All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 2, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
September 2, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, here I am.
So it's just mere seconds before the programs open, which is right now, okay?
So somebody walks in here and hands me, you got to see this, you got to see this.
We got it in the nick of time.
I look at it.
It's a TMZ story.
Rachel Dolezal.
I'm pregnant, it says, the headline.
I'm saying, who cares?
Rachel Dolezo pregnant.
Big whoop.
Everybody's, well, who's the father?
We won't know till it comes out, folks.
And even then, it'll probably be up for grabs.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome, Rush Limbaugh, back at you here at the EIB Network at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
Show prep for the rest of the media.
Let me illustrate it.
Audio soundbite number one.
You remember the opening yesterday's program where I was going through the latest Hillary email dump.
And I said, you know what, folks, I think I figured out the strategy.
The drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip is just to wear us out.
Because it's beginning to work on me.
That's starting to bore me.
There's no resolution to this.
There doesn't appear to be any end in sight.
We're just going to be more, more, and more drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.
And then later in the program, we shared with you a media montage where the word mundane was used by several drive-by reporters to describe the Hillary email scandal.
And this morning on Fox News America's newsroom, Bill Hammer talking with Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard.
Another day of the story that goes drip, drip, drip.
Yeah, you know, I think this was actually a pretty big drip, although it's not necessarily being treated as such by most of the mainstream media.
Most of the media coverage of it, people are focusing on sort of the quirky things, the TV shows she was interested in, the Gefelta Fish controversy, not the serious, I think, potential violations of law.
That's exactly the point.
The drip, drip, drip is blurring everybody's attention, and they're not focusing on that.
The drip, drip, drip does include some earth-shattering news revelations.
And then even angrier Mitchell, NBC News Washington, she's fed up.
Newsbusters, Andrea Mitchell, on Hillary emails.
Are we ever going to get out of this cycle?
Fretting over Hillary Clinton's ongoing email scandal on Tuesday, PMS.
NBC host Andrea Mitchell wondered when this story would end.
Are we ever going to get out of this cycle?
Is she ever going to get out of this cycle?
And then Crystal Liz of the Washington Post, when the federal judge ordered a release of these things at pretty regular intervals, this was the worst outcome of her presidential hopes.
We're not talking about her plan for college affordability.
We're not talking about any of her policies.
We're talking about not talking about energy, income inequality.
The media is getting fed up.
The media is getting bored.
At least they say they are, which is the, I think, the purpose here.
But there is, there is some earth-shattering news in these latest emails.
Not that there hasn't been up to now.
At least four classified Hillary Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public.
This, according to Fox News, State Department whistleblowers believe this to be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former Secretary of State server.
The four emails originally remarked classified after a review by career officials at the State Department, but after a second review by the department's legal office, the designation was switched to B5, which is known as the liberative process, which refers to internal workings.
So what we have here, the drive-bys, we have two things here.
The drive-bys are letting us know that they're bored with it.
They're not interested in it, which means they have no desire to follow this through to a conclusion that is harmful to Hillary, which we knew.
I mean, the circle of wagons around her.
In fact, they are furious, they want us to believe, the drive-bys are, that this Hillary email story is preventing them from addressing the issues of the Democrat presidential campaign, which means that they are being obstructed from advancing the liberal agenda.
That's what Andrea Mitchell's really ticked off about.
This email story is standing in the way of them being able to promote liberalism and advance the Democrat Party agenda Obama and the Iran deal.
By the way, about that, Is anybody surprised?
You should not be surprised that Obama got the votes that he wanted.
And I'm going to maintain to you right now that that was always in the cards once Chuck Schumer decided to vote against it.
And I'm sorry if it sounds like an attack on Senator Schumer.
I don't doubt that his opposition to this is principled in part.
But when I saw that Schumer was going to vote against it and the story came, it could be three or four follow him along.
It told me everything I needed to know.
It meant that his vote, no, was safe, that it was going to pass.
His no vote was not going to harm Obama.
That's when I, and I didn't doubt that this was going to pass anyway because of the Corker bill.
The Corker bill made it impossible for this thing not to pass.
Yes, Republican Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee, totally reversing the ratification process for treaties.
And the simple explanation for what that means is the president has to get, and I know it's not a treaty, but it is.
