All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
October 5, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
Hi folks, how are you?
Great to have you here.
Great to be back with you after a weekend away, revved and ready to go.
As always, L Rushbow, your guiding light here behind the Golden EIB microphone, the telephone number is 800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program and the email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Where or where to start?
The governor of North Carolina, South Carolina, sorry, Nikki Haley is in the middle of a press conference right now describing the overwhelming floods that they've had in that state.
Something like uh what years and years of rain in a couple of days, is what they've had.
And I saw a headline here, the monsoon of South Carolina, once in 1,000 years.
You know, I lived in Sacramento once, and one of the years I was there from 1984 to 87 and a half, the middle of nine, no, no, eighty-four to eighty-eight, middle of nineteen eighty-eight.
And there was a flood the year that I was there that they called a 100-year flood.
And, you know, at the time, I mean, global warming was just as big an issue then as it is now.
And I asked, okay, so there's a flood like this that's happened a hundred years ago.
What caused it?
Because there weren't any SUVs a hundred years ago.
And now that's doubly true here for South Carolina.
Monsoon of South Carolina, once in 1,000 years ago.
What a thousand years ago we weren't burning a bunch of fossil fuels and virtually nothing, weren't doing a bunch of other things leading to global warming.
So what pray tell caused the flooding?
And I know, I know, look, there's some of you say, Russ, it's a silly comparison.
It's not going to persuade anybody.
Maybe so.
But it's still I I can't help myself, folks.
I'm going to take shots wherever I can.
I'm going to try to defeat everything I oppose with straightforward common sense, even if it is something as innocuous and small as an observation that there weren't SUVs a hundred years ago.
And I know so what do you mean SUVs?
It's a symbol.
It's a symbol for the fact that they try to tell us burning fossil fuels is causing all of this inclement weather, weird weather, odd weather, which is always odd, which is always in climate.
It's nothing new here.
So the SUV just symbolizes the fact that everything they are claiming causes global warming today, did not cause a flood a hundred years ago, did not cause a flood a thousand years ago, however far back you want to go.
The drive-by media and the audio soundbice to back this up as you'll hear as the program uh unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
The drive-by media's got it in its head that it's over.
Trump's finished, and he's he's gonna drop out at some point.
Even though he's still leading in every poll, they've just they're they've they've assumed a position here that there is an inevitability to Trump dropping out.
It's just gonna happen.
They thought it would happen by now.
They've tried to make it happen by now and before today, but it hasn't.
So it is assuming that it's going to happen, and that has become the narrative surrounding a Trump campaign.
In fact, they're even getting Trump to talk about it.
You know, Trump says, hey, look, you know, if I do to get out of this, you know what's going to happen?
The entire Republican presidential campaign is going to collapse.
If I get out of this, you should the people that write about this are incredulous.
I think it's at Politico or New York Times, I'm not sure which, but they just can't believe the guy's ego.
Because Trump said, if he gets out, and of course this just feeds the monster.
I think he's toying with them, but if it it just if he gets out, you know what's going to happen?
The entire Republican campaign is going to implode.
There won't be one.
The excitement will vanish.
There won't be any interest in it.
There won't be any reason for anybody to continue following it.
There will be a couple of TV networks that fold because with Trump removing himself from the campaign, so will their ratings uh go south so far that nobody will be watching some of these networks.
So he's he's uh he's tweaking them in uh in his own way, given their new narrative that it's inevitable that he is going to drop out.
Oh, yeah, well, I'll tell you what if I drop out, and they had to do everybody, you know, I'm amazed at something else too.
The New York Times did a hit piece on his wife.
This is an interesting juxtaposition.
There's a new movie on Steve Jobs.
It's an Aaron Sorkin movie, stars Michael Fassbender, and it's uh uh same people basically that did the movie The Social Network.
And apparently this movie, depending on who you listen to, just savages Steve Jobs.
Just makes him out to be the biggest reprob who may have ever lived.
Just a horrible human being, inhumane, mean, heartless, no compassion, just the most rotten, vile guy you can imagine.
And so now executives at Apple and friends and family of Jobs are begging, imploring Hollywood not to do this.
They're trying to get the true story out that Jobs was not the way he's going to be portrayed in this movie.
