All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 14, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:01
October 14, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, no, no.
I'm just I'm just telling you, I have been, and I I have not said this enough, so I I can't I can't claim this is a see I told you so I I I've just I have been suspicious of the reporting that these political debates are historically high.
The ratings are historically high.
I've just been very suspicious of this.
And you look around at everything that seemingly has been corrupted.
All of the institutions and traditions that you used to be able to count on, to one degree or another, you have doubts about them all now.
Anyway, uh welcome back.
Happy to have you folks, 800-282-2882 is the uh phone number.
The email address is uh Ilrushbow at EIBNet.com.
So they got CNN bragging now.
15.9, almost 16 million people watched the debate last night.
The most watched debate ever on CNN.
Wait a minute.
Is that even including the Republican debate they hosted?
Now here's I mentioned there's a story that actually on um CNN uh money website about Nielsen and how they've changed their uh calculations, the way they measure viewership.
It used to be whatever you watched on TV, that was it.
That's what they measured.
And they had the little black boxes.
Thousand people's homes had these boxes, and from that they made projections.
Well, now they've had to add streamers, people that watch on their devices, their cell phones and their tablets and so forth.
And from reading this story, it appears that what Nielsen is doing is adding TV viewers and streamers, which I'm suspicious of, because I don't think people are doing both.
You're either streaming or you're watching on TV, but you're not doing both at the same time.
But they're adding these things together in it it and look at even they admit that they're not sure anymore who's watching what.
But let's take a look at last night's debate.
Would somebody explain to me what was it last night?
What was so compelling and exciting?
Sixteen million people tuned in.
You think that's enough.
You think all of the news about Hillary and the email scandal, coupled with how well Bernie Sanders is doing.
Do you think that created enough curiosity and tune-in factor for people to tune in to see just what was going to happen to Hillary Clinton or what she was going to do.
Okay, now what about the Fox debates?
Help me out.
What was the first number?
The Fox, what was the number?
Twenty twenty-five million people.
Is Donald Trump 25 million?
Okay, that was laid at well, not later, but that was credited to Trump and the party in general, and we were told that the interest in it was so high because there's so many people on the Republican side, so upset with what's happening in the country, and every 16 people, and they wanted to tune in.
And I'm 25 million people is a lot of people to find, and these debates are two and three hours on uh on cable.
And frankly, there's much better programming out there.
I mean, just in terms of entertainment value, there's much better programming out there than these debates are that are not drawing anywhere near 15 million or 25 million people.
Now, you may just maybe these debates have been exciting, uh, and exciting enough to some people to to warrant these numbers.
Just if I read this story uh fr from Nielsen, it's just not confident here of what they're what they're what they're doing.
I give an example.
A TV show can be wildly popular online, inspiring binge watching marathons And feverish Twitter chatter.
But it's still the number of people tuning in via regular television set that are counted most by networks.
In a sign of our increasingly connected age, the Nielsen Company will finally add streaming viewers to its influential ratings of who's watching what on TV.
The new ratings will collect data on people who watch their sitcoms and dramas and crime shows on computer, tablet, and smartphone screens.
Nielsen first announced it was testing programs to track streaming viewers back in April.
In mid-November, it'll release a software development kit that clients can use to figure out who is tuning in online.
Software development kit, otherwise known as an SDK.
And that means that Nielsen's going to give its APIs to some developers so that they can incorporate the Nielsen APIs into their own software to try to come up with some sample of what Nielsen's reporting.
Nielsen ratings are used to figure out how many people are watching a show and the demographics of the overall audience.
And this is networks use these numbers to determine how much to charge for ads.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They stream shows to non-TV screens like computers, tablets, and smartphones, and their viewing habits are different too.
So here's we've got to add the TiVo viewers, the DVRs.
We've got to add streamers and now people watching TV.
And what we're doing, we're adding.
We're not subtracting.
We're not, we're not counting the streamer as a former TV viewer.
Although I have to tell you what I did last night, I was so ticked off I had to watch this thing.
So you know what I did?
I fired up my iPad and I put watch TB TBS, I got the TBS app, and I watched the Mets Dodgers game on my iPad.
It was right next to me on the sofa.
And I had one eye on that, and I had no audio on that.