I mean, it looks like a duck.
It walks like a duck.
It checks like a duck.
It's a duck.
It's a treaty.
But Obama didn't want to call it a treaty because he didn't want to go through the constitutional requirements for ratification, which essentially two-thirds of the Senate must vote for it.
With a Corker bill, the Corker bill said, no, no, no, you know what?
We're going to suspend that and we're going to change it.
And what we need, we need to get two-thirds of the Senate to vote no in order to stop it.
With a couple of other ancillary requirements, it wasn't going to happen.
And if that's any, if you're still puzzled over this, if you really thought that there was a chance that the Senate was going to vote no on this, and I'm not trying to be a no-it-all cynic.
I remind you of what Mitch McConnell recently said about defunding Planned Parenthood.
All right?
Now, let's go back to 2010.
Republican voters are angry that the Republicans in Congress are not doing more to stop Obamacare.
Now, back in 2010, there really wasn't much they could do.
They didn't vote for it.
There was not a single Republican vote for it, but they weren't speaking out against it forcefully.
They weren't trying to create any allies of the Democrats to vote against it.
Of course, Obama's first term, Democrat loyalty and all that.
And the Republicans said, look, all we have here is the House.
And we can't stop the president with just the House.
We need the Senate.
You need to give us control of the Senate.
We need to control the chairmanships and the committees.
And once you give us the Senate, we'll be able to do things.
Okay.
2014 midterms come around and we vote and we give the Republicans the Senate.
And now they are still paralyzed and can't do anything.
And now Mitch McConnell and Boehner say, well, we don't have the White House.
You know, we can't do anything here because Obama's going to stop everything we do.
So, 2010, you need to give us the Senate, and then you're going to see some action.
2014, they got the Senate, but sorry, can't do anything.
Most recent illustration, Planned Parenthood defunding.
Mitch McConnell, sorry.
I just don't have the votes here.
We're going to need a Republican in the White House for this.
Don't have it.
Can't get it done.
They don't want to, folks, for whatever reason.
What a golden opportunity.
I mean, just in the politics of this, what a golden opportunity to defund planned parenthood during the Obama administration.
Make President Obama take action to maintain funding for all that we have learned that goes on in there.
What has happened to the, I mean, I'm sounding like a broken record along with everybody else.
What in the world has even happened to the political instincts of the opposition party?
Even if you don't have the votes, you don't think to override a veto, make him veto it, defund Planned Parenthood.
Everybody in the world needs to find out what's happening in that place.
These videos have reached an audience, but they haven't reached a wide enough audience because the drive-bys are ignoring it, okay?
So the Republicans in the Senate and the House pick up the movement to defund Planned Parenthood.
This creates its own story.
People say, why?
Why?
Take a look at these videos, average American, a little low-information voter, take a look at this.
Get the videos out.
You broadened the base of understanding and knowledge.
And then you get people all fit to be tied over what's happening in these clinics, those that will be fit to be tied anyway.
Not everybody would, liberals being liberals.
But the point is, in the world of ponies, even when you can't win, you can, because you can turn this around on the Democrats and make this president veto efforts to defund this, put the Democrat Party firmly in everybody's mind on the side of infanticide.
They don't want to do it.
They don't want to get anywhere near it.
Now, Jeb Bush, what planet are we on?
Jeb Bush is doing campaign appearances in Espanol.
Somebody's got to explain this to me.
I mean, beyond the obvious.
I mean, I know that the Republicans foolishly believe that they can't win unless they get the Hispanic vote.
And given that, apparently it is believed that Abla Ng Espanol is somehow a magnet for Hispanic Latino votes.
Well, seriously, I. Well, I'll be right back, folks.
Coming up later in the program, Victor Davis Hansen at PJ Media today has a piece.
It's well written.
It's nothing that you don't know, but it's still worth sharing with you how illegal immigration finally turned off the public.
It's, as I say, it's everything that you think and probably a lot of what you feel.
And it's nothing you haven't heard other people talk about, including yourself.
It's just well written, and I want to share that with you as the program unfolds.
The Politico has one of the craziest stories out there today.
It's haters for Trump meet the people who despise Trump so much they plan to vote for him just to send America a message.
