it, she cries all the time.
I mean, the biggest audience is women.
The fastest way to a woman's heart is cry, the emotional, it's a magnet.
And there you have it.
That's it.
I mean, there's other reasons too, but that was that, in my estimation, when people asked me, that was the primary reason.
Okay.
Let's fast forward to Sunday night on Oprah Winfrey Network's Oprah Prime.
The host Oprah Winfrey, the Oprah, was interviewing the singer Pharrell.
Is that how to pronounce his name?
Pharrell?
The guy that wears the strange hat, the Canadian Royal Canadian.
It's Pharrell, not Pharrell.
Okay, it's Pharrell.
And it's Pharrell.
It's Pharrell.
Okay, it's Pharrell.
And during the interview, Oprah plays a video of people dancing to Pharrell's song, Happy.
Happy.
Pharrell has a song called Happy.
I do remember, I guess it was at the Epidemic Awards where Carrie Washington came out and introduced Pharrell.
He was so cool, is what she said.
So incredibly cool.
So here's Pharrell.
He's on Oprah's show on Sunday night singing his song, Happy, or people dancing to it.
He started crying.
He literally started crying.
I'm telling you, it's why it works.
Why am I crying on Oprah?
You know, it's being used for something that's greater than yourself.
I get that.
It's overwhelming because it's like, I love what I do, and I just appreciate the fact that people have believed in me for so long that I could make it to this point to feel that.
See?
Do I know these people or do I know these people?
Now the guests cry and then the audience is really locked in.
It just works.
Claire Shipman.
Claire Shipman made famous, well, she was famous before, but made even more famous by the Ditzy Washingtonian magazine piece, which we showed you the pictures on Monday.
She has a new book out.
That's really what the purpose of the story was.
She got a new book out, and it's called The Confidence Code, The Science and Art of Self-Assurance, What Women Should Know.
And this kind of goes to another point of mine.
Nobody has ever gotten rich writing books on how to fail because everybody knows how to do that.
But people that have written books on how to succeed make millions.
People that write books on how to think positively make millions.
Failing is easy.
Doesn't take any effort at all.
Succeeding is a different matter.
So Claire Shipman wants to get in on this now.
The confidence code, the science and art of self-assurance, what women should know.
She was on with Megan Kelly last night on the Kelly file on the Fox News channel.
And Megan Kelly said, without tears, Megan Kelly does not cry.
In fact, Megan Kelly, Megan Kelly, she had, remember that story came out about 40% of breadwinners in America now women, family breadwinner women.
So she had Eric Erickson of Fox and I think Lou Dobbs on.
And they were lamenting.
I think it was Dobbs.
It was Eric Erickson.
It might have been.
Yeah, I think it was.
Anyway, it was two guys, and they were lamenting how, whoa, that was horrible for the culture.
And she said, well, now, wages, who the hell died and made you dominant?
Who says that men have to be the breadwinners?
Why can't women?
Oh, it was, it was, that was, as they say, good television.
So anyway, here's Megan talking to Claire Shipman about confidence and what women need to know about it.
And Kelly said, we need confidence, we women, we babes, but we don't have it.
Most women don't have confidence.
Why?
A lot of reasons.
Some of them we were surprised to find biological.
Yes, it's controversial, but we did find that there are some differences in the way men and women think, foster and malice.
The tape.
You're kidding.
Claire Shipman has discovered that men and women are different.
And she's written a book about it.
Men have testosterone.
Damn it.
Here, play the rest of it because we're getting close on top of it.
It's because testosterone really drives risk-taking.
We're built differently.
There are a lot of great things that women bring to the table.
There's a reason why women help the bottom line of companies when we're there.
But we need to get better at risk-taking.
We need to get better at failure.
And this is what we found.
We need to get better at failure.
It's like Joe Biden.
It was worth it.
Okay, I would, look, I have to take a break.
Probably a good thing, actually, that I don't have time to.
Look, if testosterone is one of the leading indicators, requirements for risk-taking, and women obviously don't have as much as men, and women should be taking more risks so as to learn about failure.
What do they take testosterone?
Is that how are they going to get it?
I don't know.
▲
Export Selection