All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:47
September 26, 2014, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill singers, sports fans all across the fruited plain.
Time for the award-winning thrill-packed, ever exciting, increasingly popular, forever dominant.
Rush Limbaugh program on the EIB network.
And it's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Open line Friday, one of the greatest career risks ever taken since the Wright brothers gave up their bicycle business.
Thank you.
*laughter*
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882.
The email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Now the thing about Open Line Friday, well, the reason why it's a great career risk is that I turn over the content portion of the program to rank amateurs when we go to the phones.
And uh I mean that's the risk.
I mean, who, who that's the reason people listen is the content.
But it's always fun, and the reason we do it differently on Friday is it's not as tightly screened.
So basically, anything you want to talk about's fine and fair and game, Dan, fine and dandy.
You don't have to talk about something I'm interested in necessarily to get on the air.
So again, uh 800 282-2882, and the email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Uh yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, we dusted off our peace update with Slim Whitman, Una Paloma Blanco.
Because two days ago I had noticed, sadly, that there were no peace protesters marching in the streets in peace capitals like New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, it wasn't happening.
And we had just gone to war.
We'd just gone to war in Iraq.
We had just gone to war in Syria, we had just gone to war in the Middle East, and American president was launching bombs, dropping bombs on potentially innocent citizens.
And where was the peace movement?
Where were the peace protests?
They were nowhere.
And I was told that, well, that's because they're worn out from the weekend's activities uh protesting climate change.
And so I begged them.
I said, come on, you guys, I've been I've been prepared here to dust off Slim Whitman.
I want to do a peace update.
You guys are doing so they showed up yesterday, but not in large well, two days ago they showed up.
50 was about it.
I mean, it was pathetic.
It was it was a real embarrassment to the peace movement, but they but they showed up.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, we have a theory as to why.
Bright Dart, Bright Bart.com.
Somebody has found the courage to explain why the usual suspects are not protesting Obama's wars in Syria and Iraq.
And it is longtime professional liberal activist David Swanson and Medea Benjamin.
Code Pink.
And the reason?
It's because Obama is black.
And they're cutting him some slack because he's black.
As President Obama launches airstrikes in Syria, anti-war activists are frustrated that he's getting a pass from groups traditionally opposed to military intervention, according to the Washington Post.
Only 22 anti-war activists protested near the White House this week, and it was the last display and latest display of how Obama has neutralized the left.
Left-wing activist David Swanson, who voted for Obama 2008, told the Washington Post, if Bush were launching these wars with Congress out of town, I mean this town to be flooded and San Francisco to be flooded.
If this were Bush doing this with Congress out of town and without a declaration of war and without a sign-off from Congress, you would have seen the streets flooded.
But we're not seeing the streets flooded.
Liberals are giving Obama a pass.
Because, quote, he's more eloquent, he's more intelligent, he's African American, He builds himself as a constitutional scholar.
I kid you not.
This is how disingenuous and insincere the peace movement really is.
Disingenuous and insincere the anti-war movement really is.
If all it takes to get them to shut up and sit down, you just have to make it look like you're smart, be eloquent, look like you're more intelligent than Bush, and be African American.
And if you are able to pull that off, then the peace movement will not protest for peace.
You go out there kill anybody you want.
You can drop bombs anywhere you want, and the peace movement will sit on its collective butt.
And elect you, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink said the black community, traditionally the most anti-war community in this country, but Obama has defanged that sentiment within the black community, or certainly voicing that sentiment.
So that's why, not as though we didn't know either.
I just wanted to get it on record from their mouths.
They're the ones who are telling us that the whole peace movement is political, like everything else they do.
It isn't really about peace.
And they're really not worried about collateral damage.
All they want to do is disrupt and damage Republican presidents.
In Colorado, ladies and gentlemen, from the Hill.com, the headline, war on women falling flat.
Colorado Democrats are fretting that Senator Mark Udall, Democrat Colorado, war on women battle cry against the opponent, Representative Corey Gardner, is starting to sound like a broken record.
After a series of polls this month have shown the race statistically tied, or even with Corey Gardner up.
Some Democrats are urging Udall to find a new refrain against Gardner lest Republicans claim the seat in November.
Udall's main line of attack on the Republican congressman has been his support for federal personhood measure, a federal personhood measure, which would effectively ban abortion and restrict many forms of birth control.
