The weekend podcast features our weekly football preview. But first, a dive into the deep hypocrisy that overwhelms everything else in the Jeffrey Epstein case. With crime out of control, a California city cracks down on....pickleball. And, a look at the long criminal history of the Chicago man who lit a woman on fire on a subway platform.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Markbelling Podcast is presented by you Line for quality
shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
If today's podcast has a theme, it's hypocrisy. Every one
of the topics that I have in the first segment here,
hypocrisy is the driving really idea in that topic. We're
going to start with Jeffrey Epstein. You can't discuss the
(00:52):
Epstein story without addressing just the hypocrisy that overwhelms every
part of it. There isn't an aspect to this story,
and there's a lot of aspects, but there isn't one
of them in which the hypocrisy doesn't overwhelm anything else
(01:16):
that you would be discussing about it. Congress voted and
Trump signed authorization to release the files. Already, there's one
scalp throughout this whole thing. Other than Epstein himself and
(01:41):
Julianne Maxwell, the only person really to suffer any consequences
been Prince Andrew, who's sort of kicked out of the
royal family. Now there's a second Larry Summers Democrat administration hack.
When we're head of Harvard now a Harvard professor. He's
resigning from everything, taking leaves of absence, resigning from nine
(02:04):
hundred boards, from everything, and it's clear he's going to
disappear from public view now. Larry Summers has been implicated
forever as being one of the people that supposedly had
visited Epstein Island. But because there's never been any proof
of anything, and nobody's ever been charged, none of these people,
as they say, other than Prince Andrew River, has suffered
any consequences. But obviously Summers realizes that when these documents
(02:31):
are released, there's going to be really damning stuff on him.
It's another there's number two. In the meantime, there are
two words that just scream out at this whole story,
and I think that they drive the hypocrisy that's in it.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
The first word is Bill and the second word is Clinton.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
We're going to pick up at that element of the
story in a moment here. When it comes to shipping packaging,
industrial supplies and equipment, many suppliers offer endless siles of product.
U Line knows what you can't do with endlessiles of
product to test the quality of each product, ensure everything
is in stock and ready to ship the same day,
and have a team available twenty four to seven to
(03:22):
answer your product questions.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
You Line only.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Carries supplies and equipment they have tested, pride and often
use in their own business. Experience the U line difference today.
Visit you line dot com. So there's this vote in
Congress virtually unanimous. I think one member of the House
voter no. The Senate passed the unanimously Trump sign the bill.
(03:49):
Now let's start with releasing all of these files. First
of all, this is obviously a dubious thing to do.
We don't normally release all of the files in a
criminal investoration. Let's take Epstein out of this and just
imagine that we're investigating some other crime somewhere. The cops
(04:14):
talk to nine thousand different people. There are all sorts
of people who may be questioned who didn't do it,
others that may be questioned who might have been involved,
and then you pick up all sorts of other stuff
that's extraneous to the actual thing they're investigating. Well, all
that stuff's in the files. In addition to that, I'm
(04:38):
just telling you right now, when they do the dump
of this, there are going to be people who come
out and say, but we want more, we want more,
we want more. And that's because the government has already
said that some of this stuff is going to be classified,
and people aren't gonna like, oh, what, what's classified?
Speaker 3 (04:55):
What are you hiding in the classified?
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Nonetheless, we're going to get what we're going to get.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Here's how this story is going to play out.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Any name that shows up, without regard to whether they
were traveling to the island.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Or if they once played golf.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
With Jeffrey Epstein, if that person is a Republican, their
name is going to be in headlines that they're going
to be tired. And every person in there who is
a Democrat, the story is going.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
To not appear very much.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
It doesn't matter what any of them do. But every
Republican is going to be highlighted without regard to whether
or not they did anything inappropriate sexually with children, And
every Democrat, including those that were the worst pedophiles possible,
if they're already, will be swept away. But that's par
for the course all the time, and it's part of
(05:51):
the hypocrisy in the story.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
But we can't stop at that hypocrisy.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I've got several bullet points that I want to hit
on here, the unfortunately named James Comer. People mix him
up with James Comy in part they're both weird last names.
I don't know anybody else's last name is Comy other
than James Comy, and I don't think any know anybody
else's last name was.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
Comber other than James Comer.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
James Comer is the Republican chairman of the House Committee
on Investigations. Comy, of course, is the former FBI director
who's a crook. James Comer says that both Bill and
Hillary Clinton have ignored every request for information and subpoena
(06:38):
that has been given to them with regard to their
investigation of Epstein. Now let's pause on that for a moment.
Although you know who Steve Bannon is. Do you know
who Steve Bannon is? Peter Navarro's another name. He was
(06:59):
Trump trade advisor and administration number one. As every left
he will tell you. They both went to prison. Do
you know why they went to prison?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Most people don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
For refusing to cooperate with the congressional investigation. They defied
congressional subpoenas because they felt that the investigation was bogus.
Bannon went to prison for it, so did Navow.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
If out it four months, bannited longer.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
So if the Clintons refused to cooperate with the investigation
into Epstein, are we gonna put them in prison?
Speaker 3 (07:40):
If not? Why not? And this is again the point.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
About the entire hypocrisy thing anybody connected to Trump, it
didn't matter what it was, that they would simply look
for some sort of example of wrongdoing and use it
to lock them up, even if the wrong doing isn't
that wrong or common. Should the Clintons be locked up
(08:10):
if they don't answer a congressional request for information or
a subpoena on Epstein? Now we all know why Bill
and Hillary Clinton don't want to testify before Congress on Epstein.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
How does Bill Clinton under.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Oath answer the question about what did you do on
those twenty six times that you flew on Jeffrey Epstein's
private jet? And Hillary Clinton doesn't want to answer the
question about did you know that Bill Clinton flew on
Jeffrey Epstein's private jet twenty six times? Neither of them
want to answer that question. For one thing lying under
oath is how they nail all of these people. They
certainly don't want to plead the thefts because while neither
(08:50):
of them is a political future and Bill Clinton doesn't
seem to have much of a future at all, their
reputations are at stake here.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Now.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
From the perspective of I think most Democrats, the Clintons
are in the rearview mirror, Mom, Donnie and AOC. That's
what's in the wind looking out the front windshield, the
rear view of that.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Clinton's our hatstory. Hillary's never going to be anything again.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
And if Bill has his reputation tarnished, what do most
Democrats care? They don't, so they're willing to sacrifice whatever
comes out with regard to the role of the Clintons,
Jeffrey Epstein as they try to use this thing to
somehow get something somewhere on Trump, even though every indication
(09:38):
out there is that Donald Trump didn't have anything to
do with the shenanigans involving Epstein and underage girls. If
there were many that were underage, very unclear. It's not
how many of them were underage, because Eve only identified
by name. Really, Jeuffrey is about the only one that
we know for certain. There are a couple of others
who've testified. But otherwise, all these other girls and women
(10:01):
that were we don't know who they are, much less
what their ages were. But if there had been any
indication Trump had ever been to that island, we would
have had it by now. It's well, Trump knew him here,
and Trump said something here, and Trump said on a
golf ball. At one point in the meantime, Jeffrey has
said Donald Trump was the guy that tried to caution
people not to come down there. Nonetheless, from the perspective
(10:24):
of the left, they're going after this thing just because
they think somehow they can embarrass Trump.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
Which brings me to the second part of the hypocrisy.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
This overwhelming, virtually unanimous vote in the Congress to release
the files. When could they have done this. They could
have done this last week. They could have done this
last month. They could have done this last year. They
could have done this in twenty twelve, twenty three. Do
you know how old the Epstein case is. Epstein was
(11:06):
first sentenced twenty years ago, and then the case was
revisited in the last decade, and then revisited again with
the Julane Maxwell charges and then Epstein committing his suicide.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
If that's what it was.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
The Congress never voted overwhelming they released files. No again,
I'm not saying that these files shouldn't be released. I
do think that just dumping thousands of pages of investigatory
files can lead to shenanigans with regard to the people
that are reporting on them, because ninety eight percent of
(11:44):
the stuff and investigatory files don't lead to anything that's criminal.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
But if they have to be out there, and they're
out there, fine.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
The point that I'm making is the timing of all
of this is the whole way of understanding the story.
Put it this way, if Kamala Harris had been elected
last year in twenty twenty four, it may well be
that Republicans would still be voting to release the Epstein files.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Would any Democrats have been voting to do it.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
There doesn't seem to be any connection between Kamala Harris
and Jeffrey Epstein, So why would they not be voting
for that? Because I suspect their great fear if she
was the president is we're gonna go back and we're
gonna look at all of the stuff that's gonna be
embarrassing to other Democrats. Now they're willing to roll that
dice because somehow they think that they can get something
(12:39):
on Donald Trump. Nowhere in here from anybody involved, anybody
does there seem to be any actual concern about what
it was that happened with regard to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
And to this day, I don't know how much happened.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Part of me thinks that a whole lot of people
went down to that island. There may have been two
a small percentage of the women that were under age,
and some of the creeps may have had sex with.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Them and most may not.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
I don't know, though, It's weird how unspecific all of
the people who are there, and Jewfrey herself, when she
started naming names, had to retract that she named Dershowitz,
and then she later said, I guess I got that wrong.
None of the other women have really spilled the names
on anything other than every single person seems to be
(13:31):
convinced that Prince Andrew was there. He's the one guy
that has no deniability. I'm guessing Larry Summers not doesn't
have any deniability either.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Let's get to the next part of this.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
ABC News yesterday was Porter was grilling Trump on the
whole Epstein thing. Okay, now you're gonna sign the bill?
Speaker 3 (13:53):
What change or change a change. It was only a
couple of months.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Ago that a hidden camera, hidden microphone video was released
of an ABC News reporter bitching that she had the
entire Epstein story in twenty sixteen and was obstructed by
ABC for three years and they wouldn't let her report it.
(14:26):
The ABC reporter you know these Project Vera tests videos,
what Project Vera tess does, And you can argue it's
unethical or maybe it's ethical, whatever way you want to
believe on it. They'll have somebody with a hidden camera
and a hidden microphone poses. For instance, they'll go to
like a bar, and the bar or the meeting as
a party involving a bunch of lefties, and they'll post
as a lefty and try to suck up and start
(14:46):
talking to people. And they've been very, very successful, and
people start spilling the beans because they don't know that
they're talking to a conservative undercover operative. They think that
they're talking to a fellow lefty. So they walked up
to an ABC reporter and got her to rant and
rave that ABC News spiked all of her coverage of
(15:08):
Epstein years ago, she suspects because they were trying to
protect the Clintons, which brings me to the next element
(15:30):
of the hypocrisy. Jeffrey Epstein's story is decades old. It's
now in every media outlet that exists.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Where were they all this time?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Why is Epstein suddenly to them interesting and newsworthy again?
It's complete hypocrisy. There have been people on the right end,
even some of the left two for years have been
suggesting that a sweet art deal was done for Epstein
and that.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
The story was swept under the wrong.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Because a lot of rich and powerful people, mostly left
its elites, were involved in the behavior with Epstein, and
nobody would pay attention to it.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Nobody would pay attention to it went through Republican.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Administration's democratic administrations, and you couldn't get media attention on
it at all. But suddenly now Epstein is the beginning, middle,
and end of the world. Nothing in the Epstein store
has changed because Epstein's dead. There are no more parties.
Every bit of wrongdoing occurred many years ago. Suddenly ABC
(16:47):
is brilling Trump. ABC the same outlet that spiked apparently
a lot of information that one of their own reporters
had and wouldn't Letter report it for three years. This
to me is reminiscent of the Ronan Pharaoh expose on Weinstein,
the big Hollywood movie studio owner ronand Farall was working for.
(17:11):
And Ronan Faraoh is the son of Mia Farrell terrible
relationship with me A's ex partner, Woody Allen, who most
people now think is not actually his father. The older
you get, the more you start looking like your father.
And every year that passes, Ronan Pharaoh looks more and
(17:33):
more like Frank Sinatra, who Mia Farall was married to
in the sixties and apparently had a fling with twenty
years later.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
And some people say he looks a little like Woody Allen.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
I think that very I don't know how you could
look like both Woody Allen and Frank Sinatra. I mean,
can you come up with two more opposite look I mean,
but what if you like see but see? Mia Farrell
was weird looking herself, so her appearance in their muddy
as the whole anyway. Ronan Farrell had the Weinstein story
when he was working for NBC. NBC refused to let
(18:06):
him report it, so he ended up reporting the story
for another news organization, Weinstein went to prison, etc.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
It's the same thing.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Media outlets that not only don't cover a story, have
the story and suppress it. Suddenly when it gets out,
try to get up on a high horse and say
and demand that others what about this story? What about
this story? What about this story? When they themselves are
the ones that were covering the story up hypocrisy, everything
(18:51):
about Epstein. And I'm not just including Democrats in the.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Media and everybody.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
My opinion, the Epstein story is important. However, most of
the wrongdoing appears to have occurred in the past, yet
there are contemporary components of this. One thing is clear,
the Republicans are not going to simply allow this. We're
(19:21):
only going to focus on Republican wrongdoing with Epstein, then
I going to allow that to go unchallenged.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
The chief fundraiser for JB.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Pritzker, who's going to run for president, the Fatso governor
of Illinois, he was shaking down Epstein for money after
Epstein was convicted, trying to get Epstein to contribute to
Pritzker's campaign fund. There are a whole lot of Democrats
who remained tight with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted.
(19:56):
Now one of the people trying to make this point
is Trump. If I were advising Trump, I would urge
others to make the point for him. But Trump clearly
the thing that really if you want to set Trump off,
it's when you start holding Trump to a different standard
than you hold other people too. And remember Trump has
(20:18):
been so has been falsely accused his entire political career,
starting with Russia collusion January sixth, Charlottesville, all of this stuff.
So this is what he put on truth Social last night,
right as he signed the bill to release the files.
Jeffrey Epstein, who was charged by the Trump Justice Department
in twenty nineteen, not the Democrats, was a lifelong Democrat
(20:39):
donated And by the way, that is true when Epstein
killed himself, if that's what he did in prison, it
was because he was charged with the Justice Department. That
was Trump's Justice department at the time. Trump didn't leave
office until twenty one.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
This is nineteen So.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Trump is right about my Justice department is the one
that charged him the second time. Remember who is convicted
and had the soft treatment better than a decade earlier.
