Posted on 12/11/2009 4:59:33 PM PST by GOP_Lady
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
On Today's Show... |
December 11, 2009
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Copyright & Trademark Notice | Unsubscribe
The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2009. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. 15260 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
|
||||||
"You ever heard of stoplights freezing over?
Well, they're starting to freeze over up there in Wisconsin, Global Warming Snowstorm Algore.
They're new and improved, they use less energy and produce less heat, so the ice doesn't melt
and you can't tell whether it's red, green, or yellow, or any color. People are having accidents.
It's just a microcosm of what's ahead."
"We got the G8; we have the G7; we have the G20. I have a G550.
We're now talking about the G77."
"If you think this is about climate or emissions or about anything other than wealth transfers from rich countries
to poor countries and establishing a global government, you're going to miss entirely what's going on.
The numbers don't matter.
The numbers are jimmied from the get-go.
The numbers are plugged in; the numbers are faked; it's a hoax!"
"Tell me, Senator Whitehouse, why haven't you supported an amendment that would apply the same
government health care you would impose on the rest of us on you and your own family?
Why are you such a self-serving hack, Senator Whitehouse?"
"What is worse, Tiger Woods paying for sex with his money, or Democrat Max Baucus paying for sex with taxpayer money?
Think about that."
"Tiger Woods can't raise your taxes.
Tiger Woods can't send your kids off to war.
Tiger Woods can't do anything to you.
But Max Baucus can write a piece of health care legislation that can destroy the private sector of this country."
"If you're gonna lower the eligibility age to 45 or 55 and cut Medicare $500 billion bucks, folks,
somebody's gotta die or somebody's gotta be denied coverage, which will cause them to die eventually.
And they don't want to talk about that."
"What a perfect punctuation mark to the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.
One of the reasons Obama got the prize is he wants to get rid of nukes.
Vladimir Putin, it seems, had no problem reminding the world in a beautifully timed
nuclear ballistic missile test that both the Norwegians and Obama are chasing unicorns."
"The Democrats are gluttons, except they're not eating, they are spending money.
They just spend and spend and spend and there's no way to tell 'em to stop,
there is no 'off' button to manage them in a responsible manner."
"The only thing Obama has going for him right now is his likability.
That's the only thing that's not cratering in the polls."
"Common sense is smart. Education does not mean you're smart.
In fact, education, depending on where you get it, can corrupt you.
There are idiots with degrees all over Washington, DC."
"All you gotta do is look at Cuba to see where liberalism will take you.
If you don't want to do that, look at Detroit.
Look at New Orleans and Louisiana before Katrina and afterwards."
"Once you understand that everything you hear from Barack Obama or Harry Reid is a lie, it's easy to understand.
You might not want to accept that, it might be too tough, 'Oh, my gosh, I don't want to think half the country is lying.'
We gotta face it, folks, because this is, as they say in football training camp, nut-cracking time."
"Tiger has now completed a Democrat resume requirement for election to high office."
"If the whole global warming movement, if Copenhagen, if the UN's IPCC was based on science,
then the IPCC leaders and these clowns at the Climate Research Unit would be thankful that new
evidence was showing that man-made global warming's a false alarm. They would be happy.
Instead of being receptive, they are hostile."
"If this were about science, the head of the UN's intergovernmental planetary
climate commission would be a climatologist, but he's not, he's an economist.
It's about redistribution."
"It is necessary to save the United States of America as it was founded.
It's necessary to defeat the president politically and this bill, 'cause this bill isn't about health care."
"Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat, Rhode Island, the American people, in his view, the vast majority of them oppose government-run health care,
not because they oppose what the plan would do to them, no, no, no, we oppose it because we want Obama to lose.
So Sheldon Whitehouse says that I am leading a conspiracy with the public against Obama.
This is how these fools think. It's all about Obama. Not the people."
"Story: 'The next day, Senator Baucus dismissed calls for an ethics investigation saying, "I went out of my way to be up-and-up."'
What does that mean, Viagra?"
"Is Tiger Woods' problems with going to be solved with more women?
Are our problems going to be solved with more spending?
No way, Jose! (No offense to the illegal immigrants in the audience here)."
"They don't want to talk about the guts of the bill.
They don't want to talk about the specifics.
'Cause all they've got to rely on now is Obama's personal likability and they're happy to pit that against mean old Rush."
"It just never stops.
Breaking news, MSNBC: 'House Passes Bill Letting Feds Break Up Risky Companies.'
Who are they to decide what is a risky company?"
"Most of the people on the left on radio think of themselves as fundraisers.
They can't even exist under a traditional private sector business model.
They have to ask for contributions from NPR all the way down to Air America.
If they had to make it in the world on their own without handouts or positioning themselves as nonprofits, they'd be lost."
"Sixty-one percent oppose health care bill and 36% support it.
Those are worse numbers than for Social Security reform.
And, remember, it was polling data and of course the Democrat Party which killed Bush's Social Security reform.
But now the Democrats are in charge and they don't care. It's all about them and giving our new president a victory."
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
| Read the Background Material... |
| • American Spectator: Health Care Bill Polling Worse than Bush Social Security Plan in '05 |
ALGORE: (laughing) I never -- I didn't intend to. The truth is I wrote 28 pages when I was writing this book on the latest impacts of the climate crisis, and since the book, Our Choice, is all about the solutions, it didn't really fit anywhere, so I kept trying to squeeze it down to where it would fit, and I came up with a few lines and then I decided, oh, well, what the heck, try to make it into a poem. So I'm not a poet but I did my best.
RUSH: And then standing in the hall at CNN on a show called The Halls, Algore read his poem. Do you want to hear the poem? Here's Algore reading this poem, which, you should know that members of State-Controlled Media, they think this is just the best. They think this is rad; they are overimpressed; they think this is one of the best; it's gut-wrenching; it's true. The Vanity Fair guy described it as frightening in it scope. Listen to it.
ALGORE: One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sunVapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolveSnow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quicklyThen dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebrationUnknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrupsPassion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rungThe shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools.