So this is it's a fascinating, it's a fascinating thing here that the war on women mean.
This is the second place that I've come across now where the whole war on women thing is falling flat.
We had earlier news that uh polling data shows that uh Obama is losing women in drones, even among single women.
Married women tend to be Republican.
It's not guaranteed, but single women are almost, well, the vast majority of them are almost always Democrat, but Obama's having trouble, the left is losing them.
I have no idea why.
I mean, I would like to say the war on women's falling flat because it's silly, because it's stupid, because there isn't one.
Do you realize how asinine it even is to say that an entire political party is conducting a war on women?
The fact that it was ever believed in the first place is what's astounding to me.
But it appears to be falling flat.
There's some other things Gardner is doing to help this along.
It's not just that this is happening in a in a vacuum.
He's also presenting a campaign of positives and uh and general upbeat attitudes about the possibilities of America if we get some different leadership.
So there's a bunch of things that are intertwined in it.
Uh, but nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, it is falling flat.
This just means if it continues, if this war on women meme continues to fall flat elsewhere, that the left is going to have just one recourse, and that's the race card.
All kinds of theories about why Eric Holder resigned, and it's amazing.
I read the soundbite's coming up.
A number, this program is show prep for the rest of the media.
You will not believe a number of media professionals who, after this program began speculating that, you know what, maybe he's positioning himself to accept the next Supreme Court nomination, should they convince Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg to Retire.
She, by the way, doesn't want to retire, but behind the scenes efforts are being made.
Okay, so let's go to Thursday night football.
Last night on CBS.
It was Jim Nance and Phil, who used to play for the New York Giants doing the game between the New York Giants and the Washington Redskins.
And Phil had vowed back prior to the season that he would not say Redskins.
Because of its racial connotations, the fact that it offends people and so forth.
So we vowed yesterday on this program not to ever say Phil's last name.
He's just gonna be Phil, or Phil who played for the Giants, or Phil the quarterback, or whatever.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
James Brown last night on NBC, CBS rather, NFL, Thursday night kickoff.
Here in Washington last week, U.S. Senator Maria Catwell of the state of Washington led a small group of senators that introduced legislation aimed at revoking the NFL's tax exempt status if the league fails to force Washington owner Daniel Snyder to stop using the term Redskins.
Several prominent leaders in the Native American community, including Dennis Welsh of the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest organization of its kind, have repeatedly stated that the Washington team nickname is derogatory.
A Washington team nickname is derogatory.
So politics once again a prominent feature in an NFL pregame show.
Here's an AP story on Phil's sim.
Up, up, oh, darn it, darn it, darn it, darn it.
See, that's how easy it is.
I vowed never to say Phil's last.
And look at how easily it just came out of my mouth.
Oh, darn it, to violate my vow that quickly.
Oh my gosh, how bad am I?
Sadly, ladies and gentlemen, the same thing happened to Phil last night during the game.
And the Associated Press has a story.
CBS lead analyst Phil referred awkwardly to the Washington team early in the Redskins nationally televised game against the New York Giants on Thursday night.
Otherwise, his decision not to say the nickname was not very conspicuous.
That is, unless you watch the show.
Sims first told the AP last month that he would refer to the team only as Washington during the broadcast.
He said he wasn't taking sides on whether the team should change its nickname, but he was sensitive to complaints that the term Redskins is offensive.
Sims broadcast partner, play-by-play announcer Jim Nance, used Redskins as usual Thursday, so the word was still heard plenty.
During the telecast, Nance said last month that it's not his job to take a stance on things like this.
As an analyst, Phil has less reason than Nance to mention a team's nickname.
Most times it was clear which squad he was talking about because they wear different uniforms.
So he would just say a player's name or the defense or even they.
We have just a short little montage here of Phil's attempt.
Most of the night he called them Washington, which which sounds normal, but it it it didn't sound so normal when he tried to call them the Washington team.
The Washington team, they have a lot of weapons.
They play a lot of man coverage to Washington.
The Washington team does.
Let's see how the Washington team plays.
And he slipped up a cut, does that not sound stran the Washington team.
He never said the New York team.
Was always the Giants or the Gents or New York, but the Washington team.
And he did slip up a couple of times, and he happened to say Redskins.
And so the silliness continues.
