Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Rush Limbaugh: Net Neutrality Is the Next Con

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Rush Limbaugh: Net Neutrality Is the Next Con

    Rush Limbaugh

    You don't even need to know what it's about. All you need to know is who is behind it, and that alone should disqualify your support. It's the same people that had given us Obamacare and the same way they did it: They lied through their teeth, misrepresented it, ran a con game.



    RUSH:There's nothing "neutral" about net neutrality, what the Regime wants to do.

    Net Neutrality Is the Next Con


    November 17, 2014


    Windows Media

    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: The smartest thing to do is distrust anything coming out of this Regime. There's something out there that they're pushing, and it can be really complicated, if you listen to the wrong people about it, and that's called "net neutrality."

    It's something that is totally mis-titled. There's nothing "neutral" about net neutrality, what the Regime wants to do. But here's the thing. I'm telling you, you don't even need to know what it's about. All you need to know is who is behind it, and that alone should disqualify your support. It's the same people that had given us Obamacare and the same way they did it: They lied through their teeth, misrepresented it, ran a con game.
    They're still running the con. Here's the thing. You remember the movie The Sting? I remember that movie. I liked that movie, and one of the reasons I liked the movie is because I figured it out before it happened. It's one of the few times in a novel or a book or a movie that I actually was ahead of the plot and figured it out. Normally I read a novel, a mystery novel and wait for things to be revealed. I don't try to figure them out.

    The Sting, for some reason, it all came to me. So when the final sting happened, I had already suspected that's what was gonna happen. So I wasn't as shocked as the rest of the audience was. There's one thing I remember about that movie. I think it was the Newman character, Henry Gondorff, said the key to the con is that it's never over. You never let the person you conned know he's been conned. Never. The con goes on.
    Well, that's what's happening here. They run a giant con game on the population of this country with Obamacare, and they are continuing to run the con. They are not giving it up. They are not gonna admit they've been had. They are not gonna admit they've been exposed. They are gonna continue to operate on the belief that got them here, and that is that you're too stupid to figure this out.
    And that you still love and respect the office of the presidency enough that you will believe what your president is telling you about this, that he didn't know about it, that he's angry about it, that what Gruber's saying didn't happen, that Gruber had no power. He was a simple advisor, he had no influence, and their process was wide open and transparent and everybody knew everything about it.

    They're running a con game, and they're demanding you deny it. You never admit the con, because that would then -- in the case of a politician -- damage any future cons that you want to run. I'm telling you, net neutrality is the next con game they're running. The question you need to ask yourself is: Do you want the people...? You may not like Comcast and you may not like AT&T and you may not like Time Warner.
    You may not like them, but do you want the people who gave you Obamacare running your Internet service? Do you want them in charge of what you can get and when you can get it and how much it's gonna cost you? Are you gonna believe anything they tell you about net neutrality, given what you know? That's how people need to be dealing with this. This is what frustrates me. Here we have a teachable moment.
    This is indisputable and inarguable what happened. As such, Obama should have forever forfeited any credibility or believability. Obama is now fully exposed as nothing more, in common parlance, as a lying con man. He ought not ever get away with it again, not after something this big that is this damaging and this costly to this many people. And they're coming at us again.
    I don't care what it is. Global warming or climate change or whatever gonna call it -- immigration, amnesty, or net neutrality -- the fact is they have forfeited any credibility and believability on any of this. Anybody paying attention ought to be suspicious of everything they say about what they intend to do, how they intend to do it, and what its intended benefits are. Because they are lying through their teeth.
    BREAK TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: Here's Richard in Jackson, Michigan. I'm glad you waited. I'm glad to have you on the program. Hi.
    CALLER: Hello, Rush.
    RUSH: Hey!
    CALLER: Mega dittos. I've been listening since you were on TV.
    RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. That was 1992. That's many, many moons ago.
    CALLER: It's been a while, yeah. Yeah. You were talking about the government wanting to do the net neutrality and take over the Internet.
    RUSH: That's exactly the way to put it. The government wants to take over the Internet just like they want to take over every other utility and monopolize it, and they want to make it fair for everybody, isn't it a beautiful thing? Fair and equal for everyone, like everything is fair and equal for everyone now. Yeah. What are your thoughts on that, Richard?
    CALLER: My thought was that their equalization will be the same way that they equalized education, which is the lowest common denominator. So whosever Internet was the slowest, everybody else will slow down to that.
    RUSH: No, no. The same objective exists in net neutrality as exists in Obamacare. What's the objective in Obamacare? To wipe out private sector insurance, ultimately. You partner with 'em first, you butter 'em up, and eventually the government becomes single payer. That's where you go. Net neutrality, we know who these people are. Forget the title, forget net neutrality. The objective here is for Obama, the Democrats, the government to run the Internet. Now, if that's what you want, if you think the government should run the Internet, and if you think the government creates and causes innovation to happen, why, then, have at it, folks.
    BREAK TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: Net neutrality is about an accurate a title as the Affordable Care Act is a title for Obamacare. There's nothing neutral about net neutrality. Totally misnamed.
    END TRANSCRIPT