RUSH: That's Algore and his poem from his book, Our Choice. I'm telling you, Snerdley, I read the reaction to this. They're all caught up in this. This is emoting; this is compassion for the planet; the heart. Yeah, they think it's fabulous.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • CNN: Al Gore Reads a Poem from His New Book • Climate Depot: Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up |
|
|
|
| Not Cool | Cool |
 |
 |
Now, the plan here is the US, the UK, and Denmark, however they got thrown into this, to basically take away all climate operations, fundraising operations, theft, fleecing and all that from the UN and do it themselves and not give any money to the developing nations. The developing nations have been exempt from any carbon emissions limits but now this discovered texts puts limits on carbon emissions in the developing nations which means they have to stay poor and they're livid about it so Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping from Sudan -- the way to think of this guy is Barack Obama Sr. Barack Obama Sr. was a communist, this guy is a communist. And if it weren't Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping from Sudan it would be Barack Obama Sr. were he still alive. Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, however you pronounce his name. (consulting Snerdley) Look, you're certified black enough to criticize, how would you pronounce that, Di-Aping? So Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping? Well, whatever.
He said, "'Things are not going well,' after walking out from an hour-long negotiation. 'It’s very problematic that there's a different agenda running alongside the official UN process.' When asked to elaborate on those comments, he said: 'Your prime minister has chosen to protect the rich countries, and that's not ok. If the Copenhagen summit ends in failure, the whole Scandinavian multilateral tradition will be jeopardised. What your prime minister is doing is completely against the spirit of the foreign aid Denmark and the Danish people have given to Africa for so many years.'" So basically the welfare payments are going to stop is what this Lumumba Di-Aping is worried about. I don't think there's anything really to worry about here. All of this will be resolved in the end. These poor countries like China will allow the rich countries to continue to send foreign aid to them just like always. Really nothing's going to change much. Only now they'll be able to get even more of the pie all in the name of climate change.
END TRANSCRIPT
Well, now, this means that Tiger has now completed a resume requirement for election to high office as a Democrat. You can do this in New York if you want to go the state level, but clearly, I mean this is Clintonesque, and client number nine, Eliot Spitzer, who was the governor of New York. A friend of mine said today, "Well, if that's true then this is it. That will be the end of Woods now, if it wasn't already." What's the difference? What's the difference? In fact, many of the African-American columnists who have written about this have suggested it would have made more sense to pay for it than go through all this stuff because they generally have more security and privacy. Of course that's blown up.
Now the next story, a companion to this, is from a British tabloid newspaper. Tiger Woods, they say, is ready to quit golf in a desperate bid to save his shattered marriage. Apparently his wife Elin has given him an ultimatum, "It's golf or me." And then last night reports in America surfaced that Woods was terrified he might have fathered a love child, some of the women making a point that he didn't use protection. His yacht's docked here up in North Palm Beach, the yacht is named Privacy and it's been spotted, it's 155-foot yacht, it's big thing, and they've been spotted loading provisions on the thing, food and they covered up the name of the yacht so people wouldn't know what it is. So speculation is now that Woods is taking Elin on a Caribbean cruise aboard Privacy but since the word's out helicopters are going to be flying over them everywhere if they do this. Quit golf? I mean, she would demand he quit golf? Where's the money going to come from? I don't know, folks. It doesn't compute. Some of this stuff just doesn't compute.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I ask you the question again: What's worse, Tiger paying for sex with his money or Democrat Max Baucus, a senator, paying for sex with taxpayer money? Now, it's rumor about Woods. We just have this New York Daily News story, but for the sake of argument, let's look at Tiger Woods versus Max Baucus. Let's say that Tiger spent his money on a woman for his adult needs. Compare that with what the Politico is reporting on Democrat Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the author, in large part, of this debacle of a health care bill in the Senate. Democrat Max Baucus gave a $14,000 pay raise, which is taxpayer money, to his love interest staffer and then took her on a taxpayer-funded trip. Trying to reach a decision here. There are laws against prostitution in some states, but there may not be a law against what Baucus did. Tiger's married, but so was Baucus.
Here are the details. "Senator Max Baucus" -- (Democrat-Montana) who never met a tax increase we didn't like -- "chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, gave a nearly $14,000 pay raise to a female staffer 2008, at the time he was becoming romantically involved with her, and later that year took her on a taxpayer-funded trip to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, though foreign policy was not her specialty." Well, what a thing to include in the story! "Late last Friday, Baucus acknowledged his relationship with Melodee Hanes, whom he nominated for the job of US attorney in Montana, after it was first reported on the website MainJustice.com. But he said that Hanes withdrew from consideration for the job when the relationship became more serious. The next day, he dismissed calls for an ethics investigation, saying, 'I went out of my way to be up and up.'" What does that mean, Viagra? "Since his announcement, more details of the relationship have emerged, raising questions about a workplace romance between a boss and employee that Baucus tried to keep quiet also contradicting his explanation for why Hanes' nomination was withdrawn."
So my only point about this is, Tiger Woods, private citizen, Tiger Woods can't raise your taxes, Tiger Woods can't send your kids off to war, Tiger Woods can't do anything to you, except affect you positively or negatively, depending on your degree of fandom. Max Baucus can write a health care piece of legislation that can destroy the private sector of this country. He can raise your taxes left and right, he loves doing it, and he can appoint cronies, girlfriends, to jobs in the federal judiciary and then give her a $14,000 raise -- none of it with his money. So if we're going to get involved in prurient interests of things, going to get sidetracked by that, let's throw Max Baucus into the loop because he clearly belongs there. In the Baucus case, he's the prostitute. Baucus is buying and selling favors with our money all the time.
END TRANSCRIPT
MARKEY: The evidence is overwhelming. There are a few people who are still fighting it in the same way that there were people still fighting the science of whether or not tobacco caused lung cancer but we could not rely upon that small minority when the overwhelmingly majority said the fumes in human beings were killing them in the same way that we new see that the fumes going into the atmosphere is having a dramatically negative impact on our planet.