This is kind of like it's sort of like an Operation Chaos, although it's not organized and doesn't have a leader.
But you know how in 1992, they had people call here.
You may have been one of them.
Rush, you know what?
I don't care.
I don't want to vote for Bush.
I think we all just ought to vote for Clinton and let the people find out how bad Democrats screw things up.
And then it happened in 96.
Rush, I'm telling you, Dole, you kidding me?
Let's go ahead and vote Clinton again and show people how bad.
You've heard this theory.
It happened in 2000.
Rush, you kidding me?
George W. Bush, give me a break.
Let's go ahead and just vote for Obama and let's get people in this country find out how rotten it'll be with Democrats running the show.
You've heard that.
You've heard people call.
Well, the Politico says that's what people are doing.
That a lot of Trump support is actually people that hate him.
They want Trump elected so this country finds out what a demagogue he is, how stupid they are.
Do you think Politico has ever written the other story?
The other side?
No, no, no, no.
They never have.
No, no, this is something specific to Trump.
The people, they've gone out, they've found him.
People who despise Donald Trump so much, they're going to vote for him so that you find out just how rotten a guy he is, and just so you can find out what people like Trump will actually do to America.
And they maintain at the Politico that a decent percentage of Trump's so-called support is actually from people that hate him.
It's hilarious.
It's funny.
51% of immigrant households on welfare details coming up.
CNN.
CNN has done something out there.
They've changed something.
Everybody's scratching their heads, but it looks like Carly Fiorina will now make the top 10 in polling and thus will appear on stage at the Reagan Library on September 16th for the next GOP debate.
And I don't know what happened here.
I got a heads up on this last night.
You know, I know powerful, influential people because I am one.
I'm a powerful, influential member.
The media means I have inside contacts.
And I got a flash note last night.
Hey, Rush, CNN is on the verge here of doing a 180 so Carly can get in.
Somebody at CNN telling me this, but they didn't know how CNN was doing this.
Meaning, they didn't know what changes CNN was making or why.
Did CNN realize it looks stupid?
Did CNN get pressured by the GOP?
What, you think that happened?
Oh, come on.
Are you telling me that CNN is going to respond to grassroots Republican pressure?
They're going to get the biggest audience they've had for, well, since the Malaysian jet without doing anything, snirdly, and the GOP putting pressure on anybody.
Look, when I say GOP, I'm talking about RNC established.
You think they're going to call CNN and give them grief?
Don't put pressure on anybody.
Now, the Republican grassroots, I mean, voters, yeah, they could be peppering CNN with threatening emails and Twitter posts and Facebook, whatever.
But CNN's got to realize no matter what happens here, their audience is going to be through the roof.
Doesn't matter who's up.
As long as Trump is in this debate, their audience, that's how they're thinking.
So to add Fiorina to this, I'm not upset about it.
No, no, no, no.
It went from there was no way to now she's going to be there and on stage.
And the headline here from their own website, CNN Amends GOP Presidential Debate Criteria.
This has always amazed me.
This is CNN.
It's their website.
Why doesn't the headline say, we amend GOP?
Why do they write about themselves as though they're not in the building?
It's a CNN website.
Right there it is, CNN.com.
CNN amends GOP.
And here's how it opens.
CNN is amending the criteria for its Republican presidential debate on September 16th, possibly opening a door for Carly Fiorina to join the other candidates.
The cause, a lack of national public polling following the August 6th debate, has so far provided only three new polls to determine the lineup, according to a CNN state.
According to a CNN state, According to you, why does it say, we are amending the criteria?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The cause, a lack of national public polling following the August 6th debate, has so far provided only three new polls to determine the lineup for the Reagan Presidential Library, according to our statement, instead of according to a CNN statement.
Anyway, it's a nitpick, but I guess they have journalists at CNN that cover CNN like they cover anything else, even though they're CNN employees.
And, let's see, pregnant woman plans on having dolphin-assisted water birth in ocean.
I wonder if that's Rachel Dolezal.
Right here it is, it's a CBS Atlanta Eyeball News story.
Pregnant woman planning on having dolphin-assisted water birth in the ocean, despite experts warning of the possible dangers.