Who needs audio for a baseball game?
And I had the audio on the debate, and I'm going back and forth.
And if something happened in the baseball game, I hit pause on the debate, waited for what happened in a baseball game to play out, then went back and resumed the debate.
So I was doing both last night.
I was.
I was I was streaming the baseball game, and rather than going back and forth on my TV, I had them both on at the same time.
No, I don't, I don't have two screens side by side because my my screen is so big that uh to put another screen in there would totally take over the room, and that'd be just too big.
So anyway, uh I was doing both.
I don't know if TBS is going to get credit for my streaming.
Uh and remember, I'm watching the debate under duress.
In other words, it was an obligation.
Something I had to do.
And I did it.
But anyway, I just, you know, 25 million SC, and it I just, I don't know.
Something about me says that can really believe 16 or 15 million people.
Breathlessly, excitedly tuned in to CNN last night to see what.
Maybe it's true.
Maybe, maybe there is all of this pent up excitement about the upcoming election and our electoral process.
I don't say that's good or bad.
You know, I'm not one of these people that wrings my hands over the fact that a number of people don't vote or, you know, fine, people who don't vote means they don't care, so leave them out of the mix anyway, is my uh attitude about it.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, I interviewed, you know, one of the things I always say is that you cannot go to the library to find a book on how to fail because you already know how to do that.
We all know how to fail.
We don't have to go get a book and read up on how to fail because it comes naturally.
And there aren't any books on negative thinking because we all do that naturally.
That the books in the library, the bookstore that people get rich on are how to succeed, how to think positively.
Well, I interviewed Fran Tarkenden, the former Hall of Fame quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings and a number of other teams for the Limbaugh Letter the other day because he has a book Extolling the Virtues of Failure.
The power of failure succeeding in the age of innovation.
And it's uh it's obviously a different take on this whole idea of thinking for success, the power of positive thinking.
Fran Targeton writes that that can get you in trouble.
That a an outsized focus on positive thinking removes you from reality.
And whatever you do, whatever endeavor you're in, you had better be rooted in reality and stay there, which means you need to admit what you can't do.
And that who advises that?
Most people advise you can do anything.
You said your mind to it, you can do whatever you want to do.
But some really smart people say it's just as important to realize your limitations.
For example, the other day in Houston, the Royals are down three to the Astros.
And every Royals hitter went to the plate trying to hit a three-run home run with nobody on base.
In other words, they were trying to do something they couldn't do.
There was no way to hit a three-run homer when nobody's on base.
The most you can just hit a single, but the point is you've got to stay within yourself.
You've got to realize what you can't do.
That's not negative thinking, and it's not it, it's it's not beating yourself up.
You know, Eastwood said it once in a movie man's got to know his limitations.
When you have a gun pointed at you, you have to know your limitations.
You have to stay rooted in reality.
And this book that Tarkinson has written, he started 20 companies from ground up.
That's what he does now.
He advises people in startups.
He says the positive thinking can be your greatest enemy.
Who's who says this?
He says the work life balance is a myth.
He says this idea that you can balance work and life and that you should is a myth.
This whole balance business, what they're telling you is that you've got to make time for stuff you don't like.
Screw that.
If you're oriented towards success.
He advises people to cultivate an attitude of desperation.
It's a totally different take on how to tell people to get the most out of themselves.
And I was so fascinated by what he said and what he's written in the book that I had to mention it to you.
Because, you know, I haven't spent enough time lately telling you the books that I'm reading, and that's one of them.
And I wanted to share that with you.
Also, I have not forgotten this.
Story is from the Mother Nature Network.
You ever heard of that?
Well, it's there.
And our show prep knows no boundaries.
No boundaries.
We go wherever there is news.
What does how you take your coffee say about your personality?
It says much more than you might think.
If a new study out of the University of Innsbruck, Austria is to be believed.
It turns out that if you take your coffee black, you are more likely to exhibit Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and everyday sadism.
See the way they're looking at me.
The other side of the glass.
Pardon the sniffles, folks.
If you take your coffee black, and remember black coffee matters, you are more likely, it doesn't say you are or will, it says you are more likely to exhibit Machiavellianism, psychopathy or psychopathy for those of you in Rio Linda, narcissism, and everyday sadism.