RUSH: That's their new argument. Now they're trying to compare these two things when there's no comparison. If you want a comparison to tobacco companies, I brilliantly came up with this last week. What nailed the tobacco companies? What was it? Remember when the CEOs of Big Tobacco were up testifying and it was discovered that they had lied about their research. They had lied about the impact of smoking on health. They had made up studies which showed that there was no connection to smoking and respiratory health and heart disease, and they had lied about it. And when the lie had been uncovered there was a whistle-blower that went on 60 Minutes, sat behind the black screen, blew the whistle and that was the end of it.
So if you want to compare, Congressman Markey, this to the tobacco companies, if you want to be consistent, what you would be doing is dragging these phony, fraudulent scientists from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia and have them over here for hearings. If you want to be consistent with Big Tobacco that's what we would be doing. Since we're on the subject, let's go to Letterman. This is last night on his show. The guest is climatologist and author James Hansen, a well-known fraudster from NASA. Letterman says, "For a while, a significant part of your life and your devotion to that pursuit presented the case to Congress and groups, you tried to get legislation and attention from the government, and it didn't so much work out. Here lately you've taken more of an aggressive approach to calling attention to these problems, climate change and so forth. Is that a fair statement?"
HANSEN: There was, in 1992 the framework convention on climate change in which all the governments, 170 governments, agreed that we should stabilize the atmospheric composition at a level that avoids dangerous human-made interference. The Kyoto protocol, for example, supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but in fact emissions actually accelerated after the Kyoto protocol. And the danger is that in Copenhagen, where the discussions are now going on, the same thing is going to happen.
RUSH: Now, this is a comedy show, ostensibly we're watching a comedy show, and here comes this guy Hansen, a noted fraudster talking about global warming. He then continued with this.
HANSEN: The funny thing is it's kind of a deal between developed countries and developing countries. It's analogous to the indulgences of the Middle Ages, if you remember the Catholic church would sell forgivenesses for sins. That was great. The bishops got a lot of moola, and the sinners got to go to heaven. No matter what they did. So that was great. Now, that's basically what's happening in Copenhagen.
LETTERMAN: Right.
HANSEN: Developed countries want to continue more or less business as usual. So they will say they're going to decrease their emissions a modest amount but then there are these so-called offsets that you purchase from developing countries.
RUSH: It sounds to me like this guy is admitting what's going on here is a religion, which we know that it is. And then Letterman says, "I want to get to the point about the e-mails in London. What's that? I don't understand it. And what was the point? And what was the resolution?"
HANSEN: There was some bad judgment by some scientists at the University of East Anglia, but the truth is, and they said some things, they should release their data, for example. Science works that way. You've gotta release your data. But the truth is it doesn't change the science one iota.
RUSH: Of course not.
HANSEN: We can see what's happening with the climate all around the planet, and we know what's going to happen if we stay on business as usual.
RUSH: We can't see it! We can't possibly see it! This is a fool. This is an obsessed hoaxter. He is part of a hoax. We can't see it. We see it only through Photoshopped pictures and videos, and we don't know what's going to happen if we stay on business as usual. These guys fry me.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, the health care debate on the Senate floor yesterday, I was actually mentioned by Sheldon Whitehouse, Debbie Stabenow, and Dingy Harry. Dingy Harry is all upset, ladies and gentlemen, at me because I criticized McConnell. McConnell said, (paraphrasing) "No, we're working this weekend. You're not taking the weekend off, Dingy Harry, and so you can't go to your fundraiser down in Louisiana with Mary Landrieu." So Dingy Harry is all upset that he can't go to his fundraiser with Mary Landrieu down in Louisiana, is blaming me for ripping into McConnell which caused McConnell to get tough, refused to give Dingy Harry his request for the weekend off.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To the audio sound bites, Dingy Harry, floor of the Senate yesterday.
REID: Based on that, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, which is on all the news today, they're upset at Senator McConnell because he's not opposing the health care bill enough, that reasonable process on this, there are no efforts made to improve this bill, only to kill this bill. And I think that this debate has really come to a point that I've rarely seen in the Senate, in fact, I've never seen it. To have my friends on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and in some way try to embarrass or denigrate me by virtue of the fact that -- in fact, try to embarrass me. What they should understand, any events that I have scheduled this weekend have been canceled.
RUSH: Yeah, okay, so he's upset about that. He's embarrassed about the fundraiser. McConnell embarrassed him with the fundraiser. He wanted a weekend off to go to the fundraiser after saying we're going to work, work, work, get this thing done. He thinks McConnell would not grant him the weekend off because I jumped on McConnell. So Sheldon Whitehouse bemoans the obstructionist Republican Party which is prodded by me to make sure the president fails. Last night in Washington, DC, Senate floor, Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island.
WHITEHOUSE: This is about creating a political defeat for the president of the United States on their side, nothing to do with health care, entirely about creating a defeat for this new president, when in the face of all the obstruction that the distinguished Senator from Michigan described so eloquently, this record-breaking, unprecedented in the history of the Senate obstruction that we're seeing, the person who I think right now seems to characterize the leadership of the radicalized right wing that is running the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, is telling the other side that they haven't been obstructive enough.
RUSH: That's true. He's exactly right about that. Damn right. But only one correction, Senator Whitehouse. It is necessary to create a political defeat for the president. I don't deny that we're after that, but it's necessary to save the country, sir. It is necessary to save the United States of America as it was founded. It's necessary to defeat the president politically and this bill, 'cause this bill isn't about health care, Senator. What must it be like to be one of a hundred people in the most amazing deliberative body in the world and have the people who elect them be 25 times as smart and informed as they are on this? What an idiot.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, so Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat, Rhode Island, the American people, in his view, the vast majority of them oppose government-run health care, not because they oppose what the plan would do to them, no, no, no, no, we oppose it because we want Obama to lose. So Sheldon Whitehouse says that I am leading a conspiracy with the public against Obama. See, this is how these fools think. It's all about Obama. Not the people, but Obama and the Democrats and their power. It's not about you. It's not about us. It's about Obama and whether he's going to get a win here. Hopefully he won't.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Sheldon Whitehouse, here, play number eight again because we've got this and then two more to go with this. This is Sheldon Whitehouse on the Senate floor. Dingy Harry yesterday afternoon had denigrated me, blamed me for getting tough on Mitch McConnell, which made McConnell say no to Dingy Harry's request for the weekend off to go to a fundraiser. Sheldon Whitehouse then got up there, Democrat from Rhode Island, he said this.