Ladies and gentlemen, it just continues to, it seems, multiplied.
So yesterday afternoon is about, I don't know, 5.30.
And I am feverishly already at 5.30 yesterday afternoon, getting ready for today's program.
And the way I do that is just constantly read and learn and decide what I'm interested in and what I'm not interested in to set aside the things I'm not interested in.
And I get a message from Catherine, who says, they're talking about you again on the five.
She sends me one of these about three times a week.
They're talking about you again on the five.
I said, about what?
She wrote back what you said about ISIS.
And I said, I don't even once I do a program, it's in the past, and I don't really remember.
Because I really am I'm focusing on the future of the next program.
I didn't remember what I'd said about ISIS.
So I asked her, and she told me, so oh, okay, so I get in here today, ready and revved up, and I get the audio soundbite roster, and this discussion on the five yesterday regarding me and ISIS sound bites one, two, and three.
So let's take a break so I don't have to hammer and rush right through these.
We'll come back and treat you to it after this.
Don't go.
And the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rushlin boy.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
This is what I said on Fox.
Well, this is what I said on the program yesterday that they used on Fox to stimulate stimulating discussion between the guests and the hosts of the show.
So George Bush supposedly went to Iraq for oil, right?
So I guess we could say that uh Barack Obama went to war with ISIS for the Senate.
It's all about winning the Senate or holding the Senate, and it's all about positioning Obama politically.
Pure and simple.
It is.
It's doubtless.
It's undeniable.
It's inarguable.
A month ago, Obama was talking about ISIS as the JV team.
Three weeks ago, Obama was saying he didn't even have a strategy.
Because he didn't even think it was that big a deal.
Then the polling data began to come in, and the advisors began to panic.
And they said, Look, you're gonna have to you gotta go out there at least make a speech.
You gotta tell people that you think these are bad guys.
And you gotta tell people that you're gonna do something about even if you don't, you've gotta do something.
You've got to get out there and kind of reverse the poll numbers because the Democrats running for the Senate are in big, big trouble.
So they wrote a speech and they put it on the prompter, and they put Barack in a secret special room at the White House, and he went out there and he read it.
And it wasn't a whole lot of passion in the speech, but it served the purpose.
And he announced a strategy, and it involved military action.
So let's go to the response at the five.
Up first, Dana Perino.
I believe he's saying it a little tongue in cheek, and payback is heck because it points out the absurdity of the original degrading of President Bush and Dick Cheney.
It shows how ridiculous they are.
And I think, though, that politically they would have been better off doing this in August.
If they was really thinking about politics, I think it would have been better for President Obama to make a move in June or July, because over the summer is when he saw his poll numbers really start to decline.
Yep.
Now she's right.
Uh I was being not just tongue-in-cheek, I was being facetious as I could be.
I said so.
George Bush supposedly went to Iraq for oil, right?
How many people of the Democrat Party said that?
What was the slogan?
No blood for oil.
How many people said that Bush was in Iraq just to avenge a failed assassination attempt on his father by Saddam Hussein?
How many people for five years, folks, did everything they could on the Democrat side to undermine the war effort?
Harry Reid.
This war is lost.
This war is unnecessary.
I don't need to relive all of this for five years.
Every day, 24-7, 365, they did nothing but impugn the war effort by the military.
Remember, our soldiers were raping and terrorizing women and children in Iraqi villages.
That charge was made right there to back it up, John Kerry and John Murtha.
And amidst all of this, we heard the constant allegation that this was simply a war because Cheney's Halliburton was gonna benefit big time because Halliburton's in the oil business, and they're not, by the way, they're in the support industries, support services industry.
So it's clearly being tongue in cheek.
Okay, so if you guys are gonna say that Bush went to Iraq for oil, then I guess we can say Obama went to Iraq for the Senate.
Except in my case, I happen to be exactly right.
Well, this didn't sit well with Bob Beckle, who thought of all the things he's ever heard me say in the course of our lives on the planet.
This was the worst.
Of all the cynical statements that that uh Russia's made, this is the most cynical.
George Bush did not go into Iraq for oil, and Barack Obama did not go after bombing ISIS for Senate seats.
If Obama's favorability comes up, it may save one Senate seat, probably not many House seats, but I think the idea of that kind of comment is uh uh approaching on Americanism.
Really?
Isn't this fascinating?