And it made me think.
This is so rare that anybody on the left is savaged for anything that when it happens, they don't know how to deal with it.
They panic and they start moving into action to try to get it changed.
These people couldn't survive as conservatives, obviously for a week, with standard ordinary everyday media coverage that conservatives get Republicans get, and I don't just mean me.
I'm talking about elected officials, you you name it.
Prominent conservatives, as you know, are savaged.
And here is one instance, and they're just they're they're they're beside themselves with anger and rage, and all of the usual things that you would feel when somebody you have a lot of affection for is being trashed.
I don't know if the assessment of this movie is right, and I'm just passing along, I've not seen it, passing along what I've heard.
There's stories about jobs out there, and they run the gamut uh from evil, maniacal, mad, heartless, cold SOB to generous kind.
It runs the whole the whole gamut of uh of human emotions.
But the uh uh even the producers of the movies, hey, you know what?
We took artistic license.
Hey, we've been there and done that too, or been there and had that happen.
I mean, it it one British paper, well, no, no, no, no.
It was not a British paper.
It was Jobs' ex-girlfriend who wrote a piece, I think it was a Daily Mail or the Telegram, saying the movie doesn't go far enough in describing what an SOB the guy was.
Something about denying paternity for his uh daughter, even though it had been medically scientifically proven that he was the sperm donor.
He denied it, refused to pay anything.
The daughter's name was Lisa, happened to be the name of an Apple computer that was released that bombed, by the way.
And he claimed, no, I didn't name it after this daughter that's not mine.
He said it has to do with learned integrated systems analysis.
That was or something like that.
That explained the name of the computer, Lisa.
Now, this this I read that piece.
This woman's loaded for bear.
Lee Ann Sue Ann John Ann Ann Brennan, I think is her last name.
And then it continues to re- Where did I, where did I was reading something last night.
Must have been the newsbusters.
Oh.
It was.
It was a newsbusters piece.
And it was all about people reviewing the movie Mars.
And the newsbusters piece mentioned that the reviewers are all mentioning me and Il Papa, the poor.
You know, the Pope, the Vatican, they're walking back the fact that he met with Kim Davis, but they're promoting the fact that he met with a same-sex couple.
They can't get enough of that.
I mean, they're promoting that out.
The Wazoo, the Pope had a had a very close and engaging meeting with a same-sex couple, longtime friend of his.
They're trying to walk back the fact that he ever met Kim Davis.
They did videotape it, but they're not going to release that.
There's videotape of the Pope hugging one of the same-sex couple people.
And then that the church has fired a gay priest.
You know, priest admitted that he was gay, and the Vatican said, not for long, buddy, and he's gone.
So here's the Pope embracing a same-sex couple, firing a gay priest and denying or walking back that he met with Kim Davis.
Even though they request anyway, this this review of the movie The Martian or what have you, it it mentioned that the reviewers all mentioned me.
And of course, what they mentioned, and here for those of you upset what's happening to Steve Jobs, I really, I hate to make this personal, but you couldn't walk a week in our shoes here.
If you're upset about what they're doing to Steve Jobs in this movie, it continues in all of these reviews of the movie that mention me, it quotes me as saying it is a leftist plot to suggest Mars has water.
Which I never said.
Sorry to be redundant.
I have admitted Mars had water or has it.
There are ice caps there.
I disputed the idea of flowing water, but that's still not the point.
What I said was that the news there was water on Mars is going to be used to advance the liberal agenda by evidence based on the evidence of a scientist claiming that there used to be two-thirds of the planet covered with water a mile deep, but it's no longer there, probably is the quote, due to a probable catastrophic event, probably related to global warming.
That's what I objected to.
That's what I said was evidence enough for me that they're going to politicize this discovery.
Not only that, but it the announcement of the discovery happened to be timed with the release of the movie, NASA wants to go to Mars.
And by the way, you know something else about this Mars business, folks.
How long have you been alive?
You remember the left complaining and whining about the space budget?
We don't even need to go Mars.
We don't need to go to the moon.
We don't need to launch the shuttle.
We don't need to do that anymore.
There are people starving on this planet.
What good is all this manned exploration of space?
That's been the left story my whole life, except now Mars.
All of a sudden, everybody on the left wants to go.