WHITEHOUSE: This is about creating a political defeat for the president of the United States on their side, nothing to do with health care, entirely about creating a defeat for this new president, when in the face of all the obstruction that the distinguished Senator from Michigan described so eloquently, this record-breaking, unprecedented in the history of the Senate obstruction that we're seeing, the person who I think right now seems to characterize the leadership of the radicalized right wing that is running the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, is telling the other side that they haven't been obstructive enough.
RUSH: Well, here's Sheldon Whitehouse. Notice that we just want to politically defeat "this new president." I don't care if he's new; I don't care if he's old; I don't care if he's black, I don't care. All I care about is what he's trying to do to this country and stopping it. So, Senator, you are exactly right. But I'm not alone, Senator, do you realize that support for this bill in the Senate is plummeting, it is cratering? You're down into the low forties and high thirties in some polls, Senator, of people who approve of this. The vast majority do not want this thing to pass, and are you telling the world, Senator, that the American people, the vast majority of whom oppose government-run health care do so not because of what the plan would do to them but because they want Obama to lose? Are you saying the entire American population opposing this is only interested in Obama losing? So I'm part of a conspiracy here with the public against this new president, Obama? This is how these fools think, folks. It's all about Obama. It's not about the people. It's all about Obama and the Democrats and their power.
Here's a question. I have a question for Sheldon Whitehouse and his master, Harry Reid. Why do you reject what the people are telling you? Why do you hate the American people? Why do you hold the American people in contempt? Why do you insist on enslaving us in some kind of government-run health system, when they are telling you loudly and repeatedly they do not want this? Why don't you believe in the public's will? Why don't you understand that they understand what you're doing? Why don't you believe in representative government? Why don't you believe in the limits placed on you in the Constitution? What do you think your role is, to flood the zone with so much confusing rhetoric and stuff that you're just going to swamp people? What is your role here? Are you mini-little dictators talking about wanting Obama to fail? You want Obama to succeed regardless what it is he's trying to do?
Tell me, Senator Whitehouse, why haven't you supported an amendment that would apply the same government health care you would impose on the rest of us on you and your own family? Why are you such a self-serving hack, Senator Whitehouse? If this is so wondrous, if this health care bill is so miraculously needed and wonderful, why don't you sign onto it? Tell me, Senator Whitehouse, who died and named you chief of doctors? Who died, Senator Whitehouse, and named you chief of nurses and hospitals and nursing homes? Tell me, Senator Whitehouse, who gave you the power over our health decisions? Tell me, Senator Whitehouse, who are you? Who appointed you? Who appointed you to suggest that we follow your mandates on any aspect of our health care? Who are you? Where's the resume? I want to see it. Well, this continued. He then asked, with Debbie Stabenow, what Rush Limbaugh would say if the Democrats tried to work with Republicans.
WHITEHOUSE: Do you think there's any likelihood that people on the other side would suddenly want to cooperate with the president and not -- President Obama and not hand him a defeat? Do you think suddenly if we did that, Rush Limbaugh would say, "Okay, Republicans in the Senate, go ahead, work with the Democrats now, don't just be the party of obstruction and delay, but try to work cooperatively for the American people."
RUSH: Before commenting on that, this is what Stabenow said.
STABENOW: I can't imagine. Frankly, I think it's unfortunately they view it as in their self-interest, whether it's a business decision, as a radio host, whether it's a decision of the other party. I appreciate the fact that it's hard to lose elections. We've all been in those situations. I appreciate the fact that folks don't want to be in the minority and most of us have been in that situation. I appreciate that. But I think all of us were really hoping that this year, with two wars, with the deficit we have, with the challenge on health care, with the need to create jobs, with the financial crisis that we have, that this year, somehow, it would be different for a while.
RUSH: Play me the violins. Let's get the piano from Love Story, "Where do I begin?" Back to Sheldon Whitehouse, "Any likelihood that people on the other side would suddenly want to cooperate with President Obama and not hand him a defeat?" See, even it's about Obama. It's Obama that's not talking to Republicans, Senator Whitehouse, it's Obama that's not accepting any alternative ideas, it's Obama this, it's Obama that. And, by the way, why do you need Republicans, you have 60 votes there. Why do you need the Republicans? Obviously you're worried, you don't have 60 votes; you don't have 60 Democrats so you dump on me? You blame me because you don't have any Republican support? You ever stop and think that maybe there are people that genuinely don't like this bill? I listen to these people in absolute awe. I am overawed by these people and not in a positive way.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Hi. Welcome back. Senator Whitehouse, tell me one more thing. Who is it who is meeting in secret? Who is it who cut out Republicans? Who is it who keeps these bills from the American people? Who is it who promised transparency and negotiations aired on C-SPAN but lied about it? Who? It was President Obama. You guys, you Democrats are the ones doing this in secret.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, Mike, on the audio sound bites, stand by for 11, 12, and 13 in order.
I have a question, ladies and gentlemen. William Shatner asked me, "How do you know? How do you know?" Do you know who that question needs to be asked of? Why doesn't somebody ask Sheldon Whitehouse, "How do you know?" Somebody needs to ask Harry Reid, "How do you know?" Somebody needs to ask Barack Obama, "How the hell could you know? What the hell have you ever done? Who the hell are you?" Somebody needs to ask Hillary Clinton, "How do you know?" I'm talking about this health care fiasco. They ask me, how do I know? I do know. I know more than they know. They're lying. They are liberals. Somebody needs to ask Dianne Feinstein, "How do you know it is moral to take taxpayer money to fund insurance policies that will pay for abortions? How do you know that that's right?" We're asking the wrong people, "How do you know?" I'm not the subversive.
In fact, I want to tell you something, folks. These same people, the Obamas on down, these people in the sixties, they were the ones, their mantra was: "We must challenge authority." So here I am challenging authority, and I'm the subversive. I gotta shut up. "How do you know, Limbaugh? How do you know?" That's not the question. I can't do anything to anybody. I can't get in the way of your doctor-patient relationship. I can't do a thing about your insurance policy. Harry Reid is trying to. Obama is trying to. How do they know? Where is it written we have to be deferential to these people when we elect them?