    Related Links






    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...s_the_next_con
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Rush Limbaugh

    The federal government has got something going for the NFL. There is no question.



    RUSH: It's amusing to watch various personages in the Drive-By Media discuss the DEA raids of three NFL visiting teams yesterday as these media experts attempt to explain to their audiences what's up here. Why would the DEA do this? What...

    What the DEA's NFL Raid Is All About


    November 17, 2014


    Windows Media

    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna admit it, it's amusing, and I'm not trying to sound elitist or uppity. It's amusing to watch various personages in the Drive-By Media discuss the DEA raids of three NFL visiting teams yesterday as these media experts attempt to explain to their audiences what's up here. Why would the DEA do this? What were they doing? And then they explain it, "Well, what they're after, what they're trying to find, they trying to find these doctors that are prescribing painkillers. They're not allowed to overprescribe, ruining the players careers." That's not what this was about.

    I'm gonna take some time to explain to you what this really was about and what it might mean down the road in due course. Some people are saying it's tied to the -- there's a class-action suit that a bunch of players, ex-players have filed against the NFL. That they were given drugs that were not explained to them, various drugs that caused organ damage or addiction or what have you, and there's some ex-players trying to collect financially on damages here. And some people in the media say the DEA raid of these visiting teams, that's what that was about.
    It could be related, but that isn't what's really going on here.
    BREAK TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: The Drug Enforcement Agency and the raid of three visiting NFL teams yesterday. The San Francisco 49ers were raided in New Jersey after playing the New Jersey Giants. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were raided after playing the Washington Redskins. And what was the third team? The Seahawks, I think, were raided after losing to the Chiefs or some such thing. A lot of people are...
    The news media's all hot to trot with this and very excited about it. Let me just ask you a quick question that might help put some of this in perspective. Well, before I ask the question, there's a setup piece here that may be a factor. I'm not sure if it is. But a bunch of former players have filed a class-action lawsuit against the league and teams for prescribing them or giving them medications to allow them to play which ended up harming them.
    They allege that they were not informed of the dangers involved, such as organ damage or addiction. Sometimes the drugs were mixed in a cocktail formula where drugs should not have been mixed. The players assumed that the teams were looking out for 'em and doing what's best for 'em and there was implied trust there. But it turns out, the lawsuit alleges, the teams didn't care and the doctors didn't care.
    All that mattered was getting the players ready to play, and if it meant pain management, if it meant shooting up pain-killer injections before or during a game, fine. Whatever. Now, that lawsuit's been out there for a while. This DEA thing was run from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District in Manhattan. I'm not sure the two are connected, because these raids had nothing to do with the abuse of medication.

    These raids had nothing to do with that. The only thing that was being investigated (at least, from the best information at hand) and the reason they raided visiting teams, is the DEA wanted to find out if the doctors of the visiting teams were licensed to prescribe medication out of state. For example, you got the 49ers in New Jersey playing the Giants. There's a team doctor in the traveling party from San Francisco.
    Are the San Francisco medical staff, the doctors, licensed to practice in New Jersey and dispense medication in New Jersey? That apparently was the scope of the investigation, and apparently the NFL says everything's fine and dandy. Nothing was found to be untoward. The larger thing here is, the federal government has got something going for the NFL. There is no question. You've got the Redskins name change.
    Don't for a moment think that that is a nonfactor here. It may not be a major factor, it may not be the motivating factor, but it clearly is a factor because we have a federal government that has no qualms whatsoever about reaching its tentacles into the private sector any which way it can, any which day it wants it for whatever reasons it wants to. There's no question the NFL is in somebody's crosshairs here.
    The NFL is in a lot of people's crosshairs over concussions, over this class-action suit with the painkiller prescriptions or dispensations, the Redskins name, domestic abuse. By the way, I saw this, I guess, maybe for the second time yesterday. Have you seen this PSA that runs during games of NFL players saying, "No more"? You've not seen this? This is kind of a crazy thing.
    It's a PSA and it leads with Eli Manning and then a bunch of players. Some of them you recognize and some of them you don't, and they all say, "No more! No more! Together, we can do it. No more." It goes on like that for 35 or 45 seconds, and then the end of it, there's a graphic: "Together we can stop domestic abuse." I watched it, and I said, "Wait a minute. Are they telling me...?"