Spiritual healer Dorina Rosen and her partner Maika Sun Eagle are appearing in the documentary Extraordinary Births to chronicle the woman's journey of giving birth in the sea with a dolphin as a midwife.
Experts say, there's experts in this?
Experts say the plan poses the risk of other local marine life, like great white sharks showing up.
Really?
I wonder why that would be.
The couple run a healing retreat, and they view nature as a healing power.
They believe their baby will be able to speak dolphin.
I'm reading it as it's written here, folks.
So you're going to have a dolphin-assisted water birth.
Is this some kind of an attempt to have an anchored dolphin baby?
Is there some advantage to this?
I mean, we have wackos everywhere.
We always have, folks.
I mean, population this size, either in this country or the world, you're going to have a percentage of people that are loony, stands the reason.
The difference is now they make everyday news.
What they do becomes standard operating news reporting, as though it's mainstream and maybe even hip, cool, and expanding.
Whereas in the old days, you know, looney tunes were loony tunes and they were kept in the looney bin.
But now they have graduated to mainstream.
And you have to deal with it in an entirely different way.
Because of political correctness, you can't laugh at it or condemn it.
You have to accept it as being open to everyone and their unique ways of thinking, perhaps expanding our own boundaries and universities, whatever.
And lunacy spreads.
And lunacy.
Kookism ends up being defined, gradually is acceptable, normal, what have you.
Grab a quick phone call here before we head to the audio soundbites of Jorge Bush, Abla ng Español.
Here is Clarence in Philadelphia.
Hey, Clarence, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes, Rush.
What do you think about Trump coming out for taxing the rich?
Clarence, can I thank you for something?
I think you are the fastest to the subject caller I have had on this program in I can't say how many years.
Rush, what do you think?
Not Rush.
How are you?
Not Rush, this, not Rush.
Rush, what do you think of Trump?
I'm just, that's great.
You got in, you got it, and got up.
What do you think of it?
What's that?
What do you think of it?
Yes, you think I'm trying to delay you.
I'm not.
I'm actually complimenting you.
He's also for single-payer insurance run by the government like Medical Clerk.
Clarence for that, too.
Clarence.
I guess that puts him on your crap list, doesn't it?
It puts him on.
Does that put him on your crap list, Rush?
No, no, no, no, no.
We call it the excrement list.
Hey, Brush.
But he's not on Clarence, waitress.
Clarence, wait list.
Now look at what's happening here.
I try to be nice to the guy.
He's being contentious with me for no reason whatsoever.
Crap list.
Clarence, you don't have to fill a bus.
He wants again as he ordered.
I started off complimenting.
I'm going to answer the question.
Clarence, do you want to have a conversation or do you just want to do what you're doing here?
Clarence, are you really serious about this?
Or are you just trying to be irritating?
Clarence, are you there?
He's listening to the radio now, trying to.
I know, but he's trying to hear himself on the radio now.
And our two-minute delay is.
Okay, thanks, Clarence, very much.
Here's the answer to the question.
This is the reason I took his call.
Clarence wants to know what I think of Trump raising taxes on the rich.
Here's what Trump wants to do.
The primary tax increase on the rich that I've heard him talk about is on people he considers to be hedge fund bandits.
And what Trump is talking about is called carried interest.
And carried interest is taxed at capital gains rates rather than earned income rates.
So whereas the top marginal rate now is 39.6%, these hedge fund guys who Trump calls bandits, who are hundred times over millionaires, some of them billionaires, pay taxes at used to be 16% and then 19%, and I think they're up at 25 or 26.
And Obama wants them at 39%.
But he hasn't gotten there yet.
And when it was pointed out to Obama, just as a little aside here, Mr. President, we're getting more money from the capital gains rate at 16% than we ever dreamed we'd get.
That low rate is just causing all kinds of activity.
People are moving, they're selling stocks, they're reporting the sale, they're reporting their income, they're not trying to shelter it.
We're getting more money flowing in ever.
And Obama doesn't care about that.
I care about the fundamental fairness.
Now, what do you mean a fundamental fair?
Well, it's not fair that they should only be paying 16%.
They ought to be paying 39% like everybody else is.
Well, they are on their personal income.
Yeah, but their hedge fund income, they're not.
So it didn't matter.