Now, let's get to the guts of this. Here's the latest intelligence, ladies and gentlemen, from Capitol Hill and the Senate particularly on health care. Staffers from Senator Reid's office, the Senate Finance Committee, and the health committee all had a conference call with several stakeholders last night. Here are the notes from the call. Health care will resume on Monday, the Congressional Budget Office score will come out on Monday or Tuesday, they will finalize the language on the OPM and the Medicare buy-in and any roll of public option and abortion and then Reid will file cloture on Tuesday or Wednesday. Now, the three cloture motions, because there's three different versions floating around here, and all these amendments, the three cloture motions will each take 30 hours of debate. This means if you do the math that they are hoping to pass a bill, anything, in the Senate, on the 22nd or 23nd of this month.
Now, what's also known is that the House will not pass the Senate bill. Whatever comes out of the Senate, the House is not going to go for it. So there will have to be some kind of conference. The original plan was to have the House rubber-stamp a Senate bill and a Senate bill that would look much like the House bill but that's not going to work out. Obama is not going to have a bill on his desk by Christmas, but they want the Senate for Obama to get the bill in the Senate done by then. Now, many experts think that this is a very ambitious and optimistic timeline, that there's a lot to try to get done here by the 22 or 23rd and here are the factors. Dorgan has an amendment, and he's irritated. Dorgan is irritated that his colleagues, particularly Carper, who has the hold on it, and Lautenberg, who is trying to neuter it with a second degree amendment, are messing with his amendment. I'll tell you about his amendment in a second. It's about the reimportation of drugs from Canada, cheap drugs.
Harry Reid has voted for the reimportation previously, but the White House knows -- and this is key, this is the Dorgan amendment, now -- the White House knows that if Dorgan wins his amendment, and that means this bill permits the reimportation of "cheaper" drugs from Canada, then Big Pharma has no choice but than to try to kill it, and they don't want a fight with Big Pharma. They'd rather have Big Pharma on their side. So Reid is in a pickle still. Don't believe any of these stories that say they're close, that they've come to a groundbreaking deal or any of this. There is a long way to go before they get to paradise. And Senator Obama, by the way, Senator Obama voted for reimportation. When he was still in the Senate he voted for reimporting drugs from Canada at a cheaper price. Next is CBO. Reid is counting on getting favorable estimates next Monday or Tuesday from the CBO on this latest deal that they announced earlier this week where they get to get rid of the public option, they're going to have this nonprofit insurance company, private sector supervised by the federal government. That's what they're waiting on the CBO to score and he's expecting that he's going to get a favorable number out of that.
Then there's Lieberman. Lieberman is there because if the public option is not done away with to his satisfaction, he's not on board, and they need Lieberman. Then of course there's Ben Nelson, and he's twisting in the wind on abortion. Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu still not a done deal. Any of these things can still blow up. Plus, there are the Republicans using procedures, parliamentary procedures and offering all these amendments. Now, I talked to Senator McConnell about the purpose of the amendments. He said we're trying to flush out with these amendments just who it is that really we have to focus on here. The two names that he mentioned were Ben Nelson and Jim Webb in Virgina because there's something that Webb is not going along with the Democrats on, I forget specifically what it is. My point in mentioning all of it is that the Republicans in the Senate are using parliamentary procedures, they are offering all these amendments, not to make the bill better but to flush out and to find out who it is that they really need to work with to stop this. That is their objective to stop it.
So Reid has a very ambitious and optimistic plan with a lot of obstacles in his way, and part of the plan is to adopt a public position, "Oh, we're so close. It's just a fait accompli. It's just a matter of time. We've all come to agreement on these big things," it's designed to dispirit people and get you not to show up on December 15th at a Code Red rally, that's Tuesday afternoon, December 15th at 1:30 in the afternoon, people are going to be flowing in, flying in, driving in, busing in. The question is, will Pelosi let 'em get anywhere near the Capitol? She denied it last time. But there's a huge groundswell because just like the Sheldon Whitehouse guy, he's blaming every American who opposes this of simply wanting to defeat Obama, not that they don't want the bill, not because they don't like what the bill is gonna do to them and their doctor-patient relationship. So Sheldon Whitehouse is not listening to his e-mails, he's not listening to his phone calls. He's in Rhode Island. I don't even know what the polling on this health care is in Rhode Island. They don't poll much there. So, anyway, people are fried on this, they're fit to be tied. Because they believe that this is a representative republic and that elected officials serve constituents, and they're learning that these people serve Obama.
Now, here's Reid's problem with Dorgan, and I referred to this mere moments ago. Reid has the problem that he has to figure out what to do with Dorgan's amendment, which is ready to be voted on. Dorgan's amendment would allow drug reimportation, which most of the left and some Republicans for various reasons would vote for 'cause it's cheaper prices and, of course, you think you're serving your constituents if you do anything that lowers prices. Now, if it passes, Big Pharma will have to get involved, take on the bill, and Reid does not want that, nor does Obama. Lautenberg's amendment is the loophole that makes reimportation toothless, and this is what Dorgan is not happy about. The Lautenberg amendment to the Dorgan amendment would preclude reimportation unless safety were certified by the secretary of Health and Human Services. And since we don't have the capacity to certify manufacturing and distribution abroad, certification never would happen. It is a toothless amendment, and it makes Dorgan's amendment worthless, and Dorgan's not happy about this.
Now, I would assume that the Republican leadership knows that the Dorgan amendment is one of our best weapons right now, which is why Reid doesn't want to bring it up for a vote right now. By refusing the uniform consent, that means that they can skip all the procedures, just skip all the debate, just vote on it. So if they refuse the uniform consent, McConnell has made life really miserable here and more difficult for Harry Reid and has bought us a lot more time. I would rather deal with this, as I say, on the ideological front and just say this whole thing is worthless and needs to be opposed because of the people supporting it. But I know that doesn't fly with a lot of people. Some people want details so I dug deep and that's the best that I can figure out to tell you where this stands legislatively. To me it's all. It is a piece of garbage that needs to be thrown out, and certainly do not put it in the recycle bin. Put it where it is going to be destroyed and never come back. But people want to know what the details of it are, the Dorgan amendment, the Lautenberg amendment. The point of all this is that the Democrats are the ones not unified. The Democrats are the ones angry at each other. The Republicans cannot stop this with votes. The Democrats have the votes.