So one little cynical, satirical, humorous comment stands for un-Americanism and five years of undermining every day our war effort in Iraq.
Why?
Why that was that was where we were standing on principle.
We were opposed to torture, we were opposed to all the evil the U.S. military was doing.
We thought Bush was an idiot and we had no business being there.
His stance was not.
It was totally political, and they were doing everything they could on the Democrat side to secure defeat and saddle George W. Bush with it, all for politics.
And they succeeded, by the way.
And now here's one little very pointed remember, good comedy must have an element of truth.
We are in ISIS or in this war with ISIS for political reasons.
The timeline is evidence enough.
It's open line Friday, Rushland Boy at 800-282-2882 to the phones we go starting where?
Where are we going to start?
Uh somebody give me a green line.
What do you suggest?
Well, I gotta you gotta uh we'll try Jim in Arlington, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Jim, are you there?
There's nobody on line three.
Uh can you hear me, Rush?
Jim, are you there finally?
It's good thing I was talking about.
Oh, you hear me?
Can you hear me?
Yes, I hear you.
Good.
I hear you fine.
I want to talk about tax income and instead tax purchases.
That would simplify the process, reduce compliance cost, raise more revenue, and most importantly, provide tax relief to the lower and middle class and the middle class.
You want to replace the income tax with a consumption tax.
Well, I like shallow to purchase tax.
Well, same thing.
Purchase tax consumption.
You go out and consume something, you buy it, you purchase it.
So only a tax on the money you spend, not the money you earn.
Well, actually, uh when you give a gift, that's not a purchase.
When you save money, that's not a purchase.
When you pay taxes, that's not a purchase.
And when you pay interest, that's not a purchase.
Everything else is pretty much a purchase.
So you're not saying a consumption tax, you're saying a purchase tax.
Exactly.
Okay, so uh w uh are you you're taxed on what how are you getting in this when you save money that's not a purchase?
What do you mean?
Well, if you put money into savings, you're not purchasing anything.
So it won't be taxed.
Well, you are purchasing something.
You're purchasing money with it.
No, you're not.
Uh you're lending your money to an institution.
No, no, no.
Any time you use your money, it is a transaction.
You are putting money in a savings account so that that money will grow.
It will gain interest, and you will pay tax on that additional income if there is any, depending on other factors in your in your tax uh under our president system, that's correct.
Uh when you tax income and interest is part of that, then you're not.
Well, look, uh th there's one pre one premise that I I will I will not disagree with you on here.
Uh the income Tax is probably the single best weapon against accruing wealth that has ever been imposed on people.
The income tax is the biggest obstacle to accruing wealth because as you earn more, your tax rate increases, and more of what you earn is taken from you for all kinds of strange premises, such as fairness, make sure you pay your fair share and this kind of thing.
And there are many, many kind of arguments on different ways of raising revenue to run the government.
There's the flat tax, just 15 percent, 17 percent on anybody, everything, no deductions, that's it.
Uh consumption tax, uh purchase tax is another thing that that uh but even that that is considered to be fair because well, I'll tell you what, Jim, no matter what kind of tax you come up with, the left is still going to say it's unfair to the middle class and the poor.
They're going to say, for example, under your system, well, the rich don't have to spend as much money.
They've got so much money, they don't have to spend it day to day to live, but the poor they've got to spend almost everything they've got.
And they've got, and the middle class, they have to spend almost everything they've got.
And so they are going to be still paying a greater percentage of tax than the rich.
And that's always going to be the argument the left uses to uh cement opposition to any kind of tax reform.
Because the tax code is not about fairness.
And the tax code today is not about raising revenue to run the government.
Uh and Civics 101 teaches you that it is, but that's not the purpose of the tax system anymore.
The purpose of the tax system is control.
The purpose of the tax system is social architecture.
The purpose of the tax system is about many things other than actually raising.
If if all you wanted to do, if the real reason for taxes was to fund the government, the first thing that would happen would be across the board tax cuts.
And particularly on income, particularly on marginal income rates.
If you did that, here's what happens every time you do it.
And I'm talking about nationally, this is federal income tax.
Every time you do it, particularly at current taxation, we got plenty of room to cut taxes.
If you do that, what happens is that individuals end up with more purchasing power because more of what they earn remains in their possession, in their back pocket.