The study looked at the taste preferences of 500 people who were also given several personality Tests to look for correlations.
Four basic tastes were distinguished by the study.
Sweet, sour, salty, and bitter.
Bitter taste preferences were the strongest predictor of personality, particularly concerning malevolent personality traits.
For those of you in Rhea Linda, malevolent is the opposite of benevolent, which still might not be helpful.
Malevolent means ill intent.
Benevolent means you believe in food stamps and giving away charity and so forth.
Though the study did not control for coffee preferences directly, coffee is bitter.
It can therefore be surmised that those who prefer to leave coffee unsweetened have a preference for bitter flavors and therefore might have a higher proclivity for psychopathic behavior.
Just telling you what's in the news.
For decades, the government steered millions of people away from whole milk.
What was wrong with it?
This is a story in the Washington Post about how the government has gotten all of this wrong on fat, low fat, dangers to clogged arteries, artherosclerosis, all of this stuff.
It's bunk.
Your government told you to stop eating butter.
Your government told you that eggs were evil.
And then scientists who realized there was money in it did their own studies to show that eggs were evil.
And the government paid them.
And so more and more people told you that eggs were evil and that butter was evil.
Your government is telling you that meat of all kind is bad for you and the environment.
Your government told you to stop drinking whole milk.
All that fat you to stay away from cream.
So everybody went to this hydrogenated stuff, and now we're told that's a carcinogen.
Your government is telling you that there is global warming 200 years down the road.
Oh, speaking of that.
In one of my tech blogs, I came across a global warming study.
Here it is.
I just is how this stuff works on young millennials.
I've just saw the clock.
Gotta take a break.
Don't go away, we'll be right back, folks.
Hey, we got that guy from Denver back.
The guy who thinks I'm wrong about the Democrat uh nomination and it uh that Hillary's gonna win it.
He is uh Andrew in Denver.
Great to have you, Andrew.
I'm glad you called back, and welcome to the program, sir.
Rush, I'm so excited to talk to you.
I've been listening to you for 30 years since I was like 17, 18 years old, and now I got a little girl who's uh I'm trying to teach the same to, and she loves your uh she loves your Rush Revered Liberty books.
She loves them, you say, or wants them.
She loves them.
She's a very strong.
Well, I appreciate them.
I appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
That's really cool.
You're welcome.
Yeah, we listen to them in the car, and uh and she wants to wants to hear.
I tell you what, let me let me let me, Andrew, since you're such a nice guy, even though you're saying I'm wrong, I want to send you the new one.
I want to if you if you hang on after we finish, let Mr. Snerdley get your address, so when the new one is hut off the press, I'll send a new rush revere and a star spangled banner.
I'll send it out.
What is your daughter's name?
Well, uh Eva.
A O I F E. A O I F and you pronounce that Epha?
Yeah.
Okay, cool.
All right, well, so we'll have it for her.
It'll be a while.
It comes out October 27th.
So as soon as it's out, we'll get it out to you.
So least I can do.
Uh nobody No.
Well, we try to put you at the top of the line to boot.
Exactly.
Well, Rush, I what I was trying what I was trying to wanted to say was um, you know, I think we're coming out of the chute.
I we I all day today I've been I deliver and uh talk to a lot of people, and um I I kind of was work into the conversation.
Did you listen to the Democratic debates, and I got a sense that people who are specifically trying to target people who are kind of Democrat type.
And um I got a feeling that they, you know, they they kind of were leaning definitely toward Fernie Sanders.
And um, even though Hillary, you know, kind of got a chance to save face a little bit.
I think that it was it was pretty clear.
Okay, wait a second.
Wait, wait, wait.
You say you deliver things, and that's how you encounter these people?
Yes.
I I'm a deliverer.
I drive a truck and I deliver beverages and I go in and I have, you know, I can have a couple minutes to chat with people and talk about the weather while I throw in some politics here and there.
And does everybody that you've talked to, they watch the debate last night?
No, not necessarily, but several people did this morning.
Okay.
I've also been kind of chatting with them over the course of the last Now, do you tell them who you're for in this race, or do you just bring up the conversation and let them talk?
Well, today that's what uh my goal was, just to bring it up and let them kind of talk.