    I mean, I'm watching the games. I'm in the NFL audience, per se. I didn't know that it was fans doing the abuse. I thought it was players. Yet here are the players doing a PSA yelling at the audience, "Stop it! Stop it! Together we can stop it! You stop it. We stop it. We're gonna stop it, too, and together we can stop domestic abuse." I didn't know I was committing any.
    It seems like the fans ought to be running the PSA in the locker rooms of the teams. It seems like we ought to be producing a PSA. "Stop it! Stop it!" Me, Snerdley, whoever, should run it. "Stop it!" At the end of it, we'd say, "Stop domestic abuse," and it plays in the Ravens dressing room, it plays in the '49ers locker room or wherever we play it. Why are they telling us to stop it? What are we doing?
    So, anyway, that's going on.
    Let me ask you a question. In all of the circumstances in which a player is suspended for using banned substances, for example. Just forget domestic abuse now and forget whether or not you engage in corporal punishment of your own child. Just stick now with players who are banned and suspended for using substances that are not permitted. Have you ever heard, do you ever recall a player being suspended for being caught using heroin or a derivative?
    You do not, do you?
    Have you ever heard of a player suspended because he was found to be using Vicodin or Percocet? No you haven't. Now, you've heard of them being banned and suspended for cocaine, for PEDs, for HGH, human growth hormone. Some of them get banned because they take a diet supplement that's got something in it that's not allowed, but never anything to do with opiates. Have you ever noticed that? You probably haven't. Well, the reason you haven't is because opiates are dispensed as painkillers just like everybody else gets them if they're in severe pain, surgical, post-op, whatever. They're Percocet, they're Vicodin, you name it, and they are routinely prescribed this stuff.
    So you can't very well have a test that reveals a player has opiates in his system and ban him when, in fact, they are given out in order to deal with the pain and suffering of playing the game. But the teams do not dispense cocaine. They do not dispense crystal meth. They do not dispense alcohol. You've seen players banned for alcohol abuse, for DUI, but never for opiates. It's because it's used. This is not a pro or con statement. I mentioned this only to call your attention. Here you had a DEA investigation into the abuse of opiates. That doesn't wash, except maybe from the standpoint are the doctors who are giving it out legally licensed to do so?

    But the investigation here looked like it targeted the doctors. Now, you've heard of pain killing injections. Those are not opiates. You cannot give a player an opiate, a traditional painkiller, on game day and have him perform, because of the way it works. It does the exact opposite of what they want. They want players emotionally peaked and just ready to go and filled with energy that's almost uncontrollable and when kickoff on Sunday comes, it explodes. And that does not happen to you if you're medicated with painkillers.
    So what they use on game day is something called Toradol, and it is a non-narcotic. It is not addictive, but it is really dangerous. When you read of a pain-killing injection, any athlete, the odds are it's Toradol. You may have taken Toradol in your life. It's not over-the-counter. The generic name for it is Ketorolac. But the oral form of it is not nearly as effective as having it IV or in a shot. And it works. It works like that without any narcotic effect and without any addictive characteristics. It's non-addictive. It doesn't promote any kind of dependence or addiction, but, if you ever need this stuff, and if it's prescribed to you responsibly, your doctor will tell you, "Do not take this for more than five days," because of the liver. It is metabolized, as all drugs are, in the liver.
    There's a price for everything, and this stuff, it really does get rid of severe pain in a non-narcotic way, but it also can do a lot of damage to the liver and kidneys. In the lawsuit that the players have filed against the league, you've heard some players say, "I got renal failure! I got these pain-killing injections. I got renal failure. I got kidney failure." Toradol is used quite frequently, and I have no way of knowing, and nobody does, how responsibly it's used. All I know is I've needed it. The only reason I know is I've needed it. I have to take that. I can't take any other kind, and when it's prescribed to me, no more than five days.
    I've even had a pharmacist, one prescription said 10 days, "I'm not gonna give you more than five days of this stuff because it's that caustic. It can do that much damage to your liver or kidneys." So that's an aspect of this, too, particularly on the lawsuit. But if you're thinking about this DEA raid and you hear about all the painkiller stuff, just stop and remember that not a single player's ever been suspended for using those things, or for testing positive. They don't even test for it. They couldn't, because they're standard operating procedure for anybody who is experiencing post-op pain that is severe.
    END TRANSCRIPT