By the same token, if you reduce tax revenues and cut tax rates on people, this ends up redounding positively to business.
You end up the low information about, wait a minute, you cut taxes and raise revenue?
That's exactly right.
How do you do it?
Because you create more jobs.
And when you create more jobs, you're creating more what?
Taxpayers.
More taxpayers paying individually less in taxes equals great revenue increases to Washington.
If what you're trying to do is fund the government, that's not what the purpose tax code is anymore.
I've run these numbers by people for a number of years here.
But let's go back, and this is a period of time that the left and the media wants to wipe out from everybody's memory.
In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated and took office, the top marginal tax rate in this country was 70%.
Now, very few people actually paid because the 70% was on the last dollars you earned.
You had to earn a lot of money to get to that bracket.
But it was still there.
There were a lot of shelters in that era.
There were a lot of allowed deductions, purposely so, so that wealthy people could avoid the 70% rate.
Well, Reagan said, you know, this is this is convoluted, it's crazy, it's confiscatory, and it's punitive.
So he designed to cut taxes.
And when he left office in 1989, January of 89, the top marginal tax rate was 28 percent, 70 percent top marginal rate, 1981, 28 percent for some people is above at 31, but we'll keep it at 28 percent Eight years later.
What happened to the revenue collected by Washington in 1981, the total take from taxes was around $500 billion.
After reducing the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%, eight years later, the amount of money taken in by Washington had almost doubled to just shy of a trillion dollars.
What else also happened?
We had two recessions between 1981 and 84, not to mention the 70s that Jimmy Carter presided over.
We reduced interest rates, we reduced employment, we reduced the deficit, all by cutting taxes.
All kinds of new jobs were created because there was much more money circulating in the private sector.
The American dream takes place in a big pie.
Now the left believes that that pie can never get any bigger than whatever it is at any given moment.
Therefore, the left believes, and the Democrat Party believes that taxes and all of this are a zero sum game.
For example, the left believes that if somebody gets a tax cut, somebody better get a tax increase so that the government doesn't lose any money.
By the same token, they believe if somebody gets a raise, somebody has to get docked pay, because it all has to equal the same amount.
And your individual piece of that pie and how big it is is totally up to you.
But the the way the pie grows, meaning the private sector where you and I all live and work, everything but government, where you and I live and work, that's where the opportunity to create wealth is.
Now we have corporate cronyism.
And if you're in tight with the regime, you can get rich sidling up to government.
That's another story.
I want to stick with the private sector and theoretically here for a second.
The way wealth is created is that pie gets bigger, and then people start doing what they can to get their piece of it and grow that.
And it can continue to grow.
It's not a finite number.
It's not a static number that can't get big.
It grows and grows and grows.
It's been the history of the country.
But what it requires to grow is money, is capital.
Now, the more government takes out of that pie, the smaller it gets.
Government does this with taxes.
And that's especially what's happening now.
This government is it is taking as much of the private sector as it can.
That's why unemployment is what that's why 93 million Americans aren't working.
It's why most jobs that are available for 30 hours max a week.
It is why college graduates are fretting that they have no future and they can't find jobs related to careers and career advancement.
Because the pie is shrinking.
The government's taking it bit by bit and growing and getting bigger.
Now, a country and government that really valued its citizens and believed that its citizens were the engine of its greatness, that government would make sure that pie is as big as possible and always growing.
And the way you can get started on that is to cut taxes and allow people in the private sector to keep much more of what they earn, much more of what they produce, which causes increased economic activity, which creates the need for more jobs, which creates growth in businesses which are successful in the future.
It just feeds off itself.
And that, in a very abbreviated form, is the story of the 1980s.
And it works so well that the Democrat Party and the media have been engaged in impugning those eight years ever since they ended.
Beginning with Bill Clinton, well, might even say beginning with George H. W. Bush, but really intensifying with Bill Clinton and on now into Obama.
There's simply you can talk about the tax code being revised, the consumption tax, uh spending tax, savings tax, flat tax, what have you.
But until a fundamental theoretical decision, philosophical decision is made, none of it's going to matter.
If the government's going to keep growing, if people are going to continue to support an expanding government that takes care of more and more people in a shoddy way, and if the private sector pie is going to continue to shrink, and therefore fewer people have a chance to get whatever size piece of it, we're going to continue to have economy in decline, which is what we have now.