And I wish they could.
All of a sudden now it is the it is the latest pop culture event to be positive and supportive of a manned mission to Mars.
What happened to all the money that could be spent here on all the starving children here?
And maybe add to it the gun controversy.
Why spend all this money going to Mars when we have so many social programs and problems here that need to be dealt with?
That's been the story of the space program my whole life.
But now Mars has become this.
Oh, it's more than a pop culture thing.
It's it's it's it's it's become a fantasy that everybody on the left is now in favor of.
And I think I understand why.
In part, they all really believe that climate change is destroying the planet, and in 30 years, Earth's going to be inhabitable.
Or maybe 50.
Or maybe a hundred.
So they're all worried that global warming will eventually make this place uninhabitable when they're dead anyway.
And so going to, and then you it doesn't hurt to have this so-called smartest guy in the world, Stephen Hawking, out there talking about all this and claiming, yep, this Earth's done.
We've had it, stick a fork in it.
The only hope we've got's to colonize the moon or Mars or what.
And so all these leftists have just decided to dump all over the starving and the poor and the thirsty and the hell with them, and let's go to Mars.
It's just fascinating.
Uh, what else do we have?
Well, the the news continues to rage in the Middle East in Syria with Putin, continue to uh drop bombs and engage in his uh military activities there, much to our disagreement here.
We are now accused, by the way, of bombing a hospital in Afghanistan, and what killing 13 people or more.
I think 13 people, whatever, there are casualties and there are deaths, and it was said to be our bombs.
We blew up a hospital.
If this country were being led by a Republican president, and this happened, this would be Abu Ghrab times 10.
If George W. Bush were president and there had been an accidental bombing of an Afghan hospital, that's all you'd be able to find any news about today.
You have to look really hard to find this story about us, supposedly accidentally, of course, friendly fire, uh blowing up an Afghan hospital.
A new study out here was happiest time of your life is in your twenties.
Those about to enter their 30s may want to sit down for this.
A new study suggests you won't be as happy as you are now for about another four decades.
See, here you have another classic example.
You put a news story, supposedly news, supposedly science.
There's already very little to be happy about, then you dump on people and tell them it's really hopeless, because now statistically, the happiest days of your life are in your 20s, and you're if you're about to hit 30 and beyond, you're over.
You've got misery for the next 40 years.
Your happiness is not going to return until your 70s.
That's what the story is.
Classic example.
Every day, every week, there's something like this.
Some new discovery that a food or drink is going to kill you, or that third, secondhand, fourth hand smoke is going to kill you.
Now it's just your overall happiness, abandons you from the moment you hit 30.
I can personally attest to the fact that that is wrong.
That is BS.
In fact, your happiest days will be as you get older.
Provided, provided that you have learned to be independent, provided that you have learned to be free, provided that you are not overly dependent on others.
If that's the case, then you are up a creek, but that has nothing to do with your age.
Only stands to reason the older you get, the more successful you become, the more prosperous you'll become.
Yes, things get more complicated, but I I don't know.
You know, I have a lot of people.
When I was growing up and I was in a teenager, you better really enjoy this, son, because these are the happiest days you're like why is that?
Well, because you got no responsibility now, son.
You're living at home, you go out and go to school.
I said, I hate all this.
I hate school, I hate all this stuff where I'm supposed to be living it up.
All this stuff where I'm supposed to be living it up, got a carefree life.
This is prison to me.
I couldn't wait to get out of it.
And I'm not trying to inspire, don't worry, parents.
I'm not trying to inspire your kids to chuck school.
That's not the point.
Anyway, so setting a table, that's just some of it.
There's much more out there, of course.
We'll continue with all of it when we get back.
Don't go away.
Try this headline in the politico.
Illegal immigrants could elect Hillary.
Now, stop an illegal immigrants could elect Hillary.
How non-citizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year.
And that's that's published with absolutely no concern for the fact that we are talking about non-citizens, people here illegally voting.
In fact, it's written as though it's just a standard ordinary, everyday facet of our elections and campaigns, that on election day, illegal immigrants are going to vote.
Non-citizens.
It's the word in the subhead.
Illegal immigrants, along with other non-citizens without the right to vote, may pick.
The 2016 presidential winner.
Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants and other non-citizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.
See how easy this is?
You simply add these people as Democrat voters, assume that some of them are going to vote.
You don't have a problem with that.
And bamboo, Democrats win.
You know what this story does?
And actually, to tell you the truth, this story is actually an anti electoral college story.
That's the real focus.
Well, maybe not the real focus, it may be a hidden subtext of the story.
Because it's it's aimed at creating distrust and anger for the electoral college using illegal immigrants to do so.
But what this story, whether advertently or inadvertently does illustrate once and for all what the real purpose of amnesty is.
It's a Democrat voter registration drive.
As far as the Democrats are concerned and their friends and accomplices in the media, that's the only it's not compassion, it's not any of that.
It's not people coming here to improve their lives from their war-torn, poverty-stricken homelands.
It's purely about electing Democrats.
And they're making no bones about it here that that's the express, almost exclusive reason for supporting it.
It is now painfully obvious if it wasn't that NBC is totally in the tank for Hillary Clinton.
She was on Saturday Night Live Saturday night.
They had a puff piece feature on her on the uh Today Show today.
So just it shouldn't be a surprise, probably not a surprise, but they're totally in the tank for Hillary.
And it seems that she has a new strategy going forward, and that's to get mad.
She gets mad at a couple of things about the oh, the email crisis in Benghazi and that kind of thing.
And all of this is coming up.
But I want to, ladies and gentlemen, for the moment, focus on the incident in Oregon involving guns.
The president uh went out and spoke late Friday afternoon at the White House, had a press conference during the QA, Jonathan Carr of ABC News said, back in July, Mr. President, you said that the gun issue has been the most frustrating of your presidency.
We certainly heard that frustration from you last night.
So in the last 15 months of your presidency, do you intend to do anything differently to get Congress to act or to do something about this gun violence problem?
The people who are troubled by this have to be as intense and as organized and as adamant about this issue as folks on the other side who are absolutists and think that any gun safety measures are somehow an assault on freedom or communistic.
Or a plot by me to take over and stay in power forever or something.
I mean, there are all kinds of crackpot conspiracy theories that float around there.
Some of which, by the way, are ratified by elected officials in the other party on occasion.
So the President of the United States finally addresses I don't know what you want to call it, the theory that one of the reasons he and other Democrats are so excited and so focused on removing guns from our culture is so that there could be no resistance, should they ever decide to mount a coup and just stay in power.
So he mentions that theory, sort of tries to laugh at it, accuses extremists of concocting the theory, and then says that even some elected officials in the other party on occasion talk about this.
Mr. President, let me see if I can help you here.
It isn't about any of that.
If we wanted to take existing policy and say move it to other areas, we would proclaim immediately gun-free zones around banks, gun-free zones around official government installations in every city and state in this country, just like we have gun-free schools.
I mean, my my whole point has always been that in every area where the left has run the show or is running the show, and in those places where they have implemented the stringent gun laws, most stringent gun laws in the country, what is actually happening?
Gun violence is out of control in places like New York City in Chicago, really Chicago, Washington, D.C., you name it, wherever liberals Run these cities and have implemented these gun laws.
What has happened is the only people that don't have them are victims.
They have put into play, they have implemented their utopian gun control measures in all of these places.
And what's been the result?
The result is an increase in gun-related crime.
And it only stands to reason.
You have to acknowledge that there are mentally ill people and evil people, criminally oriented people, who are not blind and are not deaf.
When they see that a school is a gun-free zone and not even the security guards are armed, when they see that places like New York and Washington and Chicago have the most stringent gun controls in the country, what do they know?
They know that there will be as little resistance possible to any action they want to take of a criminal nature with their guns.
This is just common sense.
Every school in this country already has a utopian gun control policy that the left dreams of.
You can't get any better than no guns allowed.
There's nothing more than that you can do.
No guns allowed at this particular place and a perimeter of whatever distance you proclaim.
And the law-abiding will abide by that law.
And they do.
There aren't any guns in those particular places.
The liberal dream has come true all over the country.
And yet, where do all these gun crimes happen?
These mass shootings, they happen in theaters, they happen in schools, they happen in places where the perpetrators happen to know there won't be anybody firing back.