    Related Links





    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...d_is_all_about
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Rush Limbaugh

    The Republicans take a giant weapon out of their arsenal of ammunition. It's time to man up and start dealing with this thing. That's what they were sent there to do.



    RUSH: It's time for the Republicans to man up and stop worrying about this apparent cliché that no matter what happens, the Republicans are going to get blamed for the government shutdown.

    It's Time to Man Up, GOP

    November 17, 2014


    Windows Media

    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: These polling numbers? It's time for the Republicans to man up and stop worrying about this apparent cliche that, no matter what happens, the Republicans are going to get blamed for the government shutdown, and because they don't want to get blamed, they can't do it. They can't repeal Obamacare, they can't do anything, 'cause it's an unwritten rule in Washington:

    "Whenever the government gets shut down, no matter who's responsible for it, the Republicans get the blame," and, as such, the Republicans take a giant weapon out of their arsenal of ammunition. It's time to man up and start dealing with this thing. That's what they were sent there to do. They were sent there to deal with these kind of lies and this obfuscation, these con games.
    They were sent there to stop this.
    They were not sent there to participate in it. They were not sent there to govern and participate and compromise and advance a little bit. They were sent there to stop it.
    BREAK TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: Okay, very quickly, we're gonna get back to this and the whole business of the idea that the Republicans can't really do anything about Obamacare because they can't shut down the government. "No matter how the government gets shut down, the Republicans are going to get the blame." That is something that the elitists in the Beltway say Republicans cannot recover from.
    "So we can't even entertain it. We can't even go there." I think people who say that are actually doing their own version of Gruber: "Gruber said what? Gruber said that people are stupid. The American people are stupid. Even though they're stupid, we've gotta lie to 'em. We're gonna rely on the stupidity of the American people."
    Okay, if you believe... If you are an inside-the-Beltway media or elected official elitist or honcho, and, if you don't want to get anywhere near action -- like a series of bills that would deny Obama the funding necessary either to implement amnesty, or elements of Obamacare, because that would be a government shutdown, and the Republicans will get blamed no matter what happens, and they'll never recovered from it, and it's horrible, and it's messy -- aren't you essentially the same as Jonathan Gruber?

    Aren't you really saying the American people are too stupid to understand what's really going on?
    Aren't you saying, "No, no! We can't have a series of bills that will defund various steps of amnesty. Why, that would shut down the government, and then we'll get blamed for it." So you believe the American people are so stupid that even though they just elected you to stop this, when you take action to stop it they're gonna get so mad at you for shutting down the government, that they're never gonna elect you again, and the media is gonna have a field day with you?
    Aren't you kind of just like Jonathan Gruber? Aren't you, in essence saying, "No, we can't do what's right because the American people are too stupid to see what we're doing, and they will blame us, and we don't want to get blamed"? It seems to me that a year ago in December there was a government shutdown, and Ted Cruz got blamed for it left and right.
    And the last I saw, the Republicans just won a landslide election a little over a week ago. So where is it written that government shutdowns destroy Republican electoral efforts? Where is it written that defunding this part of Obamacare or that part of amnesty equals a government shutdown anyway? I think it's time for people to realize -- Republicans, especially -- that the people who voted for 'em are not stupid.
    BREAK TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: Here's Obama. This takes us to where we're headed here in this segment. This is Sunday morning in Brisbane. This is the end of the G20 Summit, Obama at a press conference and CBS Correspondent Major Garrett said, "How much do you fear the government will shut down and to what degree does your anxiety about this or your team's anxiety about this influence the timing of your decision on" amnesty.
    OBAMA: I take Mitch McConnell at his word when he says that the government's not gonna shut down. There's no reason for it to shut down. Uh, we traveled down that path before. Uh, it was bad for the country.
    RUSH: It was not.
    OBAMA: It was, uh, bad for every elected official in the country --
    RUSH: No, it wasn't.
    OBAMA: -- and at the end of the day was resolved in the same way that it would have been resolved if we hadn't shut the government down. So, uh, that's not gonna be productive.
    RUSH: That's not even true.

