Barack and Michelle Have Millions of Fake Twitter Followers
RUSH: The fake Twitter story, the fake 19.5 million Twitter followers for Obama, is from the UK Daily Mail, and the two million fake Twitter followers of Michelle Obama is from The Daily Caller. The reason this happens with the source getting cut off is Macintosh, the Mac OS has a really great feature. It takes a website and strips everything out but the text. It's called Reader.
But when you print it, it for some reason eliminates the source, the byline and all, and leaves just the story. If whoever's doing that doesn't know that, then they don't include the source. I, of course, never make that mistake because I am the tech leader here of this team, but no matter how many times I make this request, it seems that it's a tough one to learn, and it is a frustrating thing.
Nevertheless, that aside, I just wanted to explain this. "How can you look at something, Rush, and not know what the source is?" Blame Apple. Everybody else is. Now, Ted Cruz basically had a crux, a Cruz crux. In all of this 21 hours, he had a message. He had many messages, but he synthesized it down. Ted Cruz pointed out the fundamental flaws in this law -- and there are many -- that Washington seems eager to be implemented. Another thing I want to address is this silly notion that this strategy is why Republicans lose elections that so wrong, so dangerously wrong. It needs to be commented on.
Popular Science Ends Reader Comments Because Too Many People Disagree with Them
RUSH: Popular Science magazine, website, is shutting off comments. Popular Science is no longer going to allow comments. Did you also see somebody did a study -- it might have been the Chinese or the Japanese. Somebody did a study that the most persuasive emotion on the Internet is anger, particularly in the comments to stories. Anger carries the day. I found that interesting.
Anyway, Popular Science has decided to end comments. Suzanne LaBarre is the source for the story. They eliminated comments because too many people are not agreeing with their supposed scientific conclusions on global warming and other things.
"It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter. That is not to suggest that we are the only website in the world that attracts vexing commenters. Far from it. Nor is it to suggest that all, or even close to all, of our commenters are shrill, boorish specimens of the lower internet phyla.
"We have many delightful, thought-provoking commenters. But even a fraction..." Listen to this now. "But even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject... Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments ... or civil comments.
"The results ... wrote in a New York Times op-ed: 'Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.'" Here's the nut paragraph: "A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics." Let me tell you: This is Popular Science cutting off comments because of a "politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise."
What they don't understand is this they are politically motivated! If they are spreading the hoax of manmade global warming, they are part of a political movement. But because they're liberals -- and, folks, this is really the truth -- they don't consider liberalism to be political. It's just what is! Liberalism is as natural as the sun coming up. They have no idea that they're political pawns. Well, some of them don't, the pawns themselves. The leaders of liberalism understand exactly what they're doing, the Obamas and the community organizers.
They know exactly what they're doing, motivating and inspiring people politically. So here's Popular Science upset that there's "a decades-long war on expertise." They are the experts and there are some doubters that are now showing up questioning their "popular consensus" conclusions. There can be no consensus in science. Science isn't up to a vote, and yet right here they write: "A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics."
What, science gets validated by consensus?
Science isn't up to a vote.
If a scientific belief is claimed to be true because of a consensus of science, it isn't science. It's politics. Pure and simple. She continued: "Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again." See? They thought they had won the day. They thought they'd won the day, that human beings are responsible for manmade global warming. But now that the hoax has been revealed, apparently some "doubters," some -- what's the word? -- deniers are posting comments at Popular Science!
(Professor Erwin Corey impression) "Upsetting the validated consensus of expertise, as though our expertise is being challenged and we are going to limit that by eliminating all comments," and this is how the left behaves on everything in the arena of ideas. Anything other than what they believe must be silenced, shut down, not permitted to be heard or seen. Popular Science wants us to believe that science is a popularity contest based on the validation brought on by consensus.
I don't know what it is, but it isn't science if that's how they arrive at it.
"[B]ecause comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science."
So they write their expertise, they write their science, they write their articles based on the consensus and the validation of experts, and then people come along and doubt it and maybe, oh, I don't know, profane, angry, whatever.
Well, our whole story is being undermined!