So if you think that the Democrats are for the tax code to generate revenue, that's not what they care about with the tax code.
Tax code to them is used to punish success and achievement.
The tax code to the Democrat Party is social architecture.
The last thing they care about is whether or not it raises any revenue.
I mean, look at Obama.
He's added $6 or $8 trillion to the national debt.
He doesn't care about revenue coming in.
And very few Democrats do.
The income tax code, the entire tax code.
I mean, look at Lois Lerner in the IRS and the ongoing scandal there not to grant tax exempt status to Tea Party groups so that they could not raise money.
I mean, that's a scandal that's gone, well, hasn't been punished.
It's been reported, but the regime got away with it like they've gotten away with practically every other scandal.
So Trump is coming in and he wants to end what's called carried interest.
And he thinks that these rich hedge fund people ought to be paying the same rate as the top marginal rate that people that earn ordinary income are paying.
And he has also, I don't know how specific he's gotten, but I think he has also included other really, really, really rich people who ought to be required to pay a higher rate.
Now, I don't know what his cutoff is.
I think I heard people that are in an income of $100 million.
We're talking about the one-tenth of one-tenth of the top 1% here.
But the thing about it is, is that the Republican Party never is in favor of tax increases on the rich.
If I've been saying cuts, tax increases is what Trump is talking about.
The Republican Party never, even now, I mean, that's the one thing, amazingly, they have not given away.
They are steadfastly opposed to tax increases on the rich, anybody, anywhere, anytime.
Income tax.
They go along with other fees and so forth being raised when it comes to the income tax and the marginal rates on income tax.
They have never come out in favor of raising it on anybody.
Trump is.
And so Clarence here thinks that he's going to get me in a trap because he thinks I'm a Trumpster and that he can get me on hypocrisy because he knows that I've always been opposed to tax increases on anybody.
But since he thinks I'm supporting Trump, that I'm going to bite the bullet here and come out and support Trump's tax increases on hedge funders.
The desire to raise taxes on the hedge fund, get rid of carried interest, is not an idea that originates with Trump.
It's been floating out there.
You know, I'll tell you the really point to learn about this.
I first heard about the, I'm not a hedge fund guy.
So carried interest was something I had to learn about.
It's a really screwball definition.
It's one of those things that you can't possibly understand unless you're in the business.
You know, economists and money people have their own lexicon, and they speak in that lexicon.
And it sounds like you can't, you don't know what they're talking about.
Therefore, you really aren't allowed to participate.
And a lot of industries do that.
They come up with their own lexicon, their own language.
It's a way of identifying who's in and who isn't.
Carried interest is a term that basically is a convoluted way of computing what kind of taxation there should be on activity at hedge funds.
And it's a way of shielding a lot of ordinary income from top marginal tax rates.
And the first people I ever heard stand up and oppose it were Democrats, which made sense to me.
I mean, hedge fund people, for the most part, are the uber wealthy and carried interest.
It was, and by the way, it's a law written by Congress, written by Democrats, written by the Ways and Means Committee with all kinds of input from lobbyists and so forth.
So this is not something that just magically happened because the hedge fund guys had all this power.
This was a law.
It's written in the tax code like any other aspect of the tax code is.
And it's made to order for the Democrats to oppose.
I mean, it's made to order for their whole argument that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are stealing from everybody else.
And yet it's not the Democrat Party attacking carried interest.
Have you noticed that?
The Democrat Party, whenever they talk about raising taxes, they always exempt the hedge fund people.
The reason is, folks, contrary to what every low-information voter, and hell, every union member thinks, what practically half the country thinks is the Democrat Party's devoted to the little guy.
That the Democrat Party is defending the little guy.
Democrat Party's out there attacking CEOs and attacking corporations and attacking all these big behemoths and they're going to get even with them and they're going to take money away from them because they've been stealing from the poor and that's how they've been getting rich.
And everybody thinks that's what the Democrats do.
The Democrats are not making a move on carried interest and haven't.
They're trying to protect the hedge fund guys because most of the hedge fund guys are big Democrats.
A good percentage of them are.
As are a lot of the Wall Street CEOs, as are a lot of media CEOs.
They're all liberal Democrats.
The Democrat Party, contrary to what everybody thinks, is not circling the wagons and defending a little guy.