So what I want to know is if your dream is in place, and it is failing gloriously, it is failing superbly and supremely.
What is it that recommends you to do it even more all over the country?
It is very curious for us on the right to listen to people on the left talk about this.
There's that one of the greatest political divides in the country occurs over this issue.
And to all of us, it's just simple common sense.
By definition, the law-abiding are not committing gun crimes.
The law-abiding have access to guns legally.
They do not go out and buy guns and then commit crimes with them.
They are always the victims.
There may be, I mean, people go bad on a random basis.
But we all know what I'm talking about here.
Now I know what some of you are saying.
Mr. Limbaugh, that's not entirely correct because we haven't gotten rid of guns.
We've just told people they can't use them in the third place of Mr. Limbaugh, but you can still get the guns.
We need to get rid of the gun, sir.
We need to get rid of every gun in the country.
And you still think getting rid of every gun, just like you.
I thought we couldn't deport every illegal alien in the country.
And you want to tell me now you think you can get rid of all the guns.
Okay, let's just presume for a moment that you can accomplish the impossible.
And you can wave your magic wand and you could get rid of every gun in this country.
You think gun crime is going to stop?
It isn't going to stop at all.
Guns are going to be available to the people that want them, just like every other thing that's illegal is available to people that want them.
Look at drugs.
I mean, you take your pick.
We've outlawed who knows what.
And whatever it is we've outlawed is still plentiful, can still be found.
If you have the resources, if you have the creativity, if you have the desire, you can find whatever it is you want.
Clearly this isn't the answer.
So then we ask, well, then what is your purpose?
If you're not going to look at common sense, if you're not going to admit that the problem, if you won't even consider the fact that the guns are not the one of the one of the uh analogies that's making the rounds.
Where did I hear this?
Oh, I think it was Pete Hamill, the old uh writer and columnist author in New York.
And trying to make the case that getting rid of guns would solve all these problems.
And how did Babe Ruth hit all those home runs?
He needed a bet, right?
He couldn't hit those home runs without the bat.
Oh, okay.
So without the gun, the criminal can't commit the crime.
Well, a gun can't be fired if there's no gun, true.
And just like if there's no bet, nobody can hit a home run.
So we're going to compare a baseball bat now to a gun and hitting a home run to pulling the trigger.
But still I get the analogy, and it's a clever analogy, and it's designed, yeah, you know what, I hadn't thought of it that way.
It makes a lot of sense, but it's it's it's all in denial of common sense.
Because the objective that the left seeks here is not possible.
And it wouldn't solve the problem.
Meanwhile, the problem that exists is one they won't even recognize or acknowledge, and that is mental illness, criminal intent.
I mean, we're in the process in this country of making cult heroes out of people who suffer really grave public mental illnesses.
Talked last week about the woman who knew, just knew she was supposed to be disabled.
She wasn't supposed to be able to see.
She knew she was born to be blind.
And so she got some help.
She found a doctor after consulting with a psychology teacher at Columbia University.
She found a doctor that aided her in pouring Dreno in her eyes.
The story that reported this made it seem like it's as ordinary and common, nothing to see here, nothing odd about this at all.
And this woman's finally realized her dream.
If we're not going to deal with problems like that, honestly assessing them, that's mental illness.
That woman needs a lot of compassion.
That woman needs a lot of help.
She does not need to go blind for crying out loud.
And there's some name for it, body integrity identity disorder or body identity integrity disorder.
But it is an example.
The fact of the matter is we have gun control everywhere.
That the left runs the show, and what we don't have is an absence or even a reduction in gun crime.
So I want to know why they have all the credibility on the issue.
The New York Daily News editorialized in their Sunday edition.
By the way, this is a newspaper that was just put up for sale and somebody offered a dollar for it.
This is a newspaper, the New York Daily News, that in order to stay afloat may publish an actual paper three days a week.
Maybe four if they publish on Sunday.
I mean, they're indeed doo-doo.
They're in huge trouble.
Advertising, staff layoffs, you wouldn't name it.
You think there might be a reason for that?
New York Daily News has demanded that the State Department designate the NRA a terrorist organization.
By the way, this shooter in Oregon happens to be half black, and yet they're calling him a white supremacist.