But in nineteen he and Julanne Maxwell were arrested and
criminally charged again, and that's when Epstein killed himself.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
If he did so. Trump points that.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Out, it was my justice department that actually charged the
guy after he was white, after they whitewashed the case
against him ten years earlier. Was a lifelong Democrat, donated
thousands of dollars to Democrat politicians, and was deeply associated
with many well known Democratic figures, such as Bill Clinton,
who traveled on his plane twenty six times.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
Now let me interject on that we know this about Clinton.
He's a free loader.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
I mean, I think he probably flew on Ron Berkele's
yet five thousand times. It's possible Clinton was on that
private jet just because he was going somewhere else and
was leeching off of somebody, because Clinton.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Is a cheap skate. That's possible, except.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
I think if there's anybody whose life story would indicate
his high desire and life is having sex, it's Bill Clinton.
How many other guys got you know what and in
the Oval office by someone, but by an intern. This
is a guy that was willing to risk his presidency
in order to have somebody.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
Do the down and dirty at him.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
So my guess is if he was on the plane.
It was probably because he was going to get some
girls somewhere. Now, if this was some other person, maybe
you got well, I guy, I went on Epstein's jenny
was flat, his jet all over the place.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
He was a guy.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
The other part of the story that I don't know,
Maybe it'll be in the files. Nobody has ever come
up to me, come up to me with a per
persuasive explanation of how Epstein got his money.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
He just suddenly magically became a billionaire.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
There have been all sorts of speculation that he was
an asset of Masad, the Israeli version of the CIA,
that they propped him up with money to get in
tight with people and then report back on what he
learned just a millionaire.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
No one knows.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
And whether or not the truth is ever gonna come
on of this, I doubt again you're gonna classify some
of these documents. Anyway, back to Trump's statement Larry Summers,
who just resigned from many boards, including Harvard Sleeves Bag
political activist Reid Hoffman read Hoffman, Here's something that people
on my side, the Conservatives, are terrible at. We just
(23:21):
do not know how to demonize.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
The other side.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
The moment Musk started supporting Trump and giving money to conservatives,
the left turned him into Satan himself. Reid Hoffman is
one of the three or four giant Democrat donors. He
gave a massive amount of money to political action funds
that are active here in Wisconsin, supported Supreme Court candidates
(23:45):
and so on.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Where did he get his money?
Speaker 2 (23:47):
He founded LinkedIn read Hoffman Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries who
asked Epstein to donate to his campaign after Epstein was charged.
Can you imagine if Trump had asked Epstein for campaign contributions.
Hakeem Jeffries is the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives.
After Epstein was charged, Hakeem Jeffries hit him up for money.
(24:09):
Now you see why this is sticking in Trump's craws,
all these people trying to point the finger at him
because he sent Epstein a golf ball at a pen
and a pen set, Happy birthday or whatever. Democratic Congresswoman
Stacey Plaskett, that's the woman from the Virgin Islands we
discussed there earlier in the week and many more. Perhaps
(24:30):
the truth about these Democrats and their associations with Jeffrey
Epstein will soon be revealed because I have just signed
the bill to release the Epstein files. As everyone knows,
I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and sent
Majority Leader John Thune to pass this bill in the
House and Senate, respectively. Well, everybody doesn't know that Trump
is playing fast and loose with the facts. There He
said he would support passage of the bill once he
(24:52):
realized that it was going to pass. Nonetheless, because of this request,
the votes were almost unanimous in favor of passage. Direction
to the Department of Justice has already turned over close
to fifty thousand pages of documents to Congress. Do not
forget the Biden administration did not turn over a single
file or page related to Democrat Epstein. Let me interject,
and did anyone in the media for the four years
(25:13):
that Biden was the president ever demand that.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
I'm killing you.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
It's like people just discovered that Jeff Deffrey is a
pervert the moment that Donald Trump got inaugurated January twentieth
of this year, Epstein was.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Dead six years prior to that.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
See, as I see, you can see why this stuff
frosts Trump.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Continuing.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Nor did they even ever even speak about him. Democrats
have used the Epstein issue, which affects them far more
than the Republican Party, in order to try to distract
from our amazing victories, including the great, big, beautiful tax
cut bill, strong borders, no men and women's sports are
transgender for everyone, ending DEEI, stopping Biden's record setting inflation,
(26:08):
lowering prices, biggest tax cut regulation cuts in history, ending
eight wars, rebuilding our military, knocking out of RAN's nuclear capability,
getting trillions of dollars invested in the United States, creating
the hottest country anywhere in the world, and even delivering
a huge defeat to the Democrats on the recent shutdown disaster.
And again I'll interject, when you consider the blow up
(26:30):
that Trump's had with Marjorie Taylor Green and so on,
this is the thing that's sticking with him. He's getting
no credit for the incredible first year of his presidency
because no matter what it is that he does, they're
going to try to bring up something to change the subject.
And it's hacking Trump off that you'll see some Republicans
going along with this when he thinks that they're doing
so for self serving purposes. Marjorie Taylor Green wants to
(26:51):
run for the Senate from Georgia. She needs something. Trump
goes on with the state. Continuing on hypocrisy, a couple
of other topics here that play under this. The Texas
(27:11):
Appeals Court ruling striking down the redrawing of congressional districts
in the.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
State of Texas.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
The level of hypocrisy in this story is extraordinary. First
of all, we all know why they redrew the districts
in Texas. They redrew them to make them more favorable
to the Republicans. And a federal appeals panel in Texas
is saying you can't.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Do that since when.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Virtually, not all, but virtually every democratic state in the
country has drawn its districts to favor the Democrats right now,
California just passed the referendum so they can redraw the
districts to favor the Democrats out there. The Supreme Court
itself has already held it is not illegal to draw
districts to favor one part, So the ruling of against
(28:02):
the United States Supreme Court might be overturned.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
But that isn't the point. One of the things that I've.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Argued forever, not only on this podcast, but in my
old radio program is if you simply use the same
tactics that the Democrats use against you against them, they
go nuts. Democrats have jerry mandered forever. So the Republicans okay,
well jerry mander Oh my god. And the thing that's
(28:33):
obnoxious here is when courts come in and say the
Republicans can't do what the Democrats are currently doing. Now
the Appeals Court in Texas to say, well, we don't
have the California case in.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Front of us.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
You have states in the United States that are like
sixty two thirty eight states sixty two percent Democrats, thirty
eight percent Republican where there's one or no members of
the House of Representatives.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
So how can you view this ruling somehow?
Speaker 2 (29:00):
You can't draw political lines, can't draw congressional lines for
political purposes.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
And that's on consider I'm not saying it's good.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
What I am saying it's been going on as long
as we've had districts in this country, and Democrats have
been notoriously for doing it, and no court has ever
said it was illegal, until suddenly the Republicans are brazen
enough to Okay, fine, you're doing it. We're going to
do it too, and finally, this on hypocrisy. Cheryl Hines
(29:31):
is speaking out now. One of the reasons she's speaking
out is she's written a book and she wants to
sell books. But let's face it, she doesn't need to
sell books. I think she's writing her book and then
doing the book tour.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
As the way of.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
I won't say latching back, but responding to the Hollywood
types that are giving her abuse. As far as I
can tell, Cheryl Hines is a lefty to the extent
that she has any political beliefs. She was on Larry
David show. Larry David's like one of the biggest lefties
in the history of show business. My guess is that
if she was not a lefty, she would not have
(30:09):
been hired to be on that show.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I mean, Larry Day. If you watch that.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Show, curb your enthusiasm. Everybody who was on that show
was a friend of Larry David. That's what it all was, right,
And my guess is that Larry David doesn't have any
friends who are conservative, and that's why they had all
those left So Cheryl Hines is probably a lefty to
the extent that she has any political beliefs.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
She married RFK. Do you know what she married RFK? Yeah, fourteen.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Nobody got on her for doing that. It wasn't until
RFK ran for president last year and there was a
fear that he was going to take more votes from
the Democrats and the Republicans. To this day, we don't
know which one decide he would have taken more from that.
I think it's an open question. The people who will
(31:00):
just hate the system and so on, maybe those are
also Trump voters.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
Maybe you a siphon for Trump.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Well, they started attacking her then when he was running
for president, because okay, he's a lifelong Democrat, he's gonna
siphon votes. First it was Biden and then of course Kamala.
Well then he gets out of the race, endorses Trump.
Now he's part of the Trump administration, and suddenly RFK
is the worst person in the world.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
And she's being attacked right and left for being married.
How can you be married? Dan?
Speaker 2 (31:30):
And she's responding on this. She did an interview with
the BBC Take It Back Correction the Times of London.
Times of London quote, I have compassion for those actors
and entertainers who really want people to know where they
stand morally, I suppose, but I've never been one of them.
(31:55):
I've never been a person who has not been politically
and I've been a person who has not been politically inclined.
But it is eye opening to see people really wanting
to till you how much their morals do not line
up with, say, the president administration, because they don't like
(32:17):
hate judgment. She continued, But then that's exactly what they
inflict on other people. We're inclusive, we like everybody regardless
except her. She's married to this guy, and I don't
like that.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
She nailed it.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
All these lefties that are an inclusive, inclusive, inclusive, inclusive,
But suddenly they're not inclusive with Cheryl Hines, even though
she used to be their pal. Why because she's married
to Kennedy. So so much for their whole thing on inclusive.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
Well, you know, we don't.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Like Trump because Trump's all hate and we're loving people.
We're inclusive people. And then she draws a tea to
their hypocrisy.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
They're not inclusive.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
They hate anybody in America who might be Maga or
in the case of Cherylane's married to somebody who's sort
of Magan and Kennedy isn't even really Magan, He's just
in Trump's administration dealing with one specific area.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Anyway, my point to one.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Hypocrisy, the Chryl Hines situation is not unprecedented. We've had
cases in our past in which Republicans have been married
to Democrats, etc. And in this case, I think Kennedy
is still a lefty. He's just more aligned with Trump
on areas of health, suspicion of the pharmaceutical companies, and
(33:42):
so on. I'm coming up with an example. And again,
if you just want to find hypocrisy, just compare everything. Now,
never mind Obama Clinton. These lefties who can't stand Cheryl
Hines because she's married to RFK Junior. How come they
(34:06):
were fine with Carville? James Carville was married to George W.
Bush's chief political strategist, Mary Madeline. They hated Busch, They've
hated everybody. They hated Reagan, they hated the first Bush,
they hated Nixon. I don't know if they hated Isa.
(34:26):
You say it's all Trump. I'm just saying I was.
They hated Reagan. They mocked and ridiculed Reagan. Remember where W.
Bush is the president. They despised him. He's stupid, he
says nuclear wrong, he calls it innuculear. He's an added,
he's starting all these wars. The fact of the matter
(34:47):
is when the prime spouse is on their side, they're
never bothered if that spouse is married to somebody who's
on the other team. Everybody knows that Carville is one
of the principal reasons that Clinton won.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
He ran his campaign.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
James Carrville got a Democrat elected twice, So what do
we care if he's married or a Republican who was
on the other team.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
They didn't care, I think, I said. George W. Bush.
Mary Mattel lives actually strategist for George H. W. Bush
and an advisor later on to George W. Bush.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
But she came of age in the first Bush era.
They hooked up, they married one another. You can go
with numerous other examples of this, and I'm sure you're
going to find some in the future. If some rising
star Democrat happens to be married to a conservative person,
(35:48):
that rising star Democrat is the one they want to
hitch their wagon do it. They're not going to come
up and criticize that the spouse at all. Vanity Fair
magazine is big piece. Friends of Cheryl Hines just do
not understand how she could possibly be doing this, except
she's been doing it for eleven years.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
Rfk's had the same baggage.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
For eleven years. He's a guy who apparently is well.
He appears to be rather horny. He's got a lot
of weird stuff that he does. He's out there shooting
animals in Central Park. This is nothing new about him.
He's been what he.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Was forever and ever and ever. It wasn't in kill.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
He saw an opportunity to address health by going after
institutions because Trump was willing to take him on board
in that area that anyone in Hollywood.
Speaker 3 (36:40):
Got wondering at all about why in the world did.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
Cheryl Heines marry RFK? This whole thing with lefties since
when have they ever looked the other way about anyone
being Look at the number of weirdos that are married
to other weirdos in Hollywood and nobody why would you
marry him?
Speaker 3 (36:58):
Believe it or not, There are people right now now
that are dating Amber Heard. I mean, if watch that trial,
she appears to be to be.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
I just think dating Amber Heard would be the absolute
stupidest thing any male could ever possibly do. First of all,
she's going to beat the hell out of you. Second,
she appears to be She just appears to be a
terribly vile and awful and horrible person. Right when in
Hollywoh how many times? What about all these girlfriends Billy
Bob Thornton had, I don't know what Angelina Julie is thinking.
(37:28):
They've never asked that question. The weirder you are, the
more they've embraced it. But oh, RFK Junior, how could
she do it? What is she thinking?
Speaker 3 (37:43):
You know?
Speaker 2 (37:44):
In Crib Your Enthusiasm she uh For the first half
of the series, she played Larry David's wife, and then
in the show they got divorced. That divorce happened at
the same time that Larry David got divorced in real
life to his real life wife. But in any of it,
you take her fictional life and her real life. In
(38:04):
her real life she's married to RFK Juli're in a
fictional life she's married to Larry David. I think she's
moved up. In her real life. Who's a weirder person
to be married to?
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Seriously?
Speaker 2 (38:17):
I mean RFK appears to be able to do ninety
seven million pushups in all of this stuff, and he's
got all of us here. Larry David is a freaky
old liberal. And plus you just know Larry David's kind
of kinky, don't you. I mean, he he just seems
like he is extremely funny guy. The same lefties that
(38:46):
are outraged at Cheryl Hines were perfectly fine when they
found out that Kamally Harris' husband.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
Beat up a date that he had prior.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
To them being married. Remember when she told her story
about being smacked by him. That story was out there
and it was totally ignored by everybody on the left.
So commonly can be married to a domestic abuser, but
Cheryl Hines can't marry somebody who's in Trump's cabinet without
(39:21):
even I don't even think RFK has endorsed any part
of the Trump agenda other than the single area that
he's involved in, public health and so on. Take a
break on the Mark Belling podcast. This is the Mark
Belling Podcast. I always point out that it's impossible to
(39:41):
exaggerate liberalism. I mean the number of times in which
I've said the next thing, you know, they're going to
when people no mark, they've already done that. You can't
exaggerate it. I've done in the past, like true or
false stories.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Is this story truer? Is it false? And you never know?