And it's just a damn shame.
It is so unnecessary.
But if you're the Democrat Party, and if you structured yourself on the belief that most people don't know the right things to do in life, most people aren't capable of making the best decisions for themselves.
Most people aren't capable of the wise use of their own money.
They won't spend it the way liberal Democrats think they should spend it.
So the Democrats have taken that power away from you.
You have less money to spend.
They are now buying votes with it, growing the government, any number of things.
It's it's real simple.
It is simple.
It is and I this is not simplistic at all.
It is very, very simple.
And it worked like H it's worked every time it's tried, just like abstinence and abortion.
It works every time it's tried.
But because it works so well, it constitutes the greatest threat the Democrat Party faces.
Your ability to run your life economically, your opportunity to get a bigger piece of that pie, your opportunity to become economically secure and independent biggest threat they face, because that means you don't need them.
That means you need less of them.
That means you don't need food stamps, you don't need welfare, you don't need uh their help with uh any number of things.
And that's not good for them.
So they're not interested in your personal advantage.
Oh, they'll say they are, but they don't do anything of any sort to back up that supposed interest or desire.
Quick time out, my friend, sit tight, we'll be back.
Open line Friday, L. Rushball, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
This is Ben in Stores, Connecticut.
Hello, Ben, great to have you here.
Hi.
Rush, great to be with you.
How are you?
Great, sir.
Rockin' on.
All right, rock on.
Now a great, a great open line Friday call.
What's up?
What's shaking?
What about it?
Well, I'm a college student up here at the University of Connecticut.
I'm from Connecticut.
I'm listening to you forever, and I got my new iPhone.
I was due for an upgrade.
I love the new iPhone 6 with a passion.
I love that it's bigger.
But Apple put out a statement, and maybe you saw it.
It said that this new IOSA is better, almost as good, the best thing since the App Store.
And I I don't think it's quite different enough, and I know a lot of people have had trouble with it.
So just this morning around 8 a.m., they put out the new iOS 8.0.2, which fixed some of the bugs.
But I just wanted to hear what you said, because you know, as a college student up here at UConn, I mean, I'm the demographic.
I love technology.
I use all Apple products.
And I know you do.
So what are your thoughts?
Well, let me let me preface this by acknowledging what many regular listeners know.
I'm an Apple evangel.
I absolutely I love their products.
And so some people might interpret that as resulting in commentary that's biased in their favor.
It's not the case.
Um, but I I need to acknowledge that.
Um I think iOS 8 is the most incredible, fabulous, sensational upgrade in software since the iPhone was released in 2007.
But let me tell you what's brilliant about it.
Most people, then, most people hate change.
They get accustomed to something, and they just want it to keep working that way.
Now, because of competition, the IOS is upgraded every year.
Some cases incrementally, in some cases dramatically.
This this iOS 8 is dramatic.
But what's brilliant about it is that all of the real substantial what people call power user features are beneath the surface.
The average ordinary everyday user is never going to encounter them and therefore never gonna get mad and never gonna get frustrated at the change.
The power user, if he or she wants to find them, they're there and they open up usability, uh productivity, the fun factor.
I mean it is it's phenomenal what you can now do.
The phones themselves, you you have a six or a six plus.
I got the six because you know, the six plus is essentially just a little bit smaller than the iPad mini that I use.
Yeah, the six plus is a great I I've I've got both.
I've got that, but the six plus is not a one-handed phone, and if that matters to you, then then the six, but the six is is is dynamic.
It's got the same guts.
There's there's the speed of these two new phones is incredible.
The Wi-Fi chip is is increased, the LTE chip is increased, the download speeds on on web pages and email downloads, the graphics, rendering of graphics is almost instantaneous.
It it this is just to me, it's phenomenal.
I literally uh am excited as I'm still playing.
It's been out a couple of weeks, and I am still playing well, I've been using betas since June, but I mean I I just love it.
And then there's so much bogus because of the competition in capital.
So many bogus things being said about it.
But that's that's Apple's problem.
They have to deal with that.
I've got to take a break.
I'll tell you, folks, this business about the iPhone 6 Plus bending.
It's so bogus.
It's just that's capitalism, folks.
That is just the raw bloodthirsty competition in capitalism, putting stuff out like that.
▲
Export Selection