This is like what they did with the uh the shooter, his name escapes you at the moment, the Trayvon Martin case.
Yeah, George Zimmerman is a white Hispanic.
So here you have a half-black shooter in Oregon, and a number of publications have doctored, photoshopped his face to make him look white.
When he's not, he doesn't look white.
It's obvious he's half black.
But they couldn't call him a white supremacist, which they're doing if they published an accurate picture.
So that shooting takes place.
Everybody now is throwing their hands up.
It happened to be a liberal utopia.
It happened to be a gun free zone.
I mean, there are you'd have a tough time finding three words to make any liberal happier.
Gun free zone.
That's almost worth an orgasm.
Except they're not gun free, are they?
It's just mind boggling.
And none of this.
So, Mr. President, this is why, since common sense here is not part of your plan to deal with this.
This is why people start questioning you and others on the left and your motives.
Donald Trump was in Franklin, Tennessee on Saturday and weighed in on gun control and how he deals with it.
The Second Amendment purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families.
We need that.
In fact, I have a license to carry in New York.
Can you believe that?
Nobody knows that.
Somebody attacks me.
Oh, they're going to be shocked.
Can you imagine?
Somebody says, oh, there's Trump PCZ Pickens.
What'd you say?
And he made a sign with the guy made a finger gun motion there, which can get kids kicked out of school today.
You pretend your hand is a gun, go bang bang, and they call your parents and they send you home and they punish you, and they marge your record for whatever you bring a little water gun to school, same thing will happen to you.
So here's Trump and Trump admitting that he uh has a concealed carry permit.
That nobody knows that.
I think it's a good thing people know that now.
What if a concealed carry permit?
If uh you think one's necessary, and by the way, they're not easy to get.
I know a lot of people in New York who have them, and it's uh it's it's it's quite an involved process, but once you have one, the one of the values in it is having people know that you do, because that in itself is its own deterrent.
Now, what does that say, by the way?
The fact that you have a concealed carry permit and you don't mind if people know that's the deterrent.
It's folks, it's no different than suppose we wanted to solve war by banning all armaments and weapons.
Look at it that way.
We all hate war, right?
We hate the killing.
We hate all the reasons for war.
Just like we hate it when school kids get shot up or anybody else does.
Okay, so imagine some enlightened liberal comes along and says the solution to this is getting rid of the armed forces.
We're still gonna have forces, but they're not gonna be armed.
No guns and no bullets, because then nobody will die.
Then nobody will get killed, and then nobody will kill.
Is it realistic?
We build.
Well, this is pre-Obama.
We're not doing any of this stuff under Obama, but I remember the debate, and it was vicious over the funding.
I think it was the B-2 bomber.
And a bunch of liberals are running around saying, well, why, why, whoa, why, what, what why do we need to spend so much 35 or 40 billion dollars on what do we spend so much on a plane?
It's a again, all the arguments, why not why why suspend the space program?
Because there are starving people on Earth.
We don't need to be spending this much money on planes.
They may never be used.
And I said, that's the point.
It's called deterrence.
We build the stealth bomber.
Oh, I never forget when I told a liberal this, a caller, you could hear this guy on the phone having a fit.
When I told him, yeah, you know why we're building it?
Why Myther Limbaugh?
So we hope we never have to use it.
And he just thought that was the stupidest thing you'd ever heard.
You mean you're gonna build a build bomber like that, a whole fleet of B-2 bombers, and you hope you never have to use them?
Exactly.
Well, then why build them in the first place?
Because the fact that we've got them, and that everybody knows we've got them.
And the same thing with everything else in our arsenal tells everybody in the world not to mess with us.
It's called safety.
It's called defending and protecting the people of the United States of America, and you don't do that by disarming.
You're not gonna convince your enemies to disarm by disarming yourself.
You're not gonna it's it's not that kind of world.
This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
Crime is governed by the aggressive use of force.
Not good vibes in treaties and so forth.
Anyway, another timeout, back with much more.
Sit tight, folks.
We'll be right back.
I mean, after all, you know, Obama halfway got it right.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent someone taking control of this country outside our electoral system.
It's exactly what it was for.
Here he is laughing at it, mocking it, and making fun of it, but that's precisely one of the reasons for number two.
▲
Export Selection