It's some ridiculous thing that a liberal has done. Did
I make it up? Or is it true? I don't
know if this.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Exactly falls into the area of liberalism, other than the
story amuses me, because everything about pickleball amuses me. They
have banned pickleball in Carmel, California, banded.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
They've banned it. Do you know why, Paul? Because of
the sound. There's something. There's something about the paddle that
they use and the ball that they use. They didn't make.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
First of all, an any paddle sport like you wouldn't
think that a tennis racket is soft. You wouldn't think
that it would make the noise that it does, but
you could. It sounds like a gun going up and
you're a tennis Well, the picklepball thing is even louder.
Speaker 4 (40:44):
So.
Speaker 2 (40:45):
The Hoiti twities in Carmel, California don't like hearing the
sound of the pickleball being played. Do you understand how
much crime is going on in California. Now I understand,
probably no crime is going on in Carmel. I don't
Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel by the Sea.
I don't know if that's the same city or not.
I don't know if they dropped them by the sea
or if that's a separate city right next by Dora
(41:07):
and all. But there, let's say like a northern California
near the ocean. That's where all of those cities are
and so on. Everything about pickleball just amuses me, just
first of all, mostly because it was a sport that
I think was I don't say it vented. It was
discovered by baby boomers who wanted to continue to do
something athletic but they couldn't do anything else because we're
(41:28):
all broken down. But we didn't want to just like
stand there and walk or something. I mean, it was
like it's like more physically taxing than bowling, kind of
as I'm just saying, but it's not real physically taxing. Plus,
I you've seen some of these people my age play it. Well, yeah,
I'm just saying if you've seen some of them. I
didn't say all of them. I mean, you move more
(41:50):
planned ping pong than I see, especially when you see
them playing they played doubles. Doubles well, I mean, the
court is about as big as my table in here.
You could cover the ground without ever moving your feet.
If you're a tall guy like me, it's all your
I think that's just hilarious that you Toreria and meniscus
playing pickleball.
Speaker 3 (42:10):
That's what you get for playing kickleball. Oh, you're back
in the court. You love it.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
Well, don't try to move to Carmel, California, because they've
banned it. The case of the case of Lawrence Reed.
This is the guy fifty years old who threw some
sort of igniter fluid on a woman on a subway
platform in Chicago, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (42:35):
Fire.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
She's twenty six, she lived. He's been arrested seventy one
times and convicted thirteen times, free on the street. This
is the case with virtually everybody who's arrested in charge
with anything horrible in Chicago. The embrace of the Marxists
(42:59):
in the big cities in America, because they're offered away
free stuff. The thing that you have to the thing
that the people that are voting for it have to accept.
With it is they don't want to lock anybody up ever. Okay, fine,
I get to have my rent for free. But it
also means that if I'm waiting to get on the bus,
(43:20):
somebody can set me on fire and they're not going
to get any do anything to them. That's the bargain
They're going to have to take. The free stuff, of course,
will in time economic collapse because of itself, as it
always has. But the other part of the equation that
nobody's bad. No illegal immigrants can be kicked out of
the country, no criminal can be jailed. We can't even
(43:41):
make if somebody is arrested, they don't even have to
put up any cash for bail.
Speaker 3 (43:44):
That's what you get. Along with all.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
Of that political story from Wisconsin, and a big one.
There are two powerful labor unions in Wisconsin that are
involved in democratic politics, The Teachers'.
Speaker 3 (43:57):
Union and asks ME.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
AFSME is an acronym. They represent the vast majority of
unionized government employees in Wisconsin who aren't teachers state government workers.
Most of them are represented by afsby many municipalities, AFSME
AFSME has endorsed Sarah Rodriguez for governor. This is a
(44:23):
big deal for her. There are eighteen thousand Democrats running
for governor. The big names out of all of them,
I think you can break it into three, maybe four,
But the biggest names are Mendela Barnes, who hasn't declared
yet but he is going to run, Sarah Rodriguez, and
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Some suggest Kelder Roy's because
(44:45):
she's a very well known lefty member of the state
Legislature from Madison, But I'll break it down to the
top three. Getting that endorsement is huge. The other big
one is the Teachers' Union. If we know anything about lefties,
it's they do what they're told for many people, if
you're at a union and your union endorses somebody. Famously,
(45:09):
the Teamsters this past election did not endorse Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
They sat the election out, which drove the lefties crazy.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
But the reality is is that at the head of
the teams who said when he when he spoke at
the Republican Convention, Look, I understand the majority of my
members are going to vote for Trump. Why in the
world are we going to go out there and try
to tell them to do something they don't want to
do whoever the teachers' union endorses. I'm just telling you
the majority of lefty, not non lefty, but the majority
(45:40):
of lefty unionized teachers, that's what they're going.
Speaker 3 (45:42):
To vote for.
Speaker 2 (45:43):
So I think this is a big endorsement for her. Now,
you may wonder why did they do it?
Speaker 3 (45:47):
Now?
Speaker 2 (45:49):
Democratic primary isn't until August the next year. Why don't
you try to weigh in on this. No, no, no, no,
she does run until August and next year. That's what
the Democratic primaries. Why are they endorsing her now?
Speaker 3 (46:06):
Two reasons.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
One, they can start pounding her with money. Now, they
can start running all of their special interest money and
all of their spending on her behalf now. Secondly, so
much of this is a message to Mendela Barnes that
Democrats do not want him to run. They think he's
the one Democrat who would lose. They're just telling Mendela,
(46:28):
we're going to do everything possible to stop you. Don't
jump in. One other story here from Madison. This is
a pretty big story. Exact Systems is it's a biotech
pharmaceutical company.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
They're big. Their big product is one of.
Speaker 2 (46:45):
Those tests that they do for colon cancer screening, colorectal exams,
and so on, which if you're fifty years old, you're
supposed to have your kolidoscopy, you haven't had one. You're
supposed to have that. Everybody who knows that fifty people
seem to dread kolidoscopies. How many of you had thirty
seven of them by now? All the time is they're not.
Speaker 3 (47:07):
That big of a deal.
Speaker 2 (47:08):
People just don't like them because of the part of
the body that they're looking around in right.
Speaker 3 (47:14):
The under.
Speaker 2 (47:15):
Oh yeah, that anything in which they knock you out.
Yeah fine, you want to you know, you want to
like do this? Yeah fine, do I get to get
knocked out?
Speaker 3 (47:26):
You're just looking forward to.
Speaker 2 (47:27):
The weird thing about that kind of knockout, though, is
it's instantaneous, Like you don't like, get drowsy and go under.
You're talking and then you wake up on another table
and when you wake up you're not really drowsy either.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
It's a weird thing. It's like a sa but it's
not like normal kind.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
Of sleeping where you it gradually moves to this and
gradually moves. Let me get to the exact systems story.
Speaker 3 (47:52):
The first thing you know is go to a rest
up because you're a starvy. Well, you're a weirdo.
Speaker 2 (47:57):
That's the The first thing I want to know is
do I have can? What do you find when you
were poking around and mikeyster in there? Yeah, they have
the old line. Well, despite how much of it you had,
you're still full of you know, it's Exact Systems. Anyway,
twenty three billion dollar sale. Exact Systems have been sold
to Abbott. Abbot's a larger pharmaceutical company, so Exact Systems,
(48:19):
the shareholders of that company are cashing outen Exact Systems
has been a growing pharmaceutical company based in Madison. This
is the Mark Belling Podcast.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
This is the Mark.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Belling Podcast, and it's time for our weekly football preview
and some point spread picks. I don't know what's happened
to me in those points spread picks, but I've got
a few minutes here. We're going to talk to Mike
Burlett of American Sports Analysts at Madison first, and I
can use that time to rewire my brain, in which
just a spectacular season I was having has gone right
into the craft or anyway, we've got Mike Maurlette with us.
(48:54):
We're winding into the really important part of the football season,
Thanksgiving us of course next week. About some football today, though, first, Mike,
is there anything you'd like to share about the weekend
doings at ASA.
Speaker 4 (49:06):
I'd say just check us out on ASA wins dot
com tomorrow. We'll kind of know how many games we're
going to have for the weekend, all that kind of
stuff as we make our final decisions on Friday, So
just check the website for different packages, including our top
game package in college. I think we've won two or
three in a row now in college, so take a
look at that on Friday.
Speaker 3 (49:24):
Give me one of them.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
ASA wins dot Com is their website. Let's preview some
football and we'll start as we usually will we do
with college football. There are two games left in the
Wisconsin season, and Wisconsin's going to be an underdog in
both of them. But unlike a lot of the games
they played this year, this one is one in which
(49:46):
they at least have a chance. On Saturday, they're going
to be at Campbrandle and they're going to host Illinois,
a pretty good but not great team for the Big Ten.
There's just a lot of storylines here. Brett Beilama back
in Madison, Wisconsin, with its incredible defense this year, and
as bad an offense as exists anywhere in college football
(50:06):
trying to beat a decent enough team. Give me your
thoughts in this game.
Speaker 4 (50:11):
Well, you talked about as bad an offense as there
is in college football. Wisconsin currently ranks one hundred and
thirty fifth out of one hundred and thirty six teams
in scoring and total offense. So the only team that's
below them in both is UMass, who's easily the worst
team in the entire country. But I'll look at who Wisconsin's.
(50:31):
Wisconsin's probably played the toughest defensive opponents across the schedule
as any team in the country.
Speaker 2 (50:37):
Which not another rating. Obviously, if you played a bunch
of terrible teams, you wouldn't be won.
Speaker 4 (50:41):
Thirty fifth exactly. That's my point here. They've several the
last eight games have been against top twenty five defenses,
and they've already played three of the top four defenses
in the entire country. So can they can they do
something different against Illinois, who's the fourth worst defense in
the in the Big Ten. So now they're playing a
(51:02):
defense that's down a few tiers. It's going to be
interesting to see ken Wisconsin do something on offense. If
they struggle again on offense, I mean they've gone, they've gone.
They haven't topped three hundred yards of total offense since
Middle Tennessee on September sixth. We'll find out a lot
about how their offense is progressing this week, and they
should be able to move the ball against Dillanoi. If
(51:23):
they can't, then they're.
Speaker 2 (51:24):
But they don't have any running backs left now. Gideon Atuco,
who is the number four running back, he's hurd I
mean the Wisconsin offense. I don't know if it's simply
because they've been so poor that so many guys are
getting injured, but they're down to third, fourth, and now
fifth stringers at some key positions.
Speaker 4 (51:42):
They are fifth string running back might get some carries
this week, and their third stringer Dupree played last week,
but he's not even close to one hundred percent, So
they only have two running backs available this weekend. I think, So,
you know, I don't get it. It seems like Wisconsin's much
more injured than other teams. And it's not just this year.
It's been the last two or three years. Across the
(52:02):
offensive line, quarterbacks, running backs, it seems like they have
a ton of injuries. I don't know if that's just
bad luck or or either not training correctly or what the
deal is, but that's been a thing that's gone on
since Fickle's been here.
Speaker 2 (52:14):
One other team game to focus on in college football
is also from the Big Ten. This game used to
be a game in the Pac Ten, but now it's
in the Big Ten, and I think it's the most
interesting other game of the weekend.
Speaker 3 (52:25):
USC is at Oregon.
Speaker 2 (52:29):
Neither of these teams have much of a chance to
get into the Big Ten title game because Ohio State
and Indiana are both unbeaten and they don't play one another.
But Oregon has just the one loss in the league
and USC is a team that is kind of on
the fringe of still getting a chance to get into
the twelve team college football playoff. Oregon is favored in
(52:51):
the game by nine and a half at Oregon, but
you have two really good teams. Oregon's lost one game
this year and USC has lost two.
Speaker 3 (52:59):
They both are in the Ten. It's a pretty fat
point spread, and there's a perception I guess that Oregon's
that much better than USC. Do you think they are?
Speaker 4 (53:09):
You know, at home, Oregon's awfully good. They're twenty four
and two at home since Landing took over. But they
did lose to Indiana this year. That seems like a
halfty number. Let's put it this way. If it was
ten or ten and a half, I might consider USC.
I mean, that's a huge game playoff wise for both teams.
The rankings came out for the playoffs this week again
the new rankings, Oregon was seventh and USC was fifteenth,
(53:32):
so just outside.
Speaker 2 (53:33):
Yeah, so if Oregon loses, they could fall out of
the top twelve, but maybe USC could move into it.
Speaker 4 (53:40):
Yeah, And if USC wins out, I think they're in
because USC beats Oregon here. Then they play Ucla next week,
which they'll be a.
Speaker 2 (53:46):
Happy they'll destroy them. That's a cross city battle, but
Ucla is terrible.
Speaker 3 (53:49):
They'll kill them.
Speaker 4 (53:50):
Yeah, so this is their game. I mean, if they
win this game, they're probably in the playoffs. Oregon same situation.
If Oregon loses this, they'll have two losses and then
they play at Washington next week, which is not going
to be easy. So they got a much tougher route.
Should be a great game. One thing to note on
this game, they've gone back you mentioned back to the
PAC twelve, but the outright winner in this game. So
(54:14):
if you just pick the winner, they've covered thirteen to
the last fourteen meetings. So just pick who you think
is going to win the game historically, and that's who
covers in this game. Landing's been good at home seventeen
to nine against the spread since he took over, but
USC since Riley took over, has been seventy percent as
an underdog. Just a great game. I think it's going
to be. It's gonna be a fun watch this weekend.
Speaker 2 (54:34):
When I was doing well in these picks, I had
the first two weeks of the season, I picked USC
and one both times I really thought about it as
my hon air pick here getting the nine and a half.
If it was ten, I'd do.
Speaker 4 (54:47):
It, yep.
Speaker 2 (54:48):
But I'm not going to do it at nine and
a half because when you're feeling snake bitch, that half
point just might kill you. I mean, you're right, Oregon
is very very good at home. I think that these
teams are really close, though I also know I was
an opponent of expanding the college football playoff beyond two
teams what it was four epsite opponent of expanding it,
(55:09):
and I really despise it now because it's killing the
regular season. It's killing conference is nobody's even paying attention
to who's winning a conference?
Speaker 3 (55:16):
Are you in? Are you win? Are you in? Or
are you you in?
Speaker 2 (55:19):
And in the meantime, they've got these rankings that come
out each week, and I think they're completely screwed up
when you talk when they're talking about Tulane being on
the bubble of getting into this and then one of
USC or Oregon not getting in. They've expanded all of us,
supposedly to end all of these arguments, and they just
made the arguments. I think words, let's turn our attention
(55:40):
over to the NFL right now, and I think one
of the obvious games to focus on is the Green
Bay game. The Packers play the Vikings in a game
in which Minnesota is probably one of the more disappointing
teams in the NFL this year. The only thing that
I would give them any credit on is they're in
a tough division, the NFC North, and one team has
(56:02):
to you know, it's the same thing in the NFC West.