Wait a minute. The only way your story can be undermined is if it isn't true. Well, it's not the only way, but for crying out loud.
When Will NFL Pick Up the Mercy Rule?
RUSH: This is out of the Sacramento area. Do you know what it's called...? I didn't know this. I'm sure you did if you have kids. I didn't know the rule that says when one team has scored so many points, you stop? That's called the Mercy Rule. (interruption) "Slaughter Rule." I like that. No, it's the Mercy Rule.
We quit out of mercy for the people being slaughtered. The Romans did that all the time. They quit, the Romans. Oh, yeah, yeah. The Romans had mercy on everybody and they quit. The Soviets, they quit, too, when it got to the point that it was just shameful. They quit. (interruption) The Mafia, they quit when they got to the mercy point. Yeah, all these. It's gonna happen the Super Bowl someday, the Mercy Rule. You know, when the Indianapolis Colts have 49 points and Colin Kaepernick and the 49ers only have 10, they'll quit.
Thirty-eight to nothing. What have you. "At least one parent in a California youth football league is throwing a flag at the new enforcement of a $200 fine and possible suspension of a any coach who allows his team to win a game by 35 points or more, KCRA.com reported. Kelly McHugh, whose 13-year-old son is a kicker for the Sutter Huskies, said the risk of fines has hurt the teenage players' development because 'they're afraid their coaches are going to get suspended and they are not going to have a coach to come out here and play football.'"
So they stop trying to win.
"The Northern California Federation Youth League told [KCRA] that the rules were toughened because last year alone there were 30 instances in which the Mercy Rule was violated. 'It's not hurting the kids,' Robert Rochin, the deputy commissioner for the league told the station. 'It’s teaching them sportsmanship.'" It is teaching them sportsmanship? (New Castrati impression) "Yes, Mr. Limbaugh, it is. You see, sportsmanship is when you're slaughtering somebody, you stop, so that they do not lose all self-respect. You must have compassion and feelings for the people that you're creaming."
Oh, okay. And that's gonna build character?
"That's exactly right, Mr. Limbaugh."
And this plays out in life as adults where? How does this play out? Uh, uh, let's see. When Wall Street decided that Lehman Brothers was really getting skunked, did they stop and make sure Lehman could keep going, or do Lehman have to fold? And what happened to the people working at Lehman? I can think of many other examples. Do the Democrats quit when they get too far ahead? Do the Democrats ever use the Mercy Rule on the Republicans? How about the Democrats use the Mercy Rule on their own voters that they're harming?
"Mercy Rules in football are not uncommon. High schools across the country have Mercy Rules in place. For example, Kentucky has a 45-point rule and Georgia has a 30-point rule. In September, Dale Mueller, a high school coach in Kentucky, told The Herald-Leader that there's no disgrace to losing big. He cited a scrimmage in which his team was left for dead. 'Trinity led us 51-0 at halftime, and it was a great experience for our guys,' he said. 'One thing about guys is we usually have an overinflated view of ourselves, and it's good sometimes to realize we're not the greatest in the world.'"
Was there a Mercy Rule for Eli Manning and the Giants this past Sunday? I mean, that was... Folks, did you see that? What was it, 38 to nothing? The Carolina Panthers won 38 to nothing. Can you see somebody going to Tom Coughlin and saying, "Tom, it's time to invoke the Mercy Rule. You know, your guys are getting slaughtered. The Mercy Rule's 35 points and you're down 38"? Can you see Coughlin saying, "Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They taught us that in high school; it's good. Let's stop the game."
Well, just saying.
Obama Quit Smoking Because He's Afraid of His Wife
RUSH: Barack Obama "was caught Monday on a live microphone at the UN General Assembly telling an attendee he quit smoking cigarettes because 'I'm scared of my wife.'" Well, that makes three then 'cause he's scared of Hillary and he's scared of Putin. So he quit smoking 'cause he's scared. (interruption) What's so funny? (interruption) That's not funny. It's true. It makes three, but he says he quit smoking because he's scared of his wife. He must be, because he goes to the fast-food joints when she's not around. But she always finds out about it 'cause the media's there and tells on him.