All right, so this is purely anecdotal, and you do not try to incite them by telling them that you are for Trump or whoever you're for.
You just say, hey, did you see the debate last night?
And they start talking, and you're you're concluding from what you're hearing out there anecdotally, that there's a lot of love and affection for Bernie Sanders.
I I definitely, and one particular intellectual uh Democrat who I I kind of knew he was probably gonna be that way, uh, was I mean the the thing that motivated him was the revolution's gonna start, and he you know was ready for Bernie to take take the forefront of that.
The revolution he's gonna start?
Yeah, they're ready for the revolution, you know.
What the hell has the past seven years been?
What's that?
For crying out loud, what the hell is the last seven years?
What revolution does this guy think Bernie's gonna launch?
Well, I asked him about that, and he said, Oh, it was all the things Obama's done has been great.
So, you know, like I hear Bernie saying exactly the same things that Obama was doing.
All right, hang on.
Wait, hang on, I gotta go, I gotta go to commercial break.
Hang on here, and I I'm not through interrogating you.
Back here in mere moments, folks.
Okay, we're back with Andrew in Denver.
Now I just have a little bit more time here, Andrew.
I'm not not as time constrained, and I just want to make sure I understand this right.
You called after hearing me say that it's now uh conclusive that Hillary's a nominee, that none of these others have a chance, not even trying to be the nominee, really, especially Bernie.
You heard me say that.
You've been out there doing your job today, talking to a bunch of people, you're hearing all kinds of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders, so much so you think I'm wrong, right?
Well, the the in the the the conversation the the the leaning of the conversation was always towards Bernie, yes.
So I don't know if there's enthusiasm per se, because you know, some of the people were just you know, they were just like, Well, yeah, I watched some of the things that I've got to do.
Well, I know, but no, no, no, no.
But let me put this in perspective.
I mean, here you're listening to the radio, you hear me say, analyze what happened last night.
And I thought you were definitively wrong.
And uh there was there's two points.
There was the first one that's a big thing.
Yeah, but okay, wait a minute.
Let me hold it, hold it a minute.
Let me set the table.
You you think I'm definitively wrong after talking to how many people today?
Hell, you know, how many people can I talk to uh doing my job for the right.
Well, that's the point.
You're you're talking to twelve people, let's say, and you're concluding from that that Bernie Sanders is gonna be the nominee that they don't like Hillary that much.
I think over the last two weeks, that's my sense of what I've gotten from the people that I talked to, for sure.
And then there was, you know, a handful of people today that that seemed to be leaning that direction, and especially a particularly intellectual Democrat.
Intellectually was all I said, and and listening to the the applause one way or the other last night, it was pretty clear that Hillary was getting some laughs for the things she was saying.
But Bernie Sanders, when he, you know, did his Obama speech about, you know, how we're gonna change things and things are gonna be, you know, we're gonna start the revolution.
He got all kinds of really genuine, you know, response, and Hillary's got to figure that out if she's gonna get that.
Based on that, why don't you think Trump is gonna be the next president based on all the response he's well Trump may be.
He may be.
I I I have no idea.
I'm just saying, I just nominee.
To me, it's just it's just fascinating that on such flimsy evidence, scant flimsy evidence.
You call here to tell the host he's wrong.
So what you're hearing, the way you're hearing it must be pretty powerful.
Uh because it's this is a it's it's uh an admittedly a tiny sample of people on which to be basing.
And applause at a casino during a Democrat debate when the only people they let in there are Democrats.
TV applause determining uh I mean Bernie's drawing his crowds are fifteen times the size of Hillary's.
If Bernie had a book out there, it'd be selling fifteen times better than hers is, and she's going to be the nominee.
The coronation is back on.
Bottom line.
They're not going to let Bernie Sanders have the.
And Bernie threw it away last night anyway.
Bernie Sanders threw the nomination to Hillary Clinton with his admonition on her emails.
She was absolved.
She was applauded.
She was exonerated by her opponents.
It's over.
I mean, that's her vulnerability.
And if none of those people on that stage are going to go after this nomination on a basis that she's a criminal, there's an FBI investigation going.
If none of them are going to even go there, they don't have a prayer of winning a nomination.
But we'll see.
Your small little focus groups out there could actually have something to you never know until it's over with.