END TRANSCRIPT
My fight against the health care bill and the stated objective, to hand him a defeat on it, is personal, rather than against the merits of the bill. That's what they're going to trying to say. I want you to be on the lookout for this over the weekend because I know these people, I know how they're going to position it. "Well, Rush, why do you give them the ammo?" Look, I don't sit here and think about whether I'm giving the ammo. I like to tweak 'em. What I'm doing here is just telling you the truth. How do you know? Just trust me. I know. I know it's bad. I know it's wrong. I know it's bad for America. I know it's not America, what this bill is. The only way that they can salvage it here is to make it personal between me and Obama and then make me look like a meany and whatever else they want to try to attach to it. They aren't talking about the specifics of this bill, especially their latest deal of throwing Medicare up on the wall because they will lose on that. They think they can win by hanging onto Obama's popularity, personal popularity.
They'll be more than happy to pit his personal popularity with what they think is my personal hatred factor, and that's what they're setting up and positioning here. And then they'll take that and they'll say, "Are you Republicans gonna let Rush Limbaugh speak for you, somebody who personally wants the president to lose?" And that will put 'em on the spot. So it's another reason why I'm explaining what's going on here and why it is happening. But I mean you look at the guts of the bill, the two core parts of the bill, $500 billion in Medicare cuts. Would somebody explain something to me. How in the world can you have $500 billion in Medicare cuts when you are going to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 45 or 55? Do you remember it was just two years ago that we were talking about to save this program, which is due to go bankrupt in five or ten years, raising the eligibility age to 75 or 70? Now they're talking about lowering it to 45 or 55 just to expand it and get everybody covered by it, at the same time you're talking about $500 billion in Medicare cuts? Now, if you're going to do both things -- (laughing) -- some people are going to have to die.
If you're gonna lower the eligibility age to 45 or 55 and cut Medicare $500 billion bucks, folks, somebody's gotta die or somebody's gotta be denied coverage, which will cause them to die eventually. And they don't want to talk about that. They would rather pit this as these mean talk show guys personally not liking our popular young new president. And then the second aspect of this is the $400 billion in new tax increases, which happen immediately. And the marriage penalty tax in this health care bill. We had a call about that yesterday. She was exactly right. Getting married, two people living together, $30 grand each, not filing jointly, not married, their tax is whatever it is, but if they get married, under the health care plan, same income, grand total now $60,000 married, filing jointly, their taxes go up $20 grand. It's right there in the bill. They don't want to talk about the guts of the bill. They don't want to talk about the specifics. 'Cause all they've got to rely on now is Obama's personal likability and they're happy to pit that against mean old Rush. So you keep a sharp eye and see if that's not how this plays out, starting tonight on the chat shows and throughout the weekend.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, William F. Buckley Jr. once wrote a piece for Playboy -- I actually read Playboy -- and the title of the piece, it was brilliant. I read Playboy, I actually did. The story in Playboy was: "How Do You Define Smart?" And I think it is a brilliant question. And the answer to it -- well, obviously the answer would be multifaceted. But just on the surface, how in the world can a guy who's gotten everything wrong for 15 years in any way, shape, manner, or form be called smart? How does that compute? He's educated; he can string a couple sentences together; proper syntax. What the hell is smart? This has always been something that has bugged me. Common sense is smart. Education does not mean you're smart. In fact, education, depending on where you get it, can corrupt you. There are idiots with degrees all over Washington, DC.
Now, as another exhibit, I have this story from USA Today: "After Climate Talks, Scientists Worry About Enforcement," by Brian Winter, USA Today. Now, listen to this. "Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters --" by the way, 68 climate protesters have been arrested over there in Copenhagen. "Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What's the fuss all about? Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed." Well, duh! We know it's all made up. The e-mails prove it. We're in the midst of a hoax here, the Universe of Lies has doubled down on it all and is just flooding the field with even more BS in an effort to confuse people even more. "Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies." Again, well, duh!
See, if you go over there thinking this is about climate, if you go over there thinking this is about emissions, if you go over there thinking it's about anything other than wealth transfers from rich countries to poor countries, if you think it's about anything other than establishing a global government you're going to miss entirely what's going on. The numbers don't matter. The numbers are jimmied from the get-go. The numbers are plugged in; the numbers are faked; it's a hoax! "'I don't see the point in doing all this if the numbers are so far off,' Weiss said, shaking his head as he watched conference attendees hurry by Thursday. 'When you hear politicians tell you that they can measure these things, just because they passed a deal in Copenhagen, I think you should take that with a few grains of salt.'" I don't see the point in doing all this if the numbers are so far off? You won't see the point in doing it if the numbers are so far off if you're looking at it as a climate conference, if you're looking at it as a global warming conference, if you're looking at it as an emissions conference.
It is precisely these facts that nobody knows what they're measuring, that the results are highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials. Of course they are, and who is going to be right in the middle of trading all of these carbon emissions? Wall Street people, Goldman Sachs and others, you name it. This is the whole point. They're not going to pass it this year, but if they pass it at some point, the numbers don't matter, they'll be able to make it up, they'll be able to accuse you or me of emitting more carbon than we are permitted, more pollution, without any numbers, they'll just be able to do it. They'll have the power and then they'll be able to exact punishment in the form of higher taxes or making you roll back your lifestyle or getting a different car. It's all about power and control. The people behind all this, folks, are self-loathing, miserably unhappy people. Nothing will ever make them happy.
"Most of the summit's attention has focused on exactly how much countries will commit to cutting emissions of gases that data suggest are causing the earth to warm." Oh, I thought it was settled. I thought the science was settled. Oh, really? "Yet some scientists, legal experts and delegates say the hardest part of any deal in Copenhagen will be measuring -- and then enforcing -- whatever politicians decide." I read this and I think, "When are people going to wake up?" That's precisely the confusion they want. It's what Obama's doing to this country, the confusion, the chaos, the tumult that exists already in our country. Every day there's something new that's going to wipe us out, going to destroy us. See, I'm at a disadvantage here, and it leads me to being frustrated. Let me explain my situation to you this way by asking you a question. Have you ever been in a situation, you're arguing or not even arguing, you're just discussing things with a group of people, and you know you're right, and you know you can prove it, and it doesn't matter to them. And the reason that you know you're right is that you know things they don't know. And because they don't even have that baseline of knowledge to chat with you, they can't even understand where you're coming from.
That's exactly how I feel talking to people who believe this global warming crap. I've mentioned this earlier in the week. To me, this is ideology. We know that there's no science involved here. We know it's fake science. We know people pretending to be scientists -- in fact, they may have educations and degrees that say they're scientists and they may wear the requisite white coats and write their requisite equations and so forth, but they're not. They're political hacks and they're leftists. So I know exactly who these people are. And to get caught up in the numbers, to get caught up in how we gonna measure the emissions is to fall prey to the trap that they lay. So I, El Rushbo, I have no doubt, none whatsoever, about what Obama and Geithner and anybody else, Dingy Harry and Pelosi, I've no doubt what they're doing, 'cause I know who they are. I know what they believe. And here comes the question, as Bill Shatner asked, "How do you know?" I just do. Do I not have a track record of knowing? Twenty-one years. Do I not have a track record of predicting precisely, in advance, what these people are going to do and then they do it?
I even make jokes about what they'll do and the jokes come true. The only way to understand what's going on in Copenhagen, or what's happening with Harry Reid's health care bill or what's happening with cap and trade, or any other legislation, raising the debt another $1.8 trillion, the only way to truly understand what all this is about is if you understand the differences in various ideologies: liberalism, conservatism. See, a lot of people don't want to go there because they don't like partisanship, they say. And I think they're being truthful. It's confrontation to them, a lot of people don't like confrontation, and a lot of people think that they're really smarter than everybody else by not having firm opinions on things. I'm open-minded, I study both sides of the issue, and then I make an informed decision. If that's you, you are one of the biggest dupes, because you are sitting around judging both sides while one of them is lying through their teeth with everything they say to you.
So you're gonna take lies, in this case the numbers and the emissions, the targets, the goals, whatever, at Copenhagen, it's not even about that, but you're gonna look at it that way, "Oh, these people say we're destroying the planet, we're going to warm it up so much and have trouble living in 50 years, it's bad news. The other side said this is not going on, and they're being called deniers and so forth. I've seen an Algore movie, and my kids have been made to watch the Algore movie in school, and I've heard all about the population explosion that's going to wipe us out. So I have to consider these things very seriously, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the charge, these people are saying we really are destroying the planet and so forth."
So you get caught up in that, and if you accept any of that because you don't want -- and a lot of people also look at being ideological as being judgmental, which it is. I am more than happy to judge the left. So the definition of how do you define smart, what is smart? Well, I'm going to just tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I know liberalism, I know what its objectives are, and it's there for anybody to see. It does not take anything more than the average brain. All you gotta do is look at Cuba to see where liberalism will take you. If you don't want to do that, look at Detroit. Look at New Orleans and Louisiana before Katrina and afterwards. Look at any major city that has been run by liberals. Take a look at it. Go to the old Soviet Union, you look at any country that is run by liberals or leftists. It's right out there for you to see. Everywhere you go it's a disaster.
So I know I'm right because I know who liberals are. And if people like this guy, this geochemist, he's a scientist so he's gonna look at this in scientific terms. He will not look at it ideologically and the only way he's going to be able to answer his questions that he asks, "What are we doing here? The numbers don't make sense. It's a total waste of time here. I don't see the point in doing all this if the numbers are so far off." That ought to send all kinds of red flags going up in the mind of Ray Weiss. Okay, if the numbers are wrong and they're purposefully wrong then what are we really dealing with here? Is this really science that we're dealing with? But a scientist by definition will not want to go the ideological route because that is to pollute science. The left wins in that case because they've already corrupted science, it's one of the Four Corners of Deceit in the world.
But I'm just telling you, folks, the only way to understand this with certitude, with confidence, and then to be able to explain it to others is to understand what being a conservative means, what being a liberal is, what a leftist is, socialist, Marxist, communist, they're all derivatives of a leftist. Once you understand that it is so easy, because all you have to know is that everything they say -- I know this sounds extreme -- everything they say is a lie. That's basically it. Once you come to accept that, then rest is easy. It's sort of a derivative of J.R. Ewing. Once you take care of the ethics, once you don't worry about the ethics the rest of it is easy. In this case once you understand that everything you hear from Barack Obama or Harry Reid is a lie, it's easy. It's easy to understand. You might not want to accept that, might be too tough, "Oh, my gosh, I don't want to think half the country is lying." We gotta face it, folks, because this is, as they say in football training camp, nut-cracking time.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, look, here's another way of looking at this, folks. If the whole global warming movement, if Copenhagen, if the UN's IPCC was based on science, then the IPCC leaders and these clowns at the Climate Research Unit would be thankful that new evidence was showing that man-made global warming's a false alarm. They would be happy. Instead of being receptive, they are hostile. They are hostile. If this were about science, the head of the UN's intergovernmental planetary climate commission would be a climatologist, but he's not, he's an economist. It's about redistribution.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • USA Today: After Climate Talks, Scientists Worry About Enforcement • Climate Depot: Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up |
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Don in Morgantown, West Virginia. Great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, it's cool it talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Got a question for you.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: I'm only partly being cynical, I don't know the answer. Why don't you have a Democrat counterpart? Why is there no liberal El Rushbo?
RUSH: There is, except it takes about a hundred people. There's CBS, there's NBC, there's ABC, there's MSNBC, there's CNN, there's New York Times, there's the Washington Post. There's all kinds of them out there. It takes all of them to equal one of me and I don't think they even get close. But if you're asking why is there no liberal talk show counterpart to me.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: Well, you know, to answer that I'd have to give away broadcast and performance trade secrets.
CALLER: Hmm.
RUSH: I'm not afraid of that because I don't think even if I gave away the secrets they could execute them anyway. But let me ask you. You're a listener in Morgantown, West Virginia. Let me ask you, what is it about this show that you like? What is it that you judge when you listen to this show that makes it stand out, what makes it the best?
CALLER: Well, Rush, I'm an American, I'm a patriotic American. I love this country and I kind of like what the Founding Fathers had in mind in the Constitution. I'm a big fan of it. And your message is generally a hundred percent -- it's not necessarily Republican, but it's consistent with that American thing.
RUSH: Right. That would mean conservative.
CALLER: Hm-hm.
RUSH: As opposed to Republican. I agree with you. Okay, so content, you're saying content, content, content is what I hear you saying.
CALLER: Essentially -- well, you know, there's other entertainers out there that are well versed and, you know, but they haven't done what you have done.
RUSH: Well, that's very true. Very true. I want to stick with the content thing, though. There's a story I had in yesterday's Stack of Stuff that I didn't get to, and it was I think a Washington Post story, it was about Apple.
CALLER: Huh-uh.
RUSH: And all the experts said that every product Apple makes will fail; said the iPhone was going to be a major failure; the iPod would be a failure; that the Mac computer would never amount to anything, and yet everything Apple does turns to gold and is redefining a lot of high-tech. And this guy concluded, the writer of the story concluded, it's the product, stupid. They make a good product. It just that simple. People get caught up in thinking, "I gotta market my show, I gotta market my product, gotta have a good PR agency, gotta spin this, I gotta go do a lot of TV." Make the product! It's the product stupid, or in my case: content, content, content. Now, there are a number of other factors that go into this. I think one of them is talent, and I think most of the people on the left, in broadcasting, do not look and have a proper starting point as to where they are. They look at themselves as just another branch of politics. They don't look at themselves as business people in the business of radio. They look at themselves as a branch office of either John Podesta think tank or the Democrat National Committee or whatever, and it really matters what your motivation is and what your purpose is when you undertake to do anything.
Now, I understand fully what I do. I know exactly who I am. I love myself. I love myself when I do what I do. I do not aspire to something I'm not. I do not pretend to be something I'm not. I am in radio. I understand radio as well as I understand liberals from a business standpoint, and I understand that if the business aspects are not met and satisfied, then all the content is academic. But it's a fine line, because the content ends up being part of satisfying the business aspects. But there's a lot of business of this show that nobody is aware goes on. We never talk about it because it's not part of what we do, but every business has aspects of it that you never see, that have to be done and have to be done well and have to be done the best if you're going to be the best in addition to what happens publicly, that everybody hears.
So it's just knowing the business and loving it and appreciating it and understanding what it is and not making more of it than it is and not trying to make it more than it can be. Just realizing what it is and mastering it. It's an attitude, it's preparation, it's knowledge, and it's passion. I don't think anybody on the left really has this for it. I think their passion is winning elections and defeating Republicans. I think their passion is knocking me off. I think their passion is not oriented at all in a positive, business oriented way about what they're doing. Most of the people on the left on radio think of themselves as fundraisers. They can't even exist under a traditional private sector business model. They have to ask for contributions from NPR all the way down to Air America, to whoever. If they had to make it in the world on their own without handouts or positioning themselves as nonprofits, they'd be lost. They couldn't do it. And then finally there's this ingredient that is relevant, too, and it's called talent, and they just don't have much.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Folks, there's one more thing I would like to explain about liberalism versus conservatism on the radio. And to do this I will involve television, bring it into it and describe two types of listening. There's active listening and there is passive listening. And then there's emotional versus intellectual listening. Now, television largely, because of pictures provided, results in passive viewership. You have the TV on and you can do something else, the sound, you listen to it, but you may not be totally occupied, focused on what's happening on television because you're not using all your brain. Half of your brain's function is being provided for you with the picture. Now, radio, if somebody on the radio is good they're painting the whole picture for you, and if it's a spoken word format like this is, if it's a good show, the type of listening will be active, people will be devoting 100% of their sensory perception to it. Which is why advertising on spoken word formats works so well.
Now, liberalism, it's not an intellectual pursuit. Liberalism is basically the most gutless choice you can make. It's nothing but emotion and feeling. They see a homeless person, "Oh, I feel so bad. Oh, look, I feel so bad, because I have sympathy I'm a good person." Conservative sees a homeless person, "What are we going to do about that, that's not good, this is not good for the country. We need to find a way to make that person productive." "Ah," the liberals say that's not compassion. But conservatism is an intellectual pursuit and people that are turned on and inspired by conservatism will be active, intellectually involved in the program and liberals just cannot ascertain this active participation, active audience participation because there's no intellect involved in liberalism, it's purely emotion based.
END TRANSCRIPT
He’s a bloody genius.
And.
He’s right.
Oh, Man! That’s some HUGH and SERIES chocolate, LOL!
“You ever heard of stoplights freezing over? Well, they’re starting to freeze over up there in Wisconsin, Global Warming Snowstorm Algore. They’re new and improved, they use less energy and produce less heat, so the ice doesn’t melt and you can’t tell whether it’s red, green, or yellow, or any color. People are having accidents. It’s just a microcosm of what’s ahead.”
You heard it here!. First stoplights freeze over, then come 2010 - Hell freezes over for the ‘Rats, LOL!
(It really has been brutal up here for many. But we’re OK.)
I heard about the weather in Wisconsin, Diana.
I heard it was very rough.
I’m glad you’re getting through it.
Just a trace of snow here.
We got lucky on how the winds were blowing.
Al Gore is CERTIFIABLE! Can’t we count on Tipper to take the cash (I don’t even care at this point!) sign the paperwork and lock this idiot up? Yeesh!
I was home today. Got to hear it on the first run-through. As I said, he is INSANE!!
And yes, the weather has been frightful - but I had THREE DAYS OFF in a row - a rarity for me! Wa-Hoo! I cooked, I cleaned, I crafted. I snuggled with my dogs and made snow forts with the chickens, LOL! It. Was. Heaven.
But - back to reality tomorrow. I’ve got about 14 days to unload 300 or so fresh-cut Christmas Trees...
Yikes! Now THAT is ‘Reality,’ LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