    Look, there was a government shutdown. I do this for a living, and I don't even remember what it was about. That's how big it was. Now Snerdley, who is a wonk, probably remembers. All I know is that Ted Cruz getting blamed for it everywhere. What was it over? (interruption) "Continuing resolution for funding." Okay, so we shut down the government over the mechanism that we were gonna pay for the next series of months of government, the continuing resolution.
    The Republicans have been trying to stop the Democrats and get 'em to do a budget as required by law, and they've been doing this continuing resolution stuff, which... (interruption) Well, I know. The typical sleigh ride guy at Jellystone got sidelined for a while, but he got his money back. They all do. The government workers that lost their jobs for a couple days got their Thanksgiving and Christmas turkeys.
    It always ends up that way. The point is, there was a government shutdown, and there was no politician that got hurt. The last I looked, the Republicans won a landslide election last week or week half ago -- and they were the guys blamed for the shutdown last January, am I right? (interruption) The Republicans were blamed for the shutdown last December, 2013, right? (interruption) Okay.
    Single-handedly! Ted Cruz and the Republicans were tarred and feathered and blamed and everything was laid at their feet and it was a disaster, and what happened? The Republicans win a landslide election less than a year later. So where is it written that government shutdowns... Now, granted, in a government shutdown, the media is going to hate you. The media is gonna say mean things about you.
    The media is gonna call you racist and sexist and bigoted and homophobic, and the media is gonna call you mean-spirited, and the media is gonna call you extremist, and the media is gonna say, "You don't like the little guy," and the media is gonna lie about you. But it didn't hurt, did it? If the Republicans shutting down the government last year was political disaster, somebody explain the results of ten days ago for me.
    But I know how the inside-the-Beltway thinks, and it is typified here and personified by Brit Hume of Fox News. This is yesterday on Fox News Sunday during the panel discussion. The host Chris Wallace was speaking with senior political analyst Brit Hume about immigration reform and the federal budget, and Chris Wallace said, "If Republicans somehow tie funding of the government to opposition to this executive action, is it a smart political move or is it another mistake?"
    The question is: If the Republicans tried to stop Obama from doing amnesty by denying funding for this aspect of it and that aspect of it -- you know, a bunch of different aspects of it -- Wallace is asking Hume: Is that a smart political move or would that be another mistake? Meaning: Would it be dumb to deny the government money, or would it be good politics?

    HUME: It's a total blunder to try that. It is an iron rule in Washington exemplified many times that if the government shuts down, the Republicans get the blame. Not some of the blame, not most of the blame, all of the blame. And one would surmise that -- that they may have learned that by now. Their leaders seem to have, but there are some within the House and Senate who still think that that kind of a brinksmanship might work. I doubt it.
    RUSH: And then Karl Rove this morning on Fox & Friends was being interviewed by Elisabeth Hasselbeck -- by the way, welcome back to her. She had a cancer scare out there. She's been gone for a month, she's back. She said, "Republicans are now weighing a government shutdown to put pressure against the president who seems to be ready to use executive actions as it relates to immigration. Is that a good move or not, Karl?"
    ROVE: Actually it's not Republicans, it's a few Republicans. When we had the government shutdown last year, you may remember the poll in the immediate aftermath, 17% of the American people approved of it, 81% didn't, and who'd they blame? I think it was like 59% blamed the Republicans. It took us a year to get back.
    RUSH: Uh, what, uh, uhhh, you got back, though, right? And how'd you do that? It took a year to get back, but you got back. How did you get back? What happened? You got back because people wanted you to stop Obama. Now, on this shutdown business, I think, in the first place, this is not technically a government shutdown. Just telling Obama we're not gonna give you the money for, say, a driver's license for these people. We're not gonna give you the money for Social Security cards for these people. We're not gonna give you the money. How the hell is that a government shutdown, for crying out loud?
    But even if it is, it seems to me -- and I say this with all due respect. I am not a flamethrower here, and I'm not trying to pick a fight. I am just trying to serve this audience the best I can, and it seems to me that this fear that whenever anything happens, that the media can call a government shutdown and therefore we can't do it 'cause the Republicans are gonna get blamed and don't want that, aren't you kind of being just like Jonathan Gruber in assuming the people are so stupid they won't be able to figure out who's really responsible for this?
    Add to this the fact, if you want to talk polling data, whatever poll you want to cite, you've got 55 to 60% of the American people who disapprove of Obamacare and want it repealed. So if you take action to deny Obama funding to implement it and somebody calls that a government shutdown, how in the hell are the people gonna get mad at you for trying to stop the implementation of Obamacare when that's what you were elected to do?
    This inordinate fear that the Republicans are, no matter what happens, gonna get blamed for it seems to rely on the fact that the American people are so stupid that they will always believe what the media tells them and that they will never question it. If this is way you look at -- why should the Republicans ever oppose anything? Because we know what the media is going to say about them.