Speaker 3 (56:05):
Somebody's got to be bad.
Speaker 2 (56:06):
When all of those teams are in the same division,
somebody's got to take some losses, and Minnesota seems to
be that team. Green Bay continues to win. They're six
to three and one. They just don't pass the eye test.
Last week they were favored by seven, they won by seven.
The Packers are favored this week by about six and
a half against Minnesota. Minnesota's got terrible quarterback problems. I mean,
(56:27):
I don't know if they're willing to admit it yet,
but I just think that choosing JJ McCarthy with the
twelve pick in the draft a couple of years ago
is an absolute mistake. So you got a bad quarterback
in situation with Minnesota, But otherwise Minnesota may match green
Bay for talent everywhere else other than the quarterback position.
What do you think about the game?
Speaker 4 (56:45):
Yeah, this line opened five and a half and it's
up to six and a half. You mentioned about green
Bay doesn't pass the eye test. The Packers, as far
as the spread goes, have been completely overvalued over the
last two months. They're one in seven against the spread
their last eight games, and if you look at the
season as a whole, when they're a favorite of more
than three points. They're zero to six against the spread
(57:07):
Green Bays this year, so they're overvalued right now. You
talked about the Vikings quarterback situation. McCarthy's bad. I mean,
he's played maybe one good half the entire season. He's
last in completion percentage. He doesn't qualify for the QBR rating.
He hasn't played enough, but he'd be dead last in that.
Green Bay has to get some turnovers. This is the week.
(57:30):
They had seventeen interceptions last year. They have five this year.
Speaker 3 (57:34):
Well, they dropped five last week.
Speaker 2 (57:36):
Now, they won the game because they got a really
great pick at the end of the game, but they
dropped a zillion. I mean, that's the reason the turnover
margin is what it is. They're dropping the turnovers that
they're able to get. If the defensive backs and hang
out of the balls that are being thrown into their hands,
the turnover.
Speaker 3 (57:53):
Margin would be higher. But you are right, it.
Speaker 2 (57:56):
Is set up for turnovers. The Packers have a very
good pass rush and McCarthy has really struggled at quarterback,
which should help the Packers have a chance to get
a couple of interceptions.
Speaker 4 (58:06):
Yeah, I mean He's sawing at least two interceptions and
three of his five starts, So if green Bay doesn't
get an interception, they're going to have their opportunities this week.
I would say I'm away. I'm not in on this
game at all. Green Bay should win this by a
touchdown or more. They really should. With their offense, is
that much better than the Vikings defense is better statistically,
all the Vikings have a decent defense, But I don't
(58:27):
trust the Packers. There's no way family in six and
a half of the three. Now.
Speaker 2 (58:31):
The Packers have benefited from getting Christian Watson back, but
he's one of several wide receivers and the loss of
Tucker Craft.
Speaker 3 (58:38):
They're just a different team that went from yeah, maybe.
Speaker 2 (58:41):
The best tight end and all of football to as
bad a tight end play as there is. I mean,
Musgrave has not stepped up at all. A couple of
other guys that have been there catch a pass here
and there the other game this weekend. I think this
is one of the most interesting games of the season.
Indianapolis is playing Kansas City. Kansas City in real jeopardy
(59:03):
of missing the playoffs. Indianapolis is the number one ranked
offense in the entire National Football League and as a
spectacular record. Despite that, despite the fact that Kansas City
is only five and five and Indianapolis is destroying teams,
the Chiefs are favored by three and a half at home.
That line is clearly telling us something. I've watched almost
(59:27):
all the games Kansas City has played, and I know
they're five and five. I look at them and they
look to me better than they did last year when
they went to the Super Bowl. I mean, talk about
the eye test.
Speaker 3 (59:38):
Visually, they look really good.
Speaker 2 (59:39):
And you know, they've been winning ugly the last couple
of years, and now they're if you can lose pretty,
they're losing pretty. Indianapolis, in the meantime, has a tremendous
offense and not much of a defense. They go into
Kansas City and what's really a must win game for
the Chiefs. They can't fall the five and six.
Speaker 4 (59:56):
No, this is a much much bigger game for Kansas City.
And here are some stats for remark. You hit it
right on the head. Okay, So Kansas City has a
better stats this year yards per play, yards per game,
points per game allowed, points per game scored than they
did last year when they were fifteen and two. Here's
an interesting stat for you. This puts it in perspective.
(01:00:19):
Last year they finished the year fifteen and two and
their point differential was plus fifty nine points with a
fifteen and two record. This year, they're five and five
and their point differentials plus seventy three.
Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
So they've outscored the opponents more already this year than
all of last year when they went fifteen and two,
even though they're five and five. Another and the only
way that can happen is you lose a lot of
close games and when you win, you kill the opponent.
Speaker 4 (01:00:46):
Well, there you go. Last year, Kansas City was twelve
and zero in one score games. This year they're zer
one to five and one score games. They went from
the best close game team to the worst close game
team in one year. They've lost two games. Here's a
couple of interesting stats too. They've lost two games in
a row. Mahomes has never lost three games straight in
his NFL career as a starter. Never never happened. So
(01:01:10):
that's an interesting point. Indies. Really, I think Indy's good.
I don't know how good they are because six of
their eight wins have come against Tennessee twice Arizona at
Land in Las Vegas, Miami. Those teams have a combined
thirteen wins. Between those six teams all our three games,
the low five hundred are better, and against teams that
are five hundred are better. Colts are two and two
(01:01:30):
this year. We'll find out this week. This is a huge,
huge game for Kansas City, which is why they're favored
by a little bit more than three.
Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:01:37):
I mean everything that you mentioned, all the oddsmakers are
clearly aware of, and the betting public I think is
aware of it as well. It's just unusual they have
a team that's got so much better of a record
to be that large of an underdog other than everyone
is of the perception, and we'll find out if it's correct.
The Indianapolis is nowhere near as good as this record,
(01:01:58):
and Kansas City is way better than the record that
they have. Time for some points spread picks, Oh my goodness.
I thought South Florida would beat maybe by more than ten.
Speaker 3 (01:02:08):
They lost the game.
Speaker 2 (01:02:10):
Maybe somehow put up forty one points. I don't know
where that came from. They beat South Florida forty one
to thirty eight. So I was six and two in
this contest. I'm now six and six. Paul took the
forty nine ers to beat the Cardinals by more than three,
and they beat him by nineteen, so that was a win.
And Mike took Michigan State to cover a seven and
a half point spread against Penn State, and that didn't
(01:02:30):
work out. Penn State, which is finally awakened and is
back to the team that people thought was a top
five team in the country in the preseason polls. They
won that game by eighteen. All right, let's get to
some point spread picks for this weekend. Paul, you get
to go first, the Bears and the Steelers. Now, Paul
(01:02:51):
usually takes games I don't have an opinion on. I
studied this game inside out and upside down, and I'm
not going to make a pick on it. But I
will tell you that the point spread is two and
a half. The game is in Chicago. We're talking about
Kansas City.
Speaker 3 (01:03:07):
That two and a half.
Speaker 2 (01:03:10):
The Bears are favored by two and a half. We
talked about how Kansas City keeps losing all of these
games that they seem to win. This should be in
a position to win. The Bears have come from behind
in the last two minutes. Five weeks in a row,
they're plus fourteen in turnovers. There are so many times
that the Bears have seasons like this. I think about
the Super Bowl year, the year that they went to
(01:03:31):
the Super Bowl and lost to Indy, they ran every
kick back for a touchdown. That's when Devin Hester was
freaking out. They had numerous pickstand a tremendous turnover ratio.
I talk about the eye test. The Bears just didn't
look that good that year. They just seem to have
seasons like this. Now they play Pittsburgh with Rogers banged up.
I think he's still listed as questionable game time decision.
(01:03:53):
Now you have the thing of Aaron Rodgers, as I
think he pointed out when he's wearing a Green Bay
uniform that he claims.
Speaker 3 (01:03:59):
To own the Bears.
Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
You started talking, well, yeah, I think that that ownership
might have had something to do with the uniform that
he was wearing at the time.
Speaker 3 (01:04:07):
That he can't just PLoP it on and claim that ownership.
Speaker 2 (01:04:09):
Anyway, I thought a lot about picking the Bears, and
that's I want to hear Paul's point, and in the end,
I've decided that I'm going to stay away from the game.
It just seems at some point these things even out
and the Bear's luck has to wear out. But I
think it's actually a better situation for Chicago than it
(01:04:31):
is for Pittsburgh, with Rogers being banged up, Chicago playing
at home, et cetera. Paul's is Mason Rudolph's the backup
quarterback Pittsburgh. The thing it is is that Rogers is
the best quarterback they've had over there since Ben Roethlisberger,
and their backups aren't that good.
Speaker 3 (01:04:48):
They're six and four, So where are we going? Paul?
Speaker 2 (01:04:53):
Seven of eight they won momentum. You know that of
those seven that they won, they probably should have lost
six of them. They then why are you taking them?
Paul said, they are the real deal. It will seal
their legitimacy. I kind of agree with Paul, but I'm
(01:05:13):
not sure.
Speaker 3 (01:05:14):
What do you think, Mike?
Speaker 4 (01:05:16):
I man Chicago is in their seven wins, they're plus
twenty turnovers. That's insane, that's unheard of. That's plus three
a game. You don't lose games in the NFL when
you're plus three turnovers. It's almost impossible. That's why they've
won seven games in a row or seven games.
Speaker 2 (01:05:34):
Part of that, though it needs to be credited to
Caleb Williams for not throwing picks.
Speaker 4 (01:05:38):
True, can they keep doing that? I mean, Pittsburgh's kind
of the same. Last week is a close game against Cincinnati.
They get an eighty yard pick six and then a
fumble recovery for a touchdown.
Speaker 2 (01:05:47):
They were won by twenty two, but it was really
a more even game.
Speaker 4 (01:05:50):
You're right, So they're kind of the same type of teams. Man,
I have no Chicago. If Chicago evers even or lose
the turnover battle, they're they're gonna get smoked at some point.
But they keep doing it, so at some point you
have to say, are they going to keep doing that?
They that might be the case. No opinion this game whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
Yeah, there's a weird schedule in the NFL. The Packers
still have their two games of Chicago. They're backloaded at
the end of the season, and they played just a
couple of weeks apart at the end of the season,
and that's going to determine whether or not not only
green Bay wins the division, but perhaps whether or not
green Bay makes the playoffs or Chicago makes the playoffs. Sorry,
time to get a pick from Mike. Where are we going?
Speaker 4 (01:06:29):
Let's go, Let's go to college. I'm gonna go a
Friday night game. Actually first, Hawaii at UNLV on Friday.
Speaker 2 (01:06:36):
Yeah, that's kind of an interesting game. Hawaii is finally
good again. Their quarterback whether their coach is the guy
who was the quarterback the last time they were good,
Timmy Chang. They've been winning a lot of games. UNLV
had a coaching change in the offseason, but they got
a pretty big name coach over there on Dan Mullen,
and they've played pretty good.
Speaker 3 (01:06:57):
They're probably two of the four.
Speaker 2 (01:06:59):
Best teams in the Mountain in West Conference. I'm seeing
all of this stuff because I'm stalling because I can't here.
It is. UNLV is at home. It's always an odd
place you un be at home. They usually have more
opponent fans that are there, but probably not this time
because the opponent is Hawaii. That's a weird thing. Hawaiian's going. Well,
if you're in Hawaii, where would you go on vacation?
(01:07:19):
Probably Las Vegas, right, Yeah, I mean you don't think
of people who live in Hawaii going on vacation because
they're in the place. But the same thing I guess
is true about Las Vegas. When people live in Las Vegas,
where do they go? They can't go to Vegas because
they're already all right, what you Vegas is an UNLV
is favored by three points of the game.
Speaker 4 (01:07:39):
I'm taking Hawaii plus three in that game.
Speaker 3 (01:07:41):
Yeah, Hawaii's they're pretty good.
Speaker 2 (01:07:45):
I'm that usual program because obviously travels an issue over there.
Recruiting is a mixed bag. They're not part of any
area where there's any football strength. On the other hand,
when a kid gets an offer to go tuition free
to a college and play Major Division one college football.
Speaker 3 (01:08:04):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
I mean, I think I might pick Hawaii over hanging
around and say at Minnesota or Iowa City. So they're
pretty good team this year. But UNLV isn't bad either.
I want to hear your reasons for taking Hawaii.
Speaker 4 (01:08:16):
Yeah, Hawaii's batter team this year. They're definitely better in
the situation is perfect. Hawaii had a week off last week,
so they had two weeks to get ready for this
game prior to the bye week at home against San
Diego State, who is the best team in the Mountain One,
one of.
Speaker 2 (01:08:31):
The est defenses in America. They're really good on defense.
Speaker 4 (01:08:35):
Hawaii beat San Diego State thirty eight to six.
Speaker 2 (01:08:39):
The fact that you were going on thirty eight on
the defense is to be impressive.
Speaker 4 (01:08:42):
And their offense has been good, and they held their
offense down. The Hawaii's undervalue. They've won five games this
year as an underdog outright, so they continue to be undervalued.
Take a look at UNLV's got a good record, but
take a look at their home games. They haven't won
a home game by more than seven. In the Mountain West,
they beat Air Force, who's bad, by three. They lost
(01:09:05):
to New Mexico. And last week they beat Utah State
and double overtime by three, who's not good. Now they
play in a short week, playing on Friday. Hawaii had
a bye last week. Hawaii's defense, the offenses are close.
They're both over four hundred yards. UNLV has a little edge.
Hawaii's defense is one hundred yards per game better than UNLV's.
(01:09:27):
I think Hawaii wins this game out right, So I'm
gonna take plus three in that game.
Speaker 3 (01:09:31):
Okay, that's an interesting pick.
Speaker 2 (01:09:32):
That game is, as Mike said Friday night, and it's
a later start, as you might guess, but not too late,
because I've lost four games on a O I'm scrambling
in every idea that I have. I'm kind of second
guess again. I mentioned a couple of the games that
I thought about a lot. In fact, I'm not going
to take this game, but the other game that I
was going to ask Mike about in our preview, and
(01:09:54):
I chose a different game instead. I think it's a
really good game tonight, the Thursday night game full of
plays Houston. Houston started zero to three and they've been
outstanding since then. Their defense is really really good. In
the meantime, Buffalo's offense is spectacular. The line is five
and a half. I was really thinking about taking Houston
(01:10:15):
in the game. Davis Mills is going to be the
quarterback because but Strouds missed two games already and they
won with him. Anyway, I just moved against it. And
the following pick is I kind of hinted at it earlier.