Anyway, Andrew, I'm glad you called back now.
Hang on so Mr. Snerdley can get an address and I can send your daughter the uh the next Rush Revere book when it hits on October 27th.
Rush Revere and the Star Spangled Banner.
And it is great.
It is so chocked full of just inspiring factual truth about the founding of this country, and there's even a time travel adventure back to when the founding documents are being written in Philadelphia.
That was so much fun to write.
Revere takes a couple students back, and they actually talk to James Madison.
This is it is so much fun to do.
It is such an opportunity to tell the truth of this country to young people who probably are not hearing it.
And certainly not hearing it enough in their uh in their own schools.
Try this headline from one of my aforementioned little tech blogs, just to show you how this utter drivel, rooted in a massive hoax, is so easily spread and consumed.
These are the American cities that could be buried underwater by the year 2200.
2200.
This is 2015, we're talking 185 years from now.
So some Nincom Poop organization has run some more computer models, and they found some American cities going to be underwater in 185 years, and my little tech blog picks it up as though it's gospel.
Rising sea levels will someday put American cities completely underwater.
Here are the U.S. cities that could be submerged in approximately 200 years, and what you can expect for your own city in the future.
A new study published in PNAS, which is unidentified, PNAS, some United Nations outfit, whatever.
The study looked at what we could expect for our cities if carbon emissions remain unchecked up through 2001.
If they do, researchers said to expect an eventual long-term sea level rise up to 10 meters, 10 yards, that would take place in various cities along a timeline ranging from between 200 to 2,000 years.
As a whole, researchers estimated that 20 million people in 21 different cities currently live in areas that would be submerged under that eventual rise.
And everybody currently alive in every one of those cities will be dead when this happens.
The study looked at two different scenarios, one in which the West Antarctic Ice sheet collapses.
And one in which West Antarctica manages to keep it together.
Through some fast carbon cuts worldwide.
This story actually puts forth the irresponsible, outrageous, stupid claim that if we get moving fast on reducing carbon emissions, we can save the West Antarctic ice sheet.
It's utterly preposterous.
And do you notice once again a prediction of 100, 150, 200 years from now.
Not next week.
Not next year.
Not next decade, even.
No, no.
The prediction is when you will not be alive to know whether or not anybody was right or wrong.
But you can't afford to wait.
Even though you will be dead.
People you are related to will still be alive and they could drown because the rising sea level would be like a tsunami.
It could happen overnight.
Nobody would have time to move.
It's just absurd.
And it's all based on bogus bo hunk computer modeling.
Not one shred of scientific data.
And here's Bernie Sanders last night.
Going on and on and on about.
Asked over and over again, number one biggest, most important, threatening issue we face.
Climate change.
If we don't act fast.
Our children and grandchildren may be faced with an uninhabitable planet.
Nobody's even said that.
I mean, you can make some cases, some examples that some warming would actually be good for a lot of things and people.
But now it's going to be uninhabitable.
The planet, folks, uninhabitable.
And I know it is scary that people believe this, but it's not unusual.
Human beings have this propensity to believing, falling for every single apocalyptic doom that they are told is happening.
I just I checked the email.
You never said what cities are going to be flooded.
I know I didn't, because it's bogus.
But I'll tell you, this this irresponsible so-called report on global warming.
What do you think the cities are going to be flooded are?
Miami, West Palm Beach, practically all of South Florida is going to be gone by 2200 be underwater, all the way up to Lake Okeechobee.
New York City, it's not going to be the Sahara Desert where nobody lives that's flooded, folks.
Of course it's going to be where people live.
*crash*
Oh, that reminds me.
You know what?
I need to fix something tomorrow.
I got a very nice note from Joe Bastardi, who heard me accuse the Hurricane Center of being politicized with the hurricane tracks.
No, these are great people down there, Russia.
So I need to I need to correct that or fix that.
I did just reminded myself of that now.
So make a note here and take care of that tomorrow.
Be right back here, folks.
Don't go away.
Kansas City Royals and Houston Astros tonight.
Game five.
This is it.
It's on T B. No, it's Fox Sports.
Fox Sports 1.
I think FS1.
Yep.
807 first pitch.
Go Royals.
▲
Export Selection