The Democrat Party's in bed with Wall Street.
That's why Bernie Sanders is not going to get the Democrat Party nomination, no matter what.
Because he is serious about implementing policies that would punish those people financially.
Democrat Party is in bed.
They have become the party of Wall Street.
The Democrat Party has become the party of the rich.
And they've done everything they can to shield it.
It's amazing to me that of all the talk about here raising taxes on those people coming from a Republican, at least in the primaries, Trump.
Carried interest.
That's what he's attacking.
If I know Trump, he'll have a codicil to his tax increase, and it will be an option not to pay it.
Here is Cherie in Valparaiso, Indiana, as we stick with the phones here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Cherie.
Great to have you here.
Hi, Rush.
Glad to talk to you again.
You bet.
I have a question for you.
First of all, do you remember how people have been calling you over the months and they've been all depressed about the country and upset with the direction we're going and saying that they think America is over and all stuff like that?
And you said to them that you were, you didn't know what was going to happen, but you're an optimist.
And you didn't know what would happen, but you thought something would happen to pull us back from the brink.
Well, my question is, do you think that Trump was what you were waiting for?
Well, no, but only because that's it.
I'm answering your question specifically.
I mean, I didn't know what the event would be.
All I knew is that something was likely to happen that would reinvigorate people or that would illustrate to them that all isn't lost or that they are not in a minority in terms of the way they're thinking about the country.
In other words, something would happen to make everybody realize we haven't lost the country yet.
There's still a good chance you're saving it.
Now, I didn't anticipate, I didn't know what it would be.
I had no idea.
I was thinking more along the lines that something would happen that would expose Obama as a giant total fraud.
Well, it seems to me like Trump has done that.
He's so much like you, Rush.
He's expressing what so many of us have been thinking, but because of political correctness, we're unable to say.
And he's made me feel optimistic about the country again mourning in America again.
No question for a lot of people.
It could well be the event.
Now, the only reason I'm hedging here, and I don't, I'm not trying to diminish what's happening here, but I want you to compare this energy and this enthusiasm and all that that you're feeling and everybody else is right now.
What are you going to do if Trump doesn't win?
What are you going to do if Trump drops out?
What are you going to do if all of this does not lead to victory in the presidential race?
What's going to happen to your attitude then?
See, the tipping point has to have a substantive result.
And this is what's always been intriguing to me about the Trump movement is the potential that it illustrates that is possible.
Well, that's true.
He has influenced people.
I mean, you've seen.
Oh, it's incredible.
There's so much going on in this campaign.
You know, my attention was just brought via email to yet another conservative writer at a popular or well-known conservative website writing about how these conservatives supporting Trump are being bamboozled and they're throwing away their principles, supporting Trump because Trump isn't a conservative.
Yesterday or the day before, it was a really vicious piece, which I've got here in the Wall Street Journal by a guy named Brett Stevens, who said, if you're not appalled by Donald Trump, you are appalling.
That's how it opened.
So there's all these conservative media types pulling their hair out.
They're thinking that you people supporting Trump have abandoned your conservatism.
And what they don't understand is that support for Trump is about much more than conservatism.
I don't even think it's about conservatism per se.
But they are so threatened.
And these are the people, many of them, who don't do anything but write.
They don't lead movements.
They don't try to end up provoking people to action.
They just write and they want people to, wow, that was really smart.
Man, that's a smart writer.
That's a smart commentator.
But beyond that, they don't do anything.
And now these people are all of a sudden feeling threatened by Trump.
They're missing the whole point of why people are supporting Trump, I think.
Trump's not even claiming to be a conservative for crying out loud.
He's claiming to be an American.
Right.
And what we're sick of, for one thing, is the Republicans being the Washington generals to the Globetrotters.
The Democrats are like the Globetrotters.
They always win.
And the Republicans are just the half-whats.
Well, and not only that, it's arranged beforehand that the generals are going to lose.
It's not even a real competition.
And that's what you're saying that it feels like to you.
Anyway, she's got a great question here, folks.
And it requires and deserves expansion of thought by me.
Time not available now.
It will be in a minute.
Yeah, so the table said here.
We've got all kinds of excitement lurking here on the other side of this obscene profit timeout.
▲
Export Selection