There are several divisions in which if you're one of
four teams and the other three teams are great, you know,
it's really hard for four teams to have a winning
(01:10:36):
record in a division because there's so many teams that
play one another. I'm looking at Arizona, a team that's
three and seven, and I'm going to take them as
a three point underdog against Jacksonville. Now, Jacksonville's in a
conference that isn't all that strong itself once you get
past Indianapolis, but I admit they've played a decent enough
schedule the Jaguars have, and they've scored a lot of points.
(01:10:57):
I just think that Arizona at three and se maybe
better than people think. And I've got somewhere in here
they're scheduled it I should rattle I have it or not.
Maybe I don't, But the schedule that Arizona has played,
they're playing an outstanding team every week, and they're playing
the best offenses in the NFL. They lost last week
(01:11:18):
in the game that Paul mentioned, but San Francisco is
really good. I think this is a bigger game for
them than it is for Jacksonville. Maybe Arizona's already out
of it and they don't have a chance here, but
this is a team that's finally in a position with
a beatable opponent. Jacksonville's won a few games this year,
but two three points and maybe sitting on a loss
(01:11:38):
and I just like the fact that Arizona is getting
the full three points at home against the Jaguars, and
I think that the Cardinals I'm not saying. I do
have the listing over here. I want to quickly rattle
through who Arizona's played, and you understand whether three and seven.
This is going backwards, starting with last week and going
backward after that. San Francisco, Seattle, Ellis, Green Bay, Indianapolis,
(01:12:02):
an easy game against Tennessee and before that Seattle, San
Francisco again and then starting the season with Carolina New Orleans.
Speaker 3 (01:12:09):
New Orleans is not that.
Speaker 2 (01:12:10):
Cool, but that's just they're playing a lot of really
good teams. Also, the backup quarterback Presette looks like he's
going to play again.
Speaker 3 (01:12:17):
He threw last.
Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
Week and the game the pulpic were set through for
four hundred and fifty two yards. Now, part of that
is they were behind, so they're a passing every play
but throwing for four hundred and fifty two yards against
the defense like San Francisco, even though the score was lopsided.
There's something to be said for that. And I think
that Arizona's going to win the game outright. It's of
all the games that I had out there. It's the
(01:12:39):
one I guess I feel most confident, in part because
I'm getting the three point pad.
Speaker 3 (01:12:43):
Any thoughts in that game, Mike, Well, I agreed.
Speaker 4 (01:12:46):
With you last week and we didn't use it, but
that game law, So maybe you don't want me to
agree with you, but I agree this is a game
we're strongly considering this week with Arizona. First of all,
if you looked at it, I know, I know there
are comments from behind, But if you looked at the
final stats last week, I know had Paul had San Francisco,
but Arizona had four hundred and eighty eight yards to
(01:13:06):
two hundred and eighty for San Francis. Right, they got up,
gained by well over two hundred yards and won the
game by almost twenty I don't know if I've ever
seen that. In the NFL, Arizona five of their seven
losses has come by four points or less. Jacksonville is
coming off a huge win against the Chargers, which wasn't
a great spot Chargers going across the country. There's no
(01:13:29):
way on land points on the road with Jacksonville. Don't
think they're that good. To be honest with you, and
I agree, I think Arizona is a good chance to
win this game.
Speaker 2 (01:13:35):
Okay, those are our selections. Recapping real quickly, Paul. It's
hard to argue against Paul because the Bears keep winning.
I mean, if the Bears are down by four points
with a minute of ten seconds left in the game,
I don't even care if they have the ball, They're
going to get a touchdown and win the game by
three points. So they're gonna it's they're doing every single
single week. Posts they finally got a coach, but they
(01:13:57):
are winning games that they've been all played for fifty
eight minutes. It just it's true. Part of me kind
of hopes, and eventually teams like that get their come
up and often it's the end the postseason when a
team that over it, like the ven Vikings a couple
of years ago were overachieving the turnover margin and knocked
out of the playoffs. I'm hoping their come upance is
(01:14:19):
that they get beaten twice by.
Speaker 3 (01:14:21):
The Packers later out of the season.
Speaker 2 (01:14:23):
But the way the injuries are going in the NFL,
who even knows what will happen by them.
Speaker 3 (01:14:28):
Hey, Paul's taking that pick. I guess I agree.
Speaker 2 (01:14:30):
With him, but I just worry that the Bear's luck's gonna,
you know, wear down. In one week, Mike takes Hawaii
to either beat UNLV or lose by three or less,
and I have the same point spread getting three points
as I take Arizona against Jacksonville any of the Cardinals
to win or lose by less than three points. That's
our podcast. We'll be back next week for Thanksgiving Week podcasts.
Speaker 1 (01:14:57):
The Mark Belling podcast is a production of Eye Heart
Radio Podcasts. Production and engineering by Paul Kronforest. The Mark
Billing podcast is presented by you Line for quality shipping
and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock. Visit
you line dot com. Listen to all of Mark's podcasts,
always available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
(01:15:19):
you listen to your favorite podcasts.
The Markbelling Podcast is presented by you Line for quality
shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
If today's podcast has a theme, it's hypocrisy. Every one
of the topics that I have in the first segment here,
hypocrisy is the driving really idea in that topic. We're
going to start with Jeffrey Epstein. You can't discuss the
(00:52):
Epstein story without addressing just the hypocrisy that overwhelms every
part of it. There isn't an aspect to this story,
and there's a lot of aspects, but there isn't one
of them in which the hypocrisy doesn't overwhelm anything else
(01:16):
that you would be discussing about it. Congress voted and
Trump signed authorization to release the files. Already, there's one
scalp throughout this whole thing. Other than Epstein himself and
(01:41):
Julianne Maxwell, the only person really to suffer any consequences
been Prince Andrew, who's sort of kicked out of the
royal family. Now there's a second Larry Summers Democrat administration hack.
When we're head of Harvard now a Harvard professor. He's
resigning from everything, taking leaves of absence, resigning from nine
(02:04):
hundred boards, from everything, and it's clear he's going to
disappear from public view now. Larry Summers has been implicated
forever as being one of the people that supposedly had
visited Epstein Island. But because there's never been any proof
of anything, and nobody's ever been charged, none of these people,
as they say, other than Prince Andrew River, has suffered
any consequences. But obviously Summers realizes that when these documents
(02:31):
are released, there's going to be really damning stuff on him.
It's another there's number two. In the meantime, there are
two words that just scream out at this whole story,
and I think that they drive the hypocrisy that's in it.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
The first word is Bill and the second word is Clinton.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
We're going to pick up at that element of the
story in a moment here. When it comes to shipping packaging,
industrial supplies and equipment, many suppliers offer endless siles of product.
U Line knows what you can't do with endlessiles of
product to test the quality of each product, ensure everything
is in stock and ready to ship the same day,
and have a team available twenty four to seven to
(03:22):
answer your product questions.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
You Line only.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Carries supplies and equipment they have tested, pride and often
use in their own business. Experience the U line difference today.
Visit you line dot com. So there's this vote in
Congress virtually unanimous. I think one member of the House
voter no. The Senate passed the unanimously Trump sign the bill.
(03:49):
Now let's start with releasing all of these files. First
of all, this is obviously a dubious thing to do.
We don't normally release all of the files in a
criminal investoration. Let's take Epstein out of this and just
imagine that we're investigating some other crime somewhere. The cops
(04:14):
talk to nine thousand different people. There are all sorts
of people who may be questioned who didn't do it,
others that may be questioned who might have been involved,
and then you pick up all sorts of other stuff
that's extraneous to the actual thing they're investigating. Well, all
that stuff's in the files. In addition to that, I'm
(04:38):
just telling you right now, when they do the dump
of this, there are going to be people who come
out and say, but we want more, we want more,
we want more. And that's because the government has already
said that some of this stuff is going to be classified,
and people aren't gonna like, oh, what, what's classified?
Speaker 3 (04:55):
What are you hiding in the classified?
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Nonetheless, we're going to get what we're going to get.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Here's how this story is going to play out.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Any name that shows up, without regard to whether they
were traveling to the island.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Or if they once played golf.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
With Jeffrey Epstein, if that person is a Republican, their
name is going to be in headlines that they're going
to be tired. And every person in there who is
a Democrat, the story is going.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
To not appear very much.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
It doesn't matter what any of them do. But every
Republican is going to be highlighted without regard to whether
or not they did anything inappropriate sexually with children, And
every Democrat, including those that were the worst pedophiles possible,
if they're already, will be swept away. But that's par
for the course all the time, and it's part of
(05:51):
the hypocrisy in the story.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
But we can't stop at that hypocrisy.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I've got several bullet points that I want to hit
on here, the unfortunately named James Comer. People mix him
up with James Comy in part they're both weird last names.
I don't know anybody else's last name is Comy other
than James Comy, and I don't think any know anybody
else's last name was.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
Comber other than James Comer.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
James Comer is the Republican chairman of the House Committee
on Investigations. Comy, of course, is the former FBI director
who's a crook. James Comer says that both Bill and
Hillary Clinton have ignored every request for information and subpoena
(06:38):
that has been given to them with regard to their
investigation of Epstein. Now let's pause on that for a moment.
Although you know who Steve Bannon is. Do you know
who Steve Bannon is? Peter Navarro's another name. He was
(06:59):
Trump trade advisor and administration number one. As every left
he will tell you. They both went to prison. Do
you know why they went to prison?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Most people don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
For refusing to cooperate with the congressional investigation. They defied
congressional subpoenas because they felt that the investigation was bogus.
Bannon went to prison for it, so did Navow.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
If out it four months, bannited longer.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
So if the Clintons refused to cooperate with the investigation
into Epstein, are we gonna put them in prison?
Speaker 3 (07:40):
If not? Why not? And this is again the point.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
About the entire hypocrisy thing anybody connected to Trump, it
didn't matter what it was, that they would simply look
for some sort of example of wrongdoing and use it
to lock them up, even if the wrong doing isn't
that wrong or common. Should the Clintons be locked up
(08:10):
if they don't answer a congressional request for information or
a subpoena on Epstein? Now we all know why Bill
and Hillary Clinton don't want to testify before Congress on Epstein.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
How does Bill Clinton under.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Oath answer the question about what did you do on
those twenty six times that you flew on Jeffrey Epstein's
private jet? And Hillary Clinton doesn't want to answer the
question about did you know that Bill Clinton flew on
Jeffrey Epstein's private jet twenty six times? Neither of them
want to answer that question. For one thing lying under
oath is how they nail all of these people. They
certainly don't want to plead the thefts because while neither
(08:50):
of them is a political future and Bill Clinton doesn't
seem to have much of a future at all, their
reputations are at stake here.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Now.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
From the perspective of I think most Democrats, the Clintons
are in the rearview mirror, Mom, Donnie and AOC. That's
what's in the wind looking out the front windshield, the
rear view of that.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Clinton's our hatstory. Hillary's never going to be anything again.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
And if Bill has his reputation tarnished, what do most
Democrats care? They don't, so they're willing to sacrifice whatever
comes out with regard to the role of the Clintons,
Jeffrey Epstein as they try to use this thing to
somehow get something somewhere on Trump, even though every indication
(09:38):
out there is that Donald Trump didn't have anything to
do with the shenanigans involving Epstein and underage girls. If
there were many that were underage, very unclear. It's not
how many of them were underage, because Eve only identified
by name. Really, Jeuffrey is about the only one that
we know for certain. There are a couple of others
who've testified. But otherwise, all these other girls and women
(10:01):
that were we don't know who they are, much less
what their ages were. But if there had been any
indication Trump had ever been to that island, we would
have had it by now. It's well, Trump knew him here,
and Trump said something here, and Trump said on a
golf ball. At one point in the meantime, Jeffrey has
said Donald Trump was the guy that tried to caution
people not to come down there. Nonetheless, from the perspective
(10:24):
of the left, they're going after this thing just because
they think somehow they can embarrass Trump.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
Which brings me to the second part of the hypocrisy.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
This overwhelming, virtually unanimous vote in the Congress to release
the files. When could they have done this. They could
have done this last week. They could have done this
last month. They could have done this last year. They
could have done this in twenty twelve, twenty three. Do
you know how old the Epstein case is. Epstein was
(11:06):
first sentenced twenty years ago, and then the case was
revisited in the last decade, and then revisited again with
the Julane Maxwell charges and then Epstein committing his suicide.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
If that's what it was.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
The Congress never voted overwhelming they released files. No again,
I'm not saying that these files shouldn't be released. I
do think that just dumping thousands of pages of investigatory
files can lead to shenanigans with regard to the people
that are reporting on them, because ninety eight percent of
(11:44):
the stuff and investigatory files don't lead to anything that's criminal.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
But if they have to be out there, and they're
out there, fine.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
The point that I'm making is the timing of all
of this is the whole way of understanding the story.
Put it this way, if Kamala Harris had been elected
last year in twenty twenty four, it may well be
that Republicans would still be voting to release the Epstein files.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Would any Democrats have been voting to do it.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
There doesn't seem to be any connection between Kamala Harris
and Jeffrey Epstein, So why would they not be voting
for that? Because I suspect their great fear if she
was the president is we're gonna go back and we're
gonna look at all of the stuff that's gonna be
embarrassing to other Democrats. Now they're willing to roll that
dice because somehow they think that they can get something
(12:39):
on Donald Trump. Nowhere in here from anybody involved, anybody
does there seem to be any actual concern about what
it was that happened with regard to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
And to this day, I don't know how much happened.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Part of me thinks that a whole lot of people
went down to that island. There may have been two
a small percentage of the women that were under age,
and some of the creeps may have had sex with.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Them and most may not.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
I don't know, though, It's weird how unspecific all of
the people who are there, and Jewfrey herself, when she
started naming names, had to retract that she named Dershowitz,
and then she later said, I guess I got that wrong.
None of the other women have really spilled the names
on anything other than every single person seems to be
(13:31):
convinced that Prince Andrew was there. He's the one guy
that has no deniability. I'm guessing Larry Summers not doesn't
have any deniability either.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Let's get to the next part of this.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
ABC News yesterday was Porter was grilling Trump on the
whole Epstein thing. Okay, now you're gonna sign the bill?
Speaker 3 (13:53):
What change or change a change. It was only a
couple of months.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Ago that a hidden camera, hidden microphone video was released
of an ABC News reporter bitching that she had the
entire Epstein story in twenty sixteen and was obstructed by
ABC for three years and they wouldn't let her report it.
(14:26):
The ABC reporter you know these Project Vera tests videos,
what Project Vera tess does, And you can argue it's
unethical or maybe it's ethical, whatever way you want to
believe on it. They'll have somebody with a hidden camera
and a hidden microphone poses. For instance, they'll go to
like a bar, and the bar or the meeting as
a party involving a bunch of lefties, and they'll post
as a lefty and try to suck up and start
(14:46):
talking to people. And they've been very, very successful, and
people start spilling the beans because they don't know that
they're talking to a conservative undercover operative. They think that
they're talking to a fellow lefty. So they walked up
to an ABC reporter and got her to rant and
rave that ABC News spiked all of her coverage of
(15:08):
Epstein years ago, she suspects because they were trying to
protect the Clintons, which brings me to the next element
(15:30):
of the hypocrisy. Jeffrey Epstein's story is decades old. It's
now in every media outlet that exists.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Where were they all this time?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Why is Epstein suddenly to them interesting and newsworthy again?
It's complete hypocrisy. There have been people on the right end,
even some of the left two for years have been
suggesting that a sweet art deal was done for Epstein
and that.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
The story was swept under the wrong.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Because a lot of rich and powerful people, mostly left
its elites, were involved in the behavior with Epstein, and
nobody would pay attention to it.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Nobody would pay attention to it went through Republican.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Administration's democratic administrations, and you couldn't get media attention on
it at all. But suddenly now Epstein is the beginning, middle,
and end of the world. Nothing in the Epstein store
has changed because Epstein's dead. There are no more parties.
Every bit of wrongdoing occurred many years ago. Suddenly ABC
(16:47):
is brilling Trump. ABC the same outlet that spiked apparently
a lot of information that one of their own reporters
had and wouldn't Letter report it for three years. This
to me is reminiscent of the Ronan Pharaoh expose on Weinstein,
the big Hollywood movie studio owner ronand Farall was working for.
(17:11):
And Ronan Faraoh is the son of Mia Farrell terrible
relationship with me A's ex partner, Woody Allen, who most
people now think is not actually his father. The older
you get, the more you start looking like your father.
And every year that passes, Ronan Pharaoh looks more and
(17:33):
more like Frank Sinatra, who Mia Farall was married to
in the sixties and apparently had a fling with twenty
years later.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
And some people say he looks a little like Woody Allen.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
I think that very I don't know how you could
look like both Woody Allen and Frank Sinatra. I mean,
can you come up with two more opposite look I mean,
but what if you like see but see? Mia Farrell
was weird looking herself, so her appearance in their muddy
as the whole anyway. Ronan Farrell had the Weinstein story
when he was working for NBC. NBC refused to let
(18:06):
him report it, so he ended up reporting the story
for another news organization, Weinstein went to prison, etc.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
It's the same thing.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Media outlets that not only don't cover a story, have
the story and suppress it. Suddenly when it gets out,
try to get up on a high horse and say
and demand that others what about this story? What about
this story? What about this story? When they themselves are
the ones that were covering the story up hypocrisy, everything
(18:51):
about Epstein. And I'm not just including Democrats in the.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Media and everybody.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
My opinion, the Epstein story is important. However, most of
the wrongdoing appears to have occurred in the past, yet
there are contemporary components of this. One thing is clear,
the Republicans are not going to simply allow this. We're
(19:21):
only going to focus on Republican wrongdoing with Epstein, then
I going to allow that to go unchallenged.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
The chief fundraiser for JB.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Pritzker, who's going to run for president, the Fatso governor
of Illinois, he was shaking down Epstein for money after
Epstein was convicted, trying to get Epstein to contribute to
Pritzker's campaign fund. There are a whole lot of Democrats
who remained tight with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted.
(19:56):
Now one of the people trying to make this point
is Trump. If I were advising Trump, I would urge
others to make the point for him. But Trump clearly
the thing that really if you want to set Trump off,
it's when you start holding Trump to a different standard
than you hold other people too. And remember Trump has
(20:18):
been so has been falsely accused his entire political career,
starting with Russia collusion January sixth, Charlottesville, all of this stuff.
So this is what he put on truth Social last night,
right as he signed the bill to release the files.
Jeffrey Epstein, who was charged by the Trump Justice Department
in twenty nineteen, not the Democrats, was a lifelong Democrat
(20:39):
donated And by the way, that is true when Epstein
killed himself, if that's what he did in prison, it
was because he was charged with the Justice Department. That
was Trump's Justice department at the time. Trump didn't leave
office until twenty one.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
This is nineteen So.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Trump is right about my Justice department is the one
that charged him the second time. Remember who is convicted
and had the soft treatment better than a decade earlier.
But in nineteen he and Julanne Maxwell were arrested and
criminally charged again, and that's when Epstein killed himself.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
If he did so. Trump points that.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Out, it was my justice department that actually charged the
guy after he was white, after they whitewashed the case
against him ten years earlier. Was a lifelong Democrat, donated
thousands of dollars to Democrat politicians, and was deeply associated
with many well known Democratic figures, such as Bill Clinton,
who traveled on his plane twenty six times.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
Now let me interject on that we know this about Clinton.
He's a free loader.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
I mean, I think he probably flew on Ron Berkele's
yet five thousand times. It's possible Clinton was on that
private jet just because he was going somewhere else and
was leeching off of somebody, because Clinton.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Is a cheap skate. That's possible, except.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
I think if there's anybody whose life story would indicate
his high desire and life is having sex, it's Bill Clinton.
How many other guys got you know what and in
the Oval office by someone, but by an intern. This
is a guy that was willing to risk his presidency
in order to have somebody.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
Do the down and dirty at him.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
So my guess is if he was on the plane.
It was probably because he was going to get some
girls somewhere. Now, if this was some other person, maybe
you got well, I guy, I went on Epstein's jenny
was flat, his jet all over the place.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
He was a guy.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
The other part of the story that I don't know,
Maybe it'll be in the files. Nobody has ever come
up to me, come up to me with a per
persuasive explanation of how Epstein got his money.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
He just suddenly magically became a billionaire.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
There have been all sorts of speculation that he was
an asset of Masad, the Israeli version of the CIA,
that they propped him up with money to get in
tight with people and then report back on what he
learned just a millionaire.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
No one knows.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
And whether or not the truth is ever gonna come
on of this, I doubt again you're gonna classify some
of these documents. Anyway, back to Trump's statement Larry Summers,
who just resigned from many boards, including Harvard Sleeves Bag
political activist Reid Hoffman read Hoffman, Here's something that people
on my side, the Conservatives, are terrible at. We just
(23:21):
do not know how to demonize.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
The other side.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
The moment Musk started supporting Trump and giving money to conservatives,
the left turned him into Satan himself. Reid Hoffman is
one of the three or four giant Democrat donors. He
gave a massive amount of money to political action funds
that are active here in Wisconsin, supported Supreme Court candidates
(23:45):
and so on.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Where did he get his money?
Speaker 2 (23:47):
He founded LinkedIn read Hoffman Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries who
asked Epstein to donate to his campaign after Epstein was charged.
Can you imagine if Trump had asked Epstein for campaign contributions.
Hakeem Jeffries is the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives.
After Epstein was charged, Hakeem Jeffries hit him up for money.
(24:09):
Now you see why this is sticking in Trump's craws,
all these people trying to point the finger at him
because he sent Epstein a golf ball at a pen
and a pen set, Happy birthday or whatever. Democratic Congresswoman
Stacey Plaskett, that's the woman from the Virgin Islands we
discussed there earlier in the week and many more. Perhaps
(24:30):
the truth about these Democrats and their associations with Jeffrey
Epstein will soon be revealed because I have just signed
the bill to release the Epstein files. As everyone knows,
I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and sent
Majority Leader John Thune to pass this bill in the
House and Senate, respectively. Well, everybody doesn't know that Trump
is playing fast and loose with the facts. There He
said he would support passage of the bill once he
(24:52):
realized that it was going to pass. Nonetheless, because of this request,
the votes were almost unanimous in favor of passage. Direction
to the Department of Justice has already turned over close
to fifty thousand pages of documents to Congress. Do not
forget the Biden administration did not turn over a single
file or page related to Democrat Epstein. Let me interject,
and did anyone in the media for the four years
(25:13):
that Biden was the president ever demand that.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
I'm killing you.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
It's like people just discovered that Jeff Deffrey is a
pervert the moment that Donald Trump got inaugurated January twentieth
of this year, Epstein was.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Dead six years prior to that.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
See, as I see, you can see why this stuff
frosts Trump.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Continuing.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Nor did they even ever even speak about him. Democrats
have used the Epstein issue, which affects them far more
than the Republican Party, in order to try to distract
from our amazing victories, including the great, big, beautiful tax
cut bill, strong borders, no men and women's sports are
transgender for everyone, ending DEEI, stopping Biden's record setting inflation,
(26:08):
lowering prices, biggest tax cut regulation cuts in history, ending
eight wars, rebuilding our military, knocking out of RAN's nuclear capability,
getting trillions of dollars invested in the United States, creating
the hottest country anywhere in the world, and even delivering
a huge defeat to the Democrats on the recent shutdown disaster.
And again I'll interject, when you consider the blow up
(26:30):
that Trump's had with Marjorie Taylor Green and so on,
this is the thing that's sticking with him. He's getting
no credit for the incredible first year of his presidency
because no matter what it is that he does, they're
going to try to bring up something to change the subject.
And it's hacking Trump off that you'll see some Republicans
going along with this when he thinks that they're doing
so for self serving purposes. Marjorie Taylor Green wants to
(26:51):
run for the Senate from Georgia. She needs something. Trump
goes on with the state. Continuing on hypocrisy, a couple
of other topics here that play under this. The Texas
(27:11):
Appeals Court ruling striking down the redrawing of congressional districts
in the.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
State of Texas.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
The level of hypocrisy in this story is extraordinary. First
of all, we all know why they redrew the districts
in Texas. They redrew them to make them more favorable
to the Republicans. And a federal appeals panel in Texas
is saying you can't.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Do that since when.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Virtually, not all, but virtually every democratic state in the
country has drawn its districts to favor the Democrats right now,
California just passed the referendum so they can redraw the
districts to favor the Democrats out there. The Supreme Court
itself has already held it is not illegal to draw
districts to favor one part, So the ruling of against
(28:02):
the United States Supreme Court might be overturned.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
But that isn't the point. One of the things that I've.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Argued forever, not only on this podcast, but in my
old radio program is if you simply use the same
tactics that the Democrats use against you against them, they
go nuts. Democrats have jerry mandered forever. So the Republicans okay,
well jerry mander Oh my god. And the thing that's
(28:33):
obnoxious here is when courts come in and say the
Republicans can't do what the Democrats are currently doing. Now
the Appeals Court in Texas to say, well, we don't
have the California case in.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Front of us.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
You have states in the United States that are like
sixty two thirty eight states sixty two percent Democrats, thirty
eight percent Republican where there's one or no members of
the House of Representatives.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
So how can you view this ruling somehow?
Speaker 2 (29:00):
You can't draw political lines, can't draw congressional lines for
political purposes.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
And that's on consider I'm not saying it's good.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
What I am saying it's been going on as long
as we've had districts in this country, and Democrats have
been notoriously for doing it, and no court has ever
said it was illegal, until suddenly the Republicans are brazen
enough to Okay, fine, you're doing it. We're going to
do it too, and finally, this on hypocrisy. Cheryl Hines
(29:31):
is speaking out now. One of the reasons she's speaking
out is she's written a book and she wants to
sell books. But let's face it, she doesn't need to
sell books. I think she's writing her book and then
doing the book tour.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
As the way of.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
I won't say latching back, but responding to the Hollywood
types that are giving her abuse. As far as I
can tell, Cheryl Hines is a lefty to the extent
that she has any political beliefs. She was on Larry
David show. Larry David's like one of the biggest lefties
in the history of show business. My guess is that
if she was not a lefty, she would not have
(30:09):
been hired to be on that show.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I mean, Larry Day. If you watch that.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Show, curb your enthusiasm. Everybody who was on that show
was a friend of Larry David. That's what it all was, right,
And my guess is that Larry David doesn't have any
friends who are conservative, and that's why they had all
those left So Cheryl Hines is probably a lefty to
the extent that she has any political beliefs.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
She married RFK. Do you know what she married RFK? Yeah, fourteen.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Nobody got on her for doing that. It wasn't until
RFK ran for president last year and there was a
fear that he was going to take more votes from
the Democrats and the Republicans. To this day, we don't
know which one decide he would have taken more from that.
I think it's an open question. The people who will
(31:00):
just hate the system and so on, maybe those are
also Trump voters.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
Maybe you a siphon for Trump.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Well, they started attacking her then when he was running
for president, because okay, he's a lifelong Democrat, he's gonna
siphon votes. First it was Biden and then of course Kamala.
Well then he gets out of the race, endorses Trump.
Now he's part of the Trump administration, and suddenly RFK
is the worst person in the world.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
And she's being attacked right and left for being married.
How can you be married? Dan?
Speaker 2 (31:30):
And she's responding on this. She did an interview with
the BBC Take It Back Correction the Times of London.
Times of London quote, I have compassion for those actors
and entertainers who really want people to know where they
stand morally, I suppose, but I've never been one of them.
(31:55):
I've never been a person who has not been politically
and I've been a person who has not been politically inclined.
But it is eye opening to see people really wanting
to till you how much their morals do not line
up with, say, the president administration, because they don't like
(32:17):
hate judgment. She continued, But then that's exactly what they
inflict on other people. We're inclusive, we like everybody regardless
except her. She's married to this guy, and I don't
like that.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
She nailed it.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
All these lefties that are an inclusive, inclusive, inclusive, inclusive,
But suddenly they're not inclusive with Cheryl Hines, even though
she used to be their pal. Why because she's married
to Kennedy. So so much for their whole thing on inclusive.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
Well, you know, we don't.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Like Trump because Trump's all hate and we're loving people.
We're inclusive people. And then she draws a tea to
their hypocrisy.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
They're not inclusive.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
They hate anybody in America who might be Maga or
in the case of Cherylane's married to somebody who's sort
of Magan and Kennedy isn't even really Magan, He's just
in Trump's administration dealing with one specific area.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Anyway, my point to one.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Hypocrisy, the Chryl Hines situation is not unprecedented. We've had
cases in our past in which Republicans have been married
to Democrats, etc. And in this case, I think Kennedy
is still a lefty. He's just more aligned with Trump
on areas of health, suspicion of the pharmaceutical companies, and
(33:42):
so on. I'm coming up with an example. And again,
if you just want to find hypocrisy, just compare everything. Now,
never mind Obama Clinton. These lefties who can't stand Cheryl
Hines because she's married to RFK Junior. How come they
(34:06):
were fine with Carville? James Carville was married to George W.