    The media is gonna call the Republicans names no matter what the Republicans do or say, and if our policy decisions are going to be rooted in trying to limit what the media says, aren't we conceding defeat? And aren't we at the same time pretty much saying that we are afraid that the American people are too stupid to see our actions for what they are, and that is, trying to save the country from the disasters of Obama's policy implementations. And I would say the same thing about amnesty.
    The majority of the American people, no matter where you look, no matter what poll, nobody's in favor of it. Nobody wants executive amnesty. It's not a majority position. Nothing Obama is doing is a majority position to support. So any action the Republicans might take after having won a landslide election, I mean, that has to be a factor here. They were just elected to stop this stuff, and so they take action to stop it, and the media accuses them of shutting down the government, and the American people are so stupid that right then and there they're gonna regret that they voted for the Republicans.
    And the Republicans are gonna be paying the price for, what, another year 'til the next election, another two years. How did the Republicans win this election if they got blamed for the shutdown last December? "Well, it took a year to get back." Well, they got back. I don't know. This is unnecessarily tying your own hands behind your back.
    BREAK TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: Okay. So the establishment, they say they will not shut down the government. What that means is, they're not gonna deny Obama any funding to implement his various schemes, so what are they gonna do? It's a serious question. I mean, they were elected to do something here. They were elected to stop this. Even if you think they were elected to do more than that, fine and dandy. I don't want to get into an argument about that. But you can't deny that part and parcel of the reason for this electoral win was to stop what is happening.
    If they're not going to use the power of the purse, and if they're not going to use impeachment, then what are they going to do to stop it? That's gonna get them in more trouble with voters than any so-called government shutdown. The worst thing they could do is ignore the mandate the voters gave 'em. That looks like what they're aiming for.
    BREAK TRANSCRIPT
    RUSH: This is Sally, Richmond, Virginia. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
    CALLER: Hey, Rush. How are you?
    RUSH: I'm not well. Thank you very much.
    CALLER: Good! I wanted to comment about your conversation about the Republicans and shutting down the government.
    RUSH: Yeah?
    CALLER: I actually think Ted Cruz and the Republicans that supported the government shutdown, caused the wake-up call and they were what caused people to pay attention and get engaged, and they drew people's attention to the truth about Obamacare and what the negative impacts were gonna be. Not only on the economy, but the level of care that we were all gonna eventually experience, and the rising costs.
    RUSH: That is an interesting take, because Ted Cruz did get the blame, right?
    CALLER: He got the blame but he really should be getting the praise.
    RUSH: Well, but wait. That's what I'm saying. He did. The point is: Did Ted Cruz lose any popularity?
    CALLER: He lost popularity outside of the Republican Party but also within the party.
    RUSH: Well, no. I'm talk with the American people.
    CALLER: No! No.
    RUSH: No, he didn't lose popularity. He might have been enemy number one inside the party, but in terms of the people? The voters didn't take it out on Ted Cruz. That's a good observation, interesting observation. Sally, I appreciate the call. Thank you very much.
    END TRANSCRIPT

    Related Links





    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20..._to_man_up_gop
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Similar Threads

  1. Rush Limbaugh: Listen to Trey Gowdy in Action - The Rush Limbaugh Show
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2014, 06:10 PM
  2. Harry Reid to Silence Rush Limbaugh: Rush Answers "Say
    By Dixie in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-02-2007, 12:56 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •