All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
April 21, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, let's start with some good news.
The staff has told me that Rush is doing fine.
He's feeling well and scheduled to be back on the program on Wednesday.
That's the good news.
Now you can argue that that means that the bad news is that I'm here today.
That's arguable, I suppose.
It's never easy being a guest host in anything.
Just the word guest implies that you're not where you're supposed to be.
But lots of stuff today.
We've got these big monitors.
I'm at Eastern Command, that's the New York studio.
Uh most nerdly in from Southern Command to do the program, saunters in 20 minutes before showtime.
You sauntered in, you know.
That is the way you move, though.
You saunter.
That's that's generally the way you move.
Uh, he's in, we're raring to go.
Broadcast engineer Mamon, me.
Most nerdy does Ellie have to leave now that that you come in.
We're ready to go.
Uh this is a most nerdly contribution of the program.
I'm going to lead with one of your items.
Does traditional college debate reinforce white privilege?
Is there anything that doesn't reinforce white privilege?
Can white guys like me even breathe without being accused of showing having some unfair privilege?
Does traditional college debate reinforce white privilege?
There's a really good story here.
I wasn't part of any debate team in high school or college.
I really don't know why.
I think I probably would have been good at it, but I wasn't.
But I know that they've got these rules.
They assign a topic and they say that one side's supposed to take one side and the other side's supposed to take the other side, and they have time limits and somebody blows the whistle.
Okay, now you sit down, now you argue your point, then the other one gets up, and then somebody at the end judges the arguments.
They're not supposed to base the scores on who which side is right, but who argued the position correctly.
That's how debate works, I guess.
Well, this story.
It used to be that if you went to a college-level debate tournament, the students you'd see would be bookish future lawyers from elite universities, most of them white.
In matching Navy Blazers, they'd recite academic arguments for and against various government policies.
It was tame, predictable, and fairly boring.
Well, so far it sounds like NPR.
No more.
These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics.
These alternative style debaters have achieved success too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.
But this transformation has also sparked a difficult, often painful controversy for a community that prides itself on handling volatile topics.
On March 24th, at the Cross Examination Debate Association Championships in Indiana University, two Towson University students, Amina Ruffin and Corey Johnson, became the first African American women to win a national college debate tournament for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. President's war powers should be restricted.
Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African Americans, attack its premise.
The more pressing issue they argued is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.
All right.
So they come in apparently from the left and they decide that they're going to attack the premise of the of the of the debate.
This isn't surprising.
Classic liberal changing the subject because they can't win the argument.
Anyway, in the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis.
Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like, then I'm not going to use the word, followed by authenticity, and performed hip-hop and spoken word poetry in the traditional time format.
At one point during Lee's rebuttal, the clock ran out, but he refused to yield the floor.
Bleep the time, he yelled.
His partner Campbell, who won the top speaker award at the National Debate Tournament two weeks later, have been unfairly targeted by the police at the debate venue just days before and cited this personal trauma's evidence for his case against the government's treatment of poor African Americans.
Okay.
Now this is interesting stuff.
So now we've got a big controversy roiling the debate community.
Are the traditional rules that have always been put in place?
You argue this side, you have to stick to the topic.
You argue the other side, we all have these strict time limitations.
Are they in fact racist?
Because that isn't the form of discourse that black Americans normally take part in.
What's your opinion on this, Snerdley?
Do you like the old rules or do you think that the African American debaters are on to something by saying that we ought to change the rules?
The rules are the rules.
The rules of the rules.
See, I take an alternative point of view.
I side with them.
You know, you've got guys like Rush Limbaugh who came onto the scene a quarter of a century ago and broke all of the rules that had been in place about the way that you're supposed to talk in the media and talk on radio, and so, well, we have to have neutrality.
Well, neutrality, of course, was simply defending a liberal leftist status quo.
So these guys are barging in, admittedly, they are going to they are saying that we get to break the rules.
We're going to claim that these rules are evidence of some sort of privilege that existed.
We don't know if we'd be able to exist within these rules, and the white people who run debate are tearing their hair out because, oh my goodness, these people are challenging all of our rules, but they're African American, and if we challenge them, we might be considered racist.
I applaud them for breaking down the barrier of the rules, even though they once again, rather than being able to win the debate, argue that they should be able to play by a set of rules that nobody else plays by.
That's the problem.
The problem isn't that they're challenging the way that debate is done.
If you can come up with a better way to do something, go ahead and do a better and have a better way to do something.
But then, rather than stand by their original premise, they have to instead hide in racism and argue that the old rules were somehow white privilege.
Well, why, whether they're white privilege or not, why even claim that?
If you're going to try to argue something in a different way, if you think that you've got a better answer, let it stand on its merits rather than constantly finding this crutch.
And it is a crutch.
Well, now Snerdley's asking me if these were white kids breaking the rules, then what?
Would there be a news story or would they be thrown out?
Well, if they were white kids breaking the rules, they'd be conservatives.
Because conservatives are the only ones who would who would come up with something that would be violative of the rules, and yes, they would be thrown out.
Rush Limbaugh was in this, he'd be thrown out.
Because Rush Limbaugh would be saying things that would be so shocking, so politically incorrect that they wouldn't be able to tolerate.
They'd throw them out.
I don't deny that.
I don't deny that there's going to be hand wringing because these guys are challenging it, but at least somebody's challenging something.
I want to move to this.
Every now and then, the mainstream media finds a story that reveals some unbelievable truth.
Just a huge revelation.
Unfortunately, they don't know what they found.
It's like when Columbus went looking for the new world, landed in the Caribbean, and thought he was in China or wherever he thought he was.
So is the case when the media stumbles onto a story like this.
Page one of today's New York Times, big headline, fifty years into the war on poverty, hardship hits back.
The reporter's name is Trip Gabriel.
Trip Gabriel, in fact, is the guy they usually send out on.
They send him out on trips, and he goes and tells about what he finds.
They send him to Twin Branch West Virginia, which is apparently this is poverty on top of poverty.
The story mentions that Twins Ranches in McDowell County, which is the poorest county in West Virginia, when John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he went there.
He campaigned there and he was appalled at how bad it was.
He was appalled at the level of poverty.
And he vowed that as president he would do something about This part of America that was so far left behind.
Well, the New York Times sent Prip to take a trip.
Crip Gabriel goes down to Twin Branch, West Virginia and goes there and finds things aren't any better.
When people visit with friends and neighbors in Southern West Virginia where paved roads give way to dirt before winding steeply up wooded hollows, the talk is often of lives that never got off the ground.
How's John Boy?
He had another seizure than another night.
Donald recently released from prison, is unemployed and essentially homeless.
It's like he's in a hole with no way out.
The other day he came in and said, Ain't that a shame I'm 30 years old and carrying my life around in a backpack?
Broke my heart.
McDowell County, the poorest in West Virginia, has been emblematic of entrenched American poverty for more than a half century.
John F. Kennedy campaigned here in 1960 and was so appalled that he promised to send help if elected president.
His first executive order created the modern food stamp program.
The first recipients were McDowell County residents.
When President Linda Johnson declared unconditional war on poverty in 1964, it was the squalor of Appalachia he had in mind, the federal programs that followed.
Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunches, and others lifted tens of thousands above a subsistent standard of living, but a half century later, with the poverty rate again on the rise, hardship seems merely to have taken on a new face in McDowell County, and it goes on.
I think they've found some real, real truth here.
They just don't recognize it.
The truth they've found is that 50 years after the war on poverty, 50 years after Kennedy started it, and Wyndon Lyndon Johnson waged war by creating this massive social welfare structure that we have in the United States 50 years later.
Can anybody conclude that poverty in the United States is any better at all?
Now let's take this one county, and I admit I'm not familiar with it, McDowell County, West Virginia.
You get the impression, though.
Poverty probably a lot of drug abuse, probably a lot of abuse of prescription painkillers, not a lot of jobs, not a lot of hope, not a lot of people go into college.
The only people who make it are people who made it out.
You get the impression.
But let's imagine John F. Kennedy never went to McDowell County, West Virginia.
And let's imagine for a moment that there never was a war on poverty.
That we didn't create food stamps or har uh or or head start.
We didn't expand Social Security to include every imaginable disability, and we did none of it.
That the government had the same anti-poverty programs that it did in 1961.
Let's just imagine that for a moment.
Would McDowell County, West Virginia be any different?
I'm asking whether any of this has done any good.
Any of it.
What have we gained by spending tens of billions, hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars in an attempt to help poor people?
The parts of America that were in poverty before are in poverty now.
The inner cities of Detroit, St. Louis, Los Angeles, where poverty existed before, poverty exists there now.
You go into rural America, the areas of destitution, Southern Kentucky, Appalachia, West Virginia, those kind those parts of the country that's that were struggling where people were just dirt poor, they're dirt poor now.
I think you can raise the legitimate question that none of this has done any good at all.
That it hasn't helped.
Now you can wonder how that can possibly be.
If you have this tremendous transfer of wealth, where you take, as I said, hundreds of billions, probably into the trillions of dollars, from taxpayers and give it to poor people in the form of all of these programs, everything from food stamps to Head Start to all of the other programs that are out there.
How do these people not improve their lives?
And I think that the answer is simple to the point that it is obvious.
All you've done with these programs is subsidize poverty.
People become addicted to the programs.
Whatever money they get from the programs doesn't translate into anything tangible.
No job skill has been attained.
No investment has gone into the community.
There's been no need, desire to change one's life.
Instead, you get generational poverty over and over and over.
But whether you agree with me or not, it's certainly fair to say that there are parts of America that are just as badly off right now as they were when the war on poverty started.
In the meantime, the Democrats are coming up with their strategy to avoid the disaster that's coming in the fall elections.
They're going to go after the one percent again.
Okay.
Rerun of 2012.
I want to talk about that next.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush on EIB.
Mark Bellingham for Rush.
The phone number is 1-800-282-2882 to Indianapolis, Indiana.
Paul, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hello, Mark.
Hi.
Hello?
Yes, you're on, Paul.
Okay, thanks.
I have a hard time hearing you.
Yes, my wife is from McDowell County, West Virginia, from Welch, who's the capital or the county seat down there.
We've been going down there for years and years.
Uh my mother-in-law lived there and is buried just there.
Yeah, as what's happened is in 30 years it was the heart of the coal mining region.
And I guess up until the 60s, it was one of the uh the biggest coal mining area, but as mechanization came in there, you know, it it just drove it away, and the government keeps pouring money in there.
But you know, it's one of those areas there's really no reason for anybody to stay.
Well, you meant you mentioned coal, and I think that that's just so key to all of this.
The Obama administration has a war on American coal.
I mean, the American coal industry is headed for depression.
It's almost impossible right now for power plants to be licensed to burn new coal.
Yes, I can.
I can.
Okay, I can I I think Paul's having a hard time hearing me, but I got the gist of his comment.
And he was talking about coal.
Coal, especially in the parts of the country where the coal is high in sulfur, and that's West Virginia, Kentucky, the eastern part of the United States where coal is mined.
That coal is totally out right now.
It's public policy that has driven it out.
The mines were the one opportunity for good jobs and good careers and decent lives, admittedly, lots of health risks associated with it, but the Obama administration has essentially killed off those industries.
So you see here, classic, I think liberal public policy in approaching a major problem, in this case, poverty in small town America, rural America.
They kill the only salvation for regions like this, jobs, the private sector, and try to replace it with government dependency, and you see that it simply doesn't work.
Once they got rid of coal, once coal was phased out by government, there became no real option for people there.
The caller mentioned that nobody really has a reason to stay there unless they're just going to drift.
So what do we do to accompany that drift?
We end up creating government programs in which we dump all this money but don't change the underlying nature of the problem.
Anti-poverty programs, I think, are always doomed to fail unless the sole goal of the program is to get people off of it.
Food stamps, however, isn't a temporary program anymore.
Look at how food stamps have expanded under Barack Obama.
Food stamps become a legitimate way of life.
Look at the comment that Obama himself made and the administration made after that report came out that indicated that because of Obamacare, we were going to lose several million jobs across the American economy.
That people would calculate that in order to get health insurance from the government, they were better off not working to keep their income low enough.
Their reaction to that was good.
The people who don't want to work won't have to work.
The liberal view is is that you are better off dependent on government for an assistance program, in that case, Medicaid, that you are better off dependent on the government For this program than out there in the private sector actually working.
Now I mentioned before the break that the Democrats seem to have launched onto a new strategy.
They're facing this awful election cycle this fall where they fear they're going to lose a number of seats in the United States Senate.
And the notion is that they want to bring back the strategy from 2012 of going after the 1%, attacking the people of privilege, saying that the Republicans are only in it for the people at the top.
We, the Democrats, we care about you.
We support all of these programs that are aimed at helping you.
Who under Obama has done well the last five years?
It's the 1%.
The 1% have essentially thrived under his administration.
The people that are left behind are the middle class and lower income people.
That's because the prescription that they have, more government programs, create this, create that, create the other thing, never fix anything.
I'm Mark Belling in for Rush Limbaugh.
I made this comment that the only people who have done well under Obama are in fact the 1%.
The people whose income they're constantly trying to redistribute, the people that they vilify.
Well, take a look at the economy over the last five years.
This slow growth economy, this recovery that hasn't produced any jobs at all.
If Obama and his people are right that the middle class are being left behind and only the rich are getting ahead, well, he's been the president for the last five and a half years.
Why is that?
Look at the policies they've pursued.
The Obama administration and the Fed with this loose money policy, but restrictive lending.
What that has that resulted in?
It has resulted in the people who have absolutely pristine credit having access to more at rock bottom interest rates.
The credit scores were so high because of the lending requirements that were put in place that the average person who wanted to participate in the housing market couldn't.
The people who tried to refinance when rates got down could not.
But the speculators and the investors and the contractors who started out new housing and the people who had the ability to buy new homes, they jumped in at the market bottom.
Real estate has exploded in many cities in the United States.
The stock market is on a five-year bull run.
It has done very well.
Who is in a position to take advantage of that?
The people who had lots of capital.
The sectors of the economy that have done very well the last few years are all the ones that were filled with people who already were doing well.
Those who had assets saw their assets go up.
Who's invested in the stock market?
People with assets, by definition.
True, the middle guy through his pension fund in his 401k is participating, but the real, real, real big winners are the people who had a lot of assets and money to put into the market in the first place.
Same thing with housing.
Private equity has done very, very well.
Private investors funding other businesses, investing in businesses themselves with their own capital that they already had.
Our loose money policies kept interest rates very, very low.
So it allowed people like this to thrive.
The hedge funds have done very well.
Two hedge fund guys just brought our basketball team in Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Bucks.
We have the worst team in the NBA.
We won 15 games and lost 67.
Nobody was going to the games.
They'd say the attendance was 13,000.
There were like 6,000 people there.
That team sold last week for 550 million dollars.
That means those guys have 550 million dollars to spend on what has been the worst basketball team in the NBA.
Yet Obama's out there ready to bring back this whole 1% thing.
If he's so determined to bring up the other 99%, how come under his presidency, the only people who are doing well are the 1%?
Poor people in America, lower middle income people, two groups that Obama did very well with in both 08 and 12 in the exit polls.
What has he done for you?
Well, he created Obama.
Thank you.
That's helped, hasn't it?
It hasn't done anything to improve access to health care.
The cost of health insurance is up.
Food stamps are expanded.
Now we have more people on food stamps than at any point in American history.
That's right.
You have food stamps, but you don't have a job.
Their prescription to try to help out the people they claim to care about fails.
The war on poverty was sincere.
The architects of that policy in the 60s and the people who have spanned expanded the welfare state in the 70s, 80s, 90s, zeros, and right into now, I think they actually do care about poor people.
They like the idea that they're dependent upon them, but they don't want these people to suffer.
The problem is that they're wrong.
The war on poverty didn't work anymore than Obama's attempt to help out the 99% at the expense of the 1% has failed.
You want an indication of how awful liberal public policy is?
Even when they try to do something wrong, they can't get that right.
They shouldn't be redistributing income from the successful.
They shouldn't be demonizing success.
Yet their goal here has been to take this big pot of money that the 1% has and somehow get it down to the 99%, and it has not happened.
Because the way that they try to do it doesn't work.
They want to take money away from the wealthy and give it to everybody else in the form of programs that we become dependent upon.
Not surprisingly, this doesn't help the people who receive the money.
Enough yapping from me.
Back to the phones.
York, Nebraska.
Gary, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Mark.
Yes.
Gary Hubbard.
And I want to thank you for uh taking this call, Snergly.
I apologize to you for uh the when I called you.
But uh I was born and raised in MacDow County in Daisy, West Virginia, about two or three miles from Flynn Branch.
Uh the problem with that region is like you were saying, Mark, the people there in after World War II, the the economy was booming.
Uh I, along with everybody that I grew up with, are very proud to have been born there and grew up there because we have a I mean, that is a family, and everybody helped everybody, uh everything was given.
I mean, uh, there was no such thing as being uh stingy or anything of that nature.
And and uh I was in the crowd in Wash, West Virginia when JSK came to Welch.
I missed my boss from school going home because I was standing there watching his uh speech.
Gary, let me ask you, what went wrong then?
Why, 50 years later have things not gotten better?
They have got extremely worse, Mark.
Uh the town that I grew up, David, we we used to have uh about 2200 people there.
I carried newspapers, the Welsh Daily News in Davy, and I had a hundred and sixty-five customers.
That means a hundred and sixty-five households.
I don't think you can find a hundred and sixty-five people that live in that town.
That's why I asked, what what went wrong?
What went what was what's the problem?
The handouts.
The handouts when you give somebody something for doing nothing, they will do nothing.
And that's what happened there.
Uh, it was easier to take that uh uh the food stamps and the welfare checks than it was to get on your hands and knees and go back in a mine and work eight or ten or twelve hours, five days or six days a week.
And the people said, why should I go back in that hole?
And I I'm with my dad, I mine coal too, Mark.
And when you go back in there, it you you don't know what black is or dark is until you go back in there and turn the lights out.
You can slap yourself and not see your hand coming and you know what's coming.
The reason I asked the question, Gary not want to do that.
Gary, the reason I asked the question, and you from having your personal experience in this county described as one of the poorest in the country and from West Virginia is that it's very Easy in the abstract for people like myself to say that these programs do not work and they do not work, but you saw it with your own eyes.
It happened to people that you know, you saw how the dependency, the programs that were sent in to help lift people out of poverty, instead kept them in poverty longer than ever, that they became dependent almost like addicted to a drug, dependent upon these programs, and they didn't transition people from poverty to poverty.
They merely allowed people to exist on poverty.
They allowed people to uh descend into further poverty because that's as I was going to say, Mark, the town that that I was grew up in, Davy, uh the main street used to run along the river and and in between the river and uh the railroad tracks.
And that's uh believe it or not, we used to be in there for having the longest flower box in the United States.
You go into that same town right now, and you're lucky to find five, six, maybe seven buildings along that main street, which was approximately uh five eighths to three quarters of a mile long.
The houses have been burnt down so that the the guys and folks on drugs can go strip the copper out of them and uh sell it so they can make money.
Now, you go down there, there's tons of people driving four-wheelers and new pickup trucks and and things like that.
Their houses are not the best.
Uh now, they're some of the older folks, their houses are great because they take pride in that.
But those people who have been on poverty and uh have succumbed to what the government has enticed them into, they are the ones that are spending the money uh on stuff that doesn't mean anything.
Like the cars and the other things, but they don't have jobs, they're just translating this government money into stuff like that.
Gary, I want to thank you for that call from McDowell County, the very county that's profiled on page one in the New York Times.
I'm up against the break here, but I want to comment on his call.
Those of us who are conservative who object to the expansion of all of these poverty programs, we are called callous.
We don't care, you Republicans, you're only in it for the rich guy.
You're hard-hearted, you don't care about people you lack compassion.
That's the line that's thrown at us.
Our objection isn't that we don't care, it's that this junk doesn't work.
And you heard from Gary who lived it.
It not only does it work, it's made things worse.
Because we object to programs that do not work and in fact worsen the problem, doesn't mean that we don't care.
I would argue that the people who don't care are the ones who keep following through on policies that do not work.
So bring back the one percent argument, run out of again in 2014, demonize the rich and claim that you care.
Well, if you care so much, how come in getting your way for five decades on social policy in this country?
Have we not done anything to eliminate poverty?
Why are the places that you said that you care about worse off, not better?
I'm Mark Bellings sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
You hear about this kid that asked Miss America out to prom Patrick Favre.
They suspended him from school.
Miss America, whoever Miss America is now, she was at his school and made some appearance and in the QA session, he said, Hey, do you want to go to prom with me?
You know, why not take a chance?
She's probably going to say no, but you get yourself in the news anyway, and if she says yes, you're going out with Miss America anyway.
They suspended him from school.
His mistake is he should have asked a guy out.
They never would have suspended him.
Then, or if a female student had asked Miss America out, do you think for a second they would have suspended her?
Barack Obama would be calling her up because of how aggrieved that she is that she lives in a repressive school.
So on.
You wonder you you wonder why African American debaters are changing the rules of debate.
It works.
Change the rules and claim that everything is racist or everything and is it is an ism.
It does work.
We're discussing poverty in America, Obama's decision to bring back the one percent card, the liberal contention that they care, and the fact that poverty in America didn't seem to be any better 50 years after the war on poverty started, as the New York Times seems to have discovered when they sent Trip Gabriel out to West Virginia and found that places that were terribly poor 50 years ago are terribly poor now.
Gee, how can this be?
All this money put into anti-poverty programs.
Can you think of anything for which we have spent more money without anything to show for it?
What do what?
The education department of the United States of America.
I suppose you could probably come up with almost every government program and cite a failure to address whatever it was supposed to address.
With regard to poverty, this has been presented by people on one side as a moral argument.
We care, therefore, we support this expansion of the welfare state, this one, this one, this one, this one.
It was the argument for Obamacare.
There are so many people without health insurance.
We want them to have it.
Fewer people have health insurance now, I believe, than did before.
Many people have lost their insurance.
The policies are expensive.
You're in many cases losing your doctor.
None of that's supposed to matter because they cared.
That's why they pushed it.
They're the ones that care about the war on poverty, you evil evil conservatives.
All you care about is the one percent, even though by definition most of us aren't in the one percent, because the one percent consists of only one percent.
That's all we care about.
No, maybe we care about actually helping people with some ideas that work.
That work.
He's got a war on just about every industry that he can find, and then he wonders why we don't have any jobs out there.
But says he cares about the ninety-nine percent, even though he makes it almost impossible for them to find a job anywhere.
How many jobs did Obamacare kill?
How many companies are refusing to create new jobs because of Obamacare?
And when the employer mandate kicks in whenever that's supposed to be, what will that do to employment?
If it sounds like I'm covering a lot of material here, or better put, if I'm making a lot of points to back up one point, it's that the attempt to take money from some, run it through the government, and turn it into assistance programs to cure poverty is a failure because the only way you can cure poverty is by coming up with a way for people not to be poor anymore.
And that is employment.
That is making responsible decisions with your life.
That is, if not starting a family, bringing stability into your life, avoiding drugs, completing an education as far as you can go, and have an opportunity to get in the private sector workforce and earn some money so you can build a life for yourself.
Food stamps don't do any of those things.
And I'm not suggesting we wipe out food stamps, and I'm not saying that there aren't people who need assistance programs because things have gone badly for them.
For the people for whom assistant programs are assistance programs are a bridge, a gap between where they are right now and hopefully a better future, there is a role for that.
It's what private sector charity has been premised on.
Our programs have created not only long-term dependency, they've created a reliance.
Remember the famous video of the woman who was carrying on about voting for Obama because of all the things she was getting from Obama, including her Obama phone?
Well, why should she try to get a job?
She's instead going to re-elect Barack Obama because that way she gets all of her free stuff.
Well, how's that all working out for her long run?
Would anybody be surprised if 30 years from now, she's still poor and everything she has is still coming from government.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
One way or another.
Now I'm having a dispute here with Bo Snerdly.
He has a caller, a young man, an eighth grader, who disputes my premise that violating the rules of debate is a good thing.
Well, and I said, well, why don't I put him on in the short period of time?
And Bo said, well, there's there'd be no way that he'd be able to make his point in that period, short period of time because we only have about one minute.
I said, well, what if I told him he only has 40 seconds?
And well, he'd he wouldn't be able to get it all in in that well.
That's my point.
Sometimes you need to take more time than necessary.
So I could have forced the young man to make his point in a period of time that would have been shorter than necessary, thus proving my point that those restrictions are often wrong.
But we're going to allow him to come on in the next hour of the program because there's only so much rebelling that I can do here.
And I am not going to buck up against the desire of the producer of the program.
To conclude my point about poverty and Obama's argument on the 1%, every time he tries to do something, the exact opposite result comes about.
▲
Export Selection