Bush's chief political strategist, Mary Madeline. They hated Busch, They've
hated everybody. They hated Reagan, they hated the first Bush,
they hated Nixon. I don't know if they hated Isa.
(34:26):
You say it's all Trump. I'm just saying I was.
They hated Reagan. They mocked and ridiculed Reagan. Remember where W.
Bush is the president. They despised him. He's stupid, he
says nuclear wrong, he calls it innuculear. He's an added,
he's starting all these wars. The fact of the matter
(34:47):
is when the prime spouse is on their side, they're
never bothered if that spouse is married to somebody who's
on the other team. Everybody knows that Carville is one
of the principal reasons that Clinton won.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
He ran his campaign.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
James Carrville got a Democrat elected twice, So what do
we care if he's married or a Republican who was
on the other team.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
They didn't care, I think, I said. George W. Bush.
Mary Mattel lives actually strategist for George H. W. Bush
and an advisor later on to George W. Bush.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
But she came of age in the first Bush era.
They hooked up, they married one another. You can go
with numerous other examples of this, and I'm sure you're
going to find some in the future. If some rising
star Democrat happens to be married to a conservative person,
(35:48):
that rising star Democrat is the one they want to
hitch their wagon do it. They're not going to come
up and criticize that the spouse at all. Vanity Fair
magazine is big piece. Friends of Cheryl Hines just do
not understand how she could possibly be doing this, except
she's been doing it for eleven years.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
Rfk's had the same baggage.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
For eleven years. He's a guy who apparently is well.
He appears to be rather horny. He's got a lot
of weird stuff that he does. He's out there shooting
animals in Central Park. This is nothing new about him.
He's been what he.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Was forever and ever and ever. It wasn't in kill.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
He saw an opportunity to address health by going after
institutions because Trump was willing to take him on board
in that area that anyone in Hollywood.
Speaker 3 (36:40):
Got wondering at all about why in the world did.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
Cheryl Heines marry RFK? This whole thing with lefties since
when have they ever looked the other way about anyone
being Look at the number of weirdos that are married
to other weirdos in Hollywood and nobody why would you
marry him?
Speaker 3 (36:58):
Believe it or not, There are people right now now
that are dating Amber Heard. I mean, if watch that trial,
she appears to be to be.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
I just think dating Amber Heard would be the absolute
stupidest thing any male could ever possibly do. First of all,
she's going to beat the hell out of you. Second,
she appears to be She just appears to be a
terribly vile and awful and horrible person. Right when in
Hollywoh how many times? What about all these girlfriends Billy
Bob Thornton had, I don't know what Angelina Julie is thinking.
(37:28):
They've never asked that question. The weirder you are, the
more they've embraced it. But oh, RFK Junior, how could
she do it? What is she thinking?
Speaker 3 (37:43):
You know?
Speaker 2 (37:44):
In Crib Your Enthusiasm she uh For the first half
of the series, she played Larry David's wife, and then
in the show they got divorced. That divorce happened at
the same time that Larry David got divorced in real
life to his real life wife. But in any of it,
you take her fictional life and her real life. In
(38:04):
her real life she's married to RFK Juli're in a
fictional life she's married to Larry David. I think she's
moved up. In her real life. Who's a weirder person
to be married to?
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Seriously?
Speaker 2 (38:17):
I mean RFK appears to be able to do ninety
seven million pushups in all of this stuff, and he's
got all of us here. Larry David is a freaky
old liberal. And plus you just know Larry David's kind
of kinky, don't you. I mean, he he just seems
like he is extremely funny guy. The same lefties that
(38:46):
are outraged at Cheryl Hines were perfectly fine when they
found out that Kamally Harris' husband.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
Beat up a date that he had prior.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
To them being married. Remember when she told her story
about being smacked by him. That story was out there
and it was totally ignored by everybody on the left.
So commonly can be married to a domestic abuser, but
Cheryl Hines can't marry somebody who's in Trump's cabinet without
(39:21):
even I don't even think RFK has endorsed any part
of the Trump agenda other than the single area that
he's involved in, public health and so on. Take a
break on the Mark Belling podcast. This is the Mark
Belling Podcast. I always point out that it's impossible to
(39:41):
exaggerate liberalism. I mean the number of times in which
I've said the next thing, you know, they're going to
when people no mark, they've already done that. You can't
exaggerate it. I've done in the past, like true or
false stories.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Is this story truer? Is it false? And you never know?
It's some ridiculous thing that a liberal has done. Did
I make it up? Or is it true? I don't
know if this.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Exactly falls into the area of liberalism, other than the
story amuses me, because everything about pickleball amuses me. They
have banned pickleball in Carmel, California, banded.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
They've banned it. Do you know why, Paul? Because of
the sound. There's something. There's something about the paddle that
they use and the ball that they use. They didn't make.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
First of all, an any paddle sport like you wouldn't
think that a tennis racket is soft. You wouldn't think
that it would make the noise that it does, but
you could. It sounds like a gun going up and
you're a tennis Well, the picklepball thing is even louder.
Speaker 4 (40:44):
So.
Speaker 2 (40:45):
The Hoiti twities in Carmel, California don't like hearing the
sound of the pickleball being played. Do you understand how
much crime is going on in California. Now I understand,
probably no crime is going on in Carmel. I don't
Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel by the Sea.
I don't know if that's the same city or not.
I don't know if they dropped them by the sea
or if that's a separate city right next by Dora
(41:07):
and all. But there, let's say like a northern California
near the ocean. That's where all of those cities are
and so on. Everything about pickleball just amuses me, just
first of all, mostly because it was a sport that
I think was I don't say it vented. It was
discovered by baby boomers who wanted to continue to do
something athletic but they couldn't do anything else because we're
(41:28):
all broken down. But we didn't want to just like
stand there and walk or something. I mean, it was
like it's like more physically taxing than bowling, kind of
as I'm just saying, but it's not real physically taxing. Plus,
I you've seen some of these people my age play it. Well, yeah,
I'm just saying if you've seen some of them. I
didn't say all of them. I mean, you move more
(41:50):
planned ping pong than I see, especially when you see
them playing they played doubles. Doubles well, I mean, the
court is about as big as my table in here.
You could cover the ground without ever moving your feet.
If you're a tall guy like me, it's all your
I think that's just hilarious that you Toreria and meniscus
playing pickleball.
Speaker 3 (42:10):
That's what you get for playing kickleball. Oh, you're back
in the court. You love it.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
Well, don't try to move to Carmel, California, because they've
banned it. The case of the case of Lawrence Reed.
This is the guy fifty years old who threw some
sort of igniter fluid on a woman on a subway
platform in Chicago, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (42:35):
Fire.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
She's twenty six, she lived. He's been arrested seventy one
times and convicted thirteen times, free on the street. This
is the case with virtually everybody who's arrested in charge
with anything horrible in Chicago. The embrace of the Marxists
(42:59):
in the big cities in America, because they're offered away
free stuff. The thing that you have to the thing
that the people that are voting for it have to accept.
With it is they don't want to lock anybody up ever. Okay, fine,
I get to have my rent for free. But it
also means that if I'm waiting to get on the bus,
(43:20):
somebody can set me on fire and they're not going
to get any do anything to them. That's the bargain
They're going to have to take. The free stuff, of course,
will in time economic collapse because of itself, as it
always has. But the other part of the equation that
nobody's bad. No illegal immigrants can be kicked out of
the country, no criminal can be jailed. We can't even
(43:41):
make if somebody is arrested, they don't even have to
put up any cash for bail.
Speaker 3 (43:44):
That's what you get. Along with all.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
Of that political story from Wisconsin, and a big one.
There are two powerful labor unions in Wisconsin that are
involved in democratic politics, The Teachers'.
Speaker 3 (43:57):
Union and asks ME.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
AFSME is an acronym. They represent the vast majority of
unionized government employees in Wisconsin who aren't teachers state government workers.
Most of them are represented by afsby many municipalities, AFSME
AFSME has endorsed Sarah Rodriguez for governor. This is a
(44:23):
big deal for her. There are eighteen thousand Democrats running
for governor. The big names out of all of them,
I think you can break it into three, maybe four,
But the biggest names are Mendela Barnes, who hasn't declared
yet but he is going to run, Sarah Rodriguez, and
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Some suggest Kelder Roy's because
(44:45):
she's a very well known lefty member of the state
Legislature from Madison, But I'll break it down to the
top three. Getting that endorsement is huge. The other big
one is the Teachers' Union. If we know anything about lefties,
it's they do what they're told for many people, if
you're at a union and your union endorses somebody. Famously,
(45:09):
the Teamsters this past election did not endorse Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
They sat the election out, which drove the lefties crazy.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
But the reality is is that at the head of
the teams who said when he when he spoke at
the Republican Convention, Look, I understand the majority of my
members are going to vote for Trump. Why in the
world are we going to go out there and try
to tell them to do something they don't want to
do whoever the teachers' union endorses. I'm just telling you
the majority of lefty, not non lefty, but the majority
(45:40):
of lefty unionized teachers, that's what they're going.
Speaker 3 (45:42):
To vote for.
Speaker 2 (45:43):
So I think this is a big endorsement for her. Now,
you may wonder why did they do it?
Speaker 3 (45:47):
Now?
Speaker 2 (45:49):
Democratic primary isn't until August the next year. Why don't
you try to weigh in on this. No, no, no, no,
she does run until August and next year. That's what
the Democratic primaries. Why are they endorsing her now?
Speaker 3 (46:06):
Two reasons.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
One, they can start pounding her with money. Now, they
can start running all of their special interest money and
all of their spending on her behalf now. Secondly, so
much of this is a message to Mendela Barnes that
Democrats do not want him to run. They think he's
the one Democrat who would lose. They're just telling Mendela,
(46:28):
we're going to do everything possible to stop you. Don't
jump in. One other story here from Madison. This is
a pretty big story. Exact Systems is it's a biotech
pharmaceutical company.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
They're big. Their big product is one of.
Speaker 2 (46:45):
Those tests that they do for colon cancer screening, colorectal exams,
and so on, which if you're fifty years old, you're
supposed to have your kolidoscopy, you haven't had one. You're
supposed to have that. Everybody who knows that fifty people
seem to dread kolidoscopies. How many of you had thirty
seven of them by now? All the time is they're not.
Speaker 3 (47:07):
That big of a deal.
Speaker 2 (47:08):
People just don't like them because of the part of
the body that they're looking around in right.
Speaker 3 (47:14):
The under.
Speaker 2 (47:15):
Oh yeah, that anything in which they knock you out.
Yeah fine, you want to you know, you want to
like do this? Yeah fine, do I get to get
knocked out?
Speaker 3 (47:26):
You're just looking forward to.
Speaker 2 (47:27):
The weird thing about that kind of knockout, though, is
it's instantaneous, Like you don't like, get drowsy and go under.
You're talking and then you wake up on another table
and when you wake up you're not really drowsy either.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
It's a weird thing. It's like a sa but it's
not like normal kind.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
Of sleeping where you it gradually moves to this and
gradually moves. Let me get to the exact systems story.
Speaker 3 (47:52):
The first thing you know is go to a rest
up because you're a starvy. Well, you're a weirdo.
Speaker 2 (47:57):
That's the The first thing I want to know is
do I have can? What do you find when you
were poking around and mikeyster in there? Yeah, they have
the old line. Well, despite how much of it you had,
you're still full of you know, it's Exact Systems. Anyway,
twenty three billion dollar sale. Exact Systems have been sold
to Abbott. Abbot's a larger pharmaceutical company, so Exact Systems,
(48:19):
the shareholders of that company are cashing outen Exact Systems
has been a growing pharmaceutical company based in Madison. This
is the Mark Belling Podcast.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
This is the Mark.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Belling Podcast, and it's time for our weekly football preview
and some point spread picks. I don't know what's happened
to me in those points spread picks, but I've got
a few minutes here. We're going to talk to Mike
Burlett of American Sports Analysts at Madison first, and I
can use that time to rewire my brain, in which
just a spectacular season I was having has gone right
into the craft or anyway, we've got Mike Maurlette with us.
(48:54):
We're winding into the really important part of the football season,
Thanksgiving us of course next week. About some football today, though, first, Mike,
is there anything you'd like to share about the weekend
doings at ASA.
Speaker 4 (49:06):
I'd say just check us out on ASA wins dot
com tomorrow. We'll kind of know how many games we're
going to have for the weekend, all that kind of
stuff as we make our final decisions on Friday, So
just check the website for different packages, including our top
game package in college. I think we've won two or
three in a row now in college, so take a
look at that on Friday.
Speaker 3 (49:24):
Give me one of them.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
ASA wins dot Com is their website. Let's preview some
football and we'll start as we usually will we do
with college football. There are two games left in the
Wisconsin season, and Wisconsin's going to be an underdog in
both of them. But unlike a lot of the games
they played this year, this one is one in which
(49:46):
they at least have a chance. On Saturday, they're going
to be at Campbrandle and they're going to host Illinois,
a pretty good but not great team for the Big Ten.
There's just a lot of storylines here. Brett Beilama back
in Madison, Wisconsin, with its incredible defense this year, and
as bad an offense as exists anywhere in college football
(50:06):
trying to beat a decent enough team. Give me your
thoughts in this game.
Speaker 4 (50:11):
Well, you talked about as bad an offense as there
is in college football. Wisconsin currently ranks one hundred and
thirty fifth out of one hundred and thirty six teams
in scoring and total offense. So the only team that's
below them in both is UMass, who's easily the worst
team in the entire country. But I'll look at who Wisconsin's.
(50:31):
Wisconsin's probably played the toughest defensive opponents across the schedule
as any team in the country.
Speaker 2 (50:37):
Which not another rating. Obviously, if you played a bunch
of terrible teams, you wouldn't be won.
Speaker 4 (50:41):
Thirty fifth exactly. That's my point here. They've several the
last eight games have been against top twenty five defenses,
and they've already played three of the top four defenses
in the entire country. So can they can they do
something different against Illinois, who's the fourth worst defense in
the in the Big Ten. So now they're playing a
(51:02):
defense that's down a few tiers. It's going to be
interesting to see ken Wisconsin do something on offense. If
they struggle again on offense, I mean they've gone, they've gone.
They haven't topped three hundred yards of total offense since
Middle Tennessee on September sixth. We'll find out a lot
about how their offense is progressing this week, and they
should be able to move the ball against Dillanoi. If
(51:23):
they can't, then they're.
Speaker 2 (51:24):
But they don't have any running backs left now. Gideon Atuco,
who is the number four running back, he's hurd I
mean the Wisconsin offense. I don't know if it's simply
because they've been so poor that so many guys are
getting injured, but they're down to third, fourth, and now
fifth stringers at some key positions.
Speaker 4 (51:42):
They are fifth string running back might get some carries
this week, and their third stringer Dupree played last week,
but he's not even close to one hundred percent, So
they only have two running backs available this weekend. I think, So,
you know, I don't get it. It seems like Wisconsin's much
more injured than other teams. And it's not just this year.
It's been the last two or three years. Across the
(52:02):
offensive line, quarterbacks, running backs, it seems like they have
a ton of injuries. I don't know if that's just
bad luck or or either not training correctly or what the
deal is, but that's been a thing that's gone on
since Fickle's been here.
Speaker 2 (52:14):
One other team game to focus on in college football
is also from the Big Ten. This game used to
be a game in the Pac Ten, but now it's
in the Big Ten, and I think it's the most
interesting other game of the weekend.
Speaker 3 (52:25):
USC is at Oregon.
Speaker 2 (52:29):
Neither of these teams have much of a chance to
get into the Big Ten title game because Ohio State
and Indiana are both unbeaten and they don't play one another.
But Oregon has just the one loss in the league
and USC is a team that is kind of on
the fringe of still getting a chance to get into
the twelve team college football playoff. Oregon is favored in
(52:51):
the game by nine and a half at Oregon, but
you have two really good teams. Oregon's lost one game
this year and USC has lost two.
Speaker 3 (52:59):
They both are in the Ten. It's a pretty fat
point spread, and there's a perception I guess that Oregon's
that much better than USC. Do you think they are?
Speaker 4 (53:09):
You know, at home, Oregon's awfully good. They're twenty four
and two at home since Landing took over. But they
did lose to Indiana this year. That seems like a
halfty number. Let's put it this way. If it was
ten or ten and a half, I might consider USC.
I mean, that's a huge game playoff wise for both teams.
The rankings came out for the playoffs this week again
the new rankings, Oregon was seventh and USC was fifteenth,
(53:32):
so just outside.
Speaker 2 (53:33):
Yeah, so if Oregon loses, they could fall out of
the top twelve, but maybe USC could move into it.
Speaker 4 (53:40):
Yeah, And if USC wins out, I think they're in
because USC beats Oregon here. Then they play Ucla next week,
which they'll be a.
Speaker 2 (53:46):
Happy they'll destroy them. That's a cross city battle, but
Ucla is terrible.
Speaker 3 (53:49):
They'll kill them.
Speaker 4 (53:50):
Yeah, so this is their game. I mean, if they
win this game, they're probably in the playoffs. Oregon same situation.
If Oregon loses this, they'll have two losses and then
they play at Washington next week, which is not going
to be easy. So they got a much tougher route.
Should be a great game. One thing to note on
this game, they've gone back you mentioned back to the
PAC twelve, but the outright winner in this game. So
(54:14):
if you just pick the winner, they've covered thirteen to
the last fourteen meetings. So just pick who you think
is going to win the game historically, and that's who
covers in this game. Landing's been good at home seventeen
to nine against the spread since he took over, but
USC since Riley took over, has been seventy percent as
an underdog. Just a great game. I think it's going
to be. It's gonna be a fun watch this weekend.
Speaker 2 (54:34):
When I was doing well in these picks, I had
the first two weeks of the season, I picked USC
and one both times I really thought about it as
my hon air pick here getting the nine and a half.
If it was ten, I'd do.
Speaker 4 (54:47):
It, yep.
Speaker 2 (54:48):
But I'm not going to do it at nine and
a half because when you're feeling snake bitch, that half
point just might kill you. I mean, you're right, Oregon
is very very good at home. I think that these
teams are really close, though I also know I was
an opponent of expanding the college football playoff beyond two
teams what it was four epsite opponent of expanding it,
(55:09):
and I really despise it now because it's killing the
regular season. It's killing conference is nobody's even paying attention
to who's winning a conference?
Speaker 3 (55:16):
Are you in? Are you win? Are you in? Or
are you you in?
Speaker 2 (55:19):
And in the meantime, they've got these rankings that come
out each week, and I think they're completely screwed up
when you talk when they're talking about Tulane being on
the bubble of getting into this and then one of
USC or Oregon not getting in. They've expanded all of us,
supposedly to end all of these arguments, and they just
made the arguments. I think words, let's turn our attention
(55:40):
over to the NFL right now, and I think one
of the obvious games to focus on is the Green
Bay game. The Packers play the Vikings in a game
in which Minnesota is probably one of the more disappointing
teams in the NFL this year. The only thing that
I would give them any credit on is they're in
a tough division, the NFC North, and one team has
(56:02):
to you know, it's the same thing in the NFC West.
Speaker 3 (56:05):
Somebody's got to be bad.
Speaker 2 (56:06):
When all of those teams are in the same division,
somebody's got to take some losses, and Minnesota seems to
be that team. Green Bay continues to win. They're six
to three and one. They just don't pass the eye test.
Last week they were favored by seven, they won by seven.
The Packers are favored this week by about six and
a half against Minnesota. Minnesota's got terrible quarterback problems. I mean,
(56:27):
I don't know if they're willing to admit it yet,
but I just think that choosing JJ McCarthy with the
twelve pick in the draft a couple of years ago
is an absolute mistake. So you got a bad quarterback
in situation with Minnesota, But otherwise Minnesota may match green
Bay for talent everywhere else other than the quarterback position.
What do you think about the game?
Speaker 4 (56:45):
Yeah, this line opened five and a half and it's
up to six and a half. You mentioned about green
Bay doesn't pass the eye test. The Packers, as far
as the spread goes, have been completely overvalued over the
last two months. They're one in seven against the spread
their last eight games, and if you look at the
season as a whole, when they're a favorite of more
than three points. They're zero to six against the spread
(57:07):
Green Bays this year, so they're overvalued right now. You
talked about the Vikings quarterback situation. McCarthy's bad. I mean,
he's played maybe one good half the entire season. He's
last in completion percentage. He doesn't qualify for the QBR rating.
He hasn't played enough, but he'd be dead last in that.
Green Bay has to get some turnovers. This is the week.
(57:30):
They had seventeen interceptions last year. They have five this year.
Speaker 3 (57:34):
Well, they dropped five last week.
Speaker 2 (57:36):
Now, they won the game because they got a really
great pick at the end of the game, but they
dropped a zillion. I mean, that's the reason the turnover
margin is what it is. They're dropping the turnovers that
they're able to get. If the defensive backs and hang
out of the balls that are being thrown into their hands,
the turnover.
Speaker 3 (57:53):
Margin would be higher. But you are right, it.
Speaker 2 (57:56):
Is set up for turnovers. The Packers have a very
good pass rush and McCarthy has really struggled at quarterback,
which should help the Packers have a chance to get
a couple of interceptions.
Speaker 4 (58:06):
Yeah, I mean He's sawing at least two interceptions and
three of his five starts, So if green Bay doesn't
get an interception, they're going to have their opportunities this week.
I would say I'm away. I'm not in on this
game at all. Green Bay should win this by a
touchdown or more. They really should. With their offense, is
that much better than the Vikings defense is better statistically,
all the Vikings have a decent defense, But I don't
(58:27):
trust the Packers. There's no way family in six and
a half of the three. Now.
Speaker 2 (58:31):
The Packers have benefited from getting Christian Watson back, but
he's one of several wide receivers and the loss of
Tucker Craft.
Speaker 3 (58:38):
They're just a different team that went from yeah, maybe.
Speaker 2 (58:41):
The best tight end and all of football to as
bad a tight end play as there is. I mean,
Musgrave has not stepped up at all. A couple of
other guys that have been there catch a pass here
and there the other game this weekend. I think this
is one of the most interesting games of the season.
Indianapolis is playing Kansas City. Kansas City in real jeopardy
(59:03):
of missing the playoffs. Indianapolis is the number one ranked
offense in the entire National Football League and as a
spectacular record. Despite that, despite the fact that Kansas City
is only five and five and Indianapolis is destroying teams,
the Chiefs are favored by three and a half at home.
That line is clearly telling us something. I've watched almost
(59:27):
all the games Kansas City has played, and I know
they're five and five. I look at them and they
look to me better than they did last year when
they went to the Super Bowl. I mean, talk about
the eye test.
Speaker 3 (59:38):
Visually, they look really good.
Speaker 2 (59:39):
And you know, they've been winning ugly the last couple
of years, and now they're if you can lose pretty,
they're losing pretty. Indianapolis, in the meantime, has a tremendous
offense and not much of a defense. They go into
Kansas City and what's really a must win game for
the Chiefs. They can't fall the five and six.
Speaker 4 (59:56):
No, this is a much much bigger game for Kansas City.
And here are some stats for remark. You hit it
right on the head. Okay, So Kansas City has a
better stats this year yards per play, yards per game,
points per game allowed, points per game scored than they
did last year when they were fifteen and two. Here's
an interesting stat for you. This puts it in perspective.
(01:00:19):
Last year they finished the year fifteen and two and
their point differential was plus fifty nine points with a
fifteen and two record. This year, they're five and five
and their point differentials plus seventy three.
Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
So they've outscored the opponents more already this year than
all of last year when they went fifteen and two,
even though they're five and five. Another and the only
way that can happen is you lose a lot of
close games and when you win, you kill the opponent.
Speaker 4 (01:00:46):
Well, there you go. Last year, Kansas City was twelve
and zero in one score games. This year they're zer
one to five and one score games. They went from
the best close game team to the worst close game
team in one year. They've lost two games. Here's a
couple of interesting stats too. They've lost two games in
a row. Mahomes has never lost three games straight in
his NFL career as a starter. Never never happened. So
(01:01:10):
that's an interesting point. Indies. Really, I think Indy's good.
I don't know how good they are because six of
their eight wins have come against Tennessee twice Arizona at
Land in Las Vegas, Miami. Those teams have a combined
thirteen wins. Between those six teams all our three games,
the low five hundred are better, and against teams that
are five hundred are better. Colts are two and two
(01:01:30):
this year. We'll find out this week. This is a huge,
huge game for Kansas City, which is why they're favored
by a little bit more than three.
Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:01:37):
I mean everything that you mentioned, all the oddsmakers are
clearly aware of, and the betting public I think is
aware of it as well. It's just unusual they have
a team that's got so much better of a record
to be that large of an underdog other than everyone
is of the perception, and we'll find out if it's correct.
The Indianapolis is nowhere near as good as this record,
(01:01:58):
and Kansas City is way better than the record that
they have. Time for some points spread picks, Oh my goodness.
I thought South Florida would beat maybe by more than ten.
Speaker 3 (01:02:08):
They lost the game.
Speaker 2 (01:02:10):
Maybe somehow put up forty one points. I don't know
where that came from. They beat South Florida forty one
to thirty eight. So I was six and two in
this contest. I'm now six and six. Paul took the
forty nine ers to beat the Cardinals by more than three,
and they beat him by nineteen, so that was a win.
And Mike took Michigan State to cover a seven and
a half point spread against Penn State, and that didn't
(01:02:30):
work out. Penn State, which is finally awakened and is
back to the team that people thought was a top
five team in the country in the preseason polls. They
won that game by eighteen. All right, let's get to
some point spread picks for this weekend. Paul, you get
to go first, the Bears and the Steelers. Now, Paul
(01:02:51):
usually takes games I don't have an opinion on. I
studied this game inside out and upside down, and I'm
not going to make a pick on it. But I
will tell you that the point spread is two and
a half. The game is in Chicago. We're talking about
Kansas City.
Speaker 3 (01:03:07):
That two and a half.
Speaker 2 (01:03:10):
The Bears are favored by two and a half. We
talked about how Kansas City keeps losing all of these
games that they seem to win. This should be in
a position to win. The Bears have come from behind
in the last two minutes. Five weeks in a row,
they're plus fourteen in turnovers. There are so many times
that the Bears have seasons like this. I think about
the Super Bowl year, the year that they went to
(01:03:31):
the Super Bowl and lost to Indy, they ran every
kick back for a touchdown. That's when Devin Hester was
freaking out. They had numerous pickstand a tremendous turnover ratio.
I talk about the eye test. The Bears just didn't
look that good that year. They just seem to have
seasons like this. Now they play Pittsburgh with Rogers banged up.
I think he's still listed as questionable game time decision.
(01:03:53):
Now you have the thing of Aaron Rodgers, as I
think he pointed out when he's wearing a Green Bay
uniform that he claims.
Speaker 3 (01:03:59):
To own the Bears.
Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
You started talking, well, yeah, I think that that ownership
might have had something to do with the uniform that
he was wearing at the time.
Speaker 3 (01:04:07):
That he can't just PLoP it on and claim that ownership.
Speaker 2 (01:04:09):
Anyway, I thought a lot about picking the Bears, and
that's I want to hear Paul's point, and in the end,
I've decided that I'm going to stay away from the game.
It just seems at some point these things even out
and the Bear's luck has to wear out. But I
think it's actually a better situation for Chicago than it
(01:04:31):
is for Pittsburgh, with Rogers being banged up, Chicago playing
at home, et cetera. Paul's is Mason Rudolph's the backup
quarterback Pittsburgh. The thing it is is that Rogers is
the best quarterback they've had over there since Ben Roethlisberger,
and their backups aren't that good.
Speaker 3 (01:04:48):
They're six and four, So where are we going? Paul?
Speaker 2 (01:04:53):
Seven of eight they won momentum. You know that of
those seven that they won, they probably should have lost
six of them. They then why are you taking them?
Paul said, they are the real deal. It will seal
their legitimacy. I kind of agree with Paul, but I'm
(01:05:13):
not sure.
Speaker 3 (01:05:14):
What do you think, Mike?
Speaker 4 (01:05:16):
I man Chicago is in their seven wins, they're plus
twenty turnovers. That's insane, that's unheard of. That's plus three
a game. You don't lose games in the NFL when
you're plus three turnovers. It's almost impossible. That's why they've
won seven games in a row or seven games.
Speaker 2 (01:05:34):
Part of that, though it needs to be credited to
Caleb Williams for not throwing picks.
Speaker 4 (01:05:38):
True, can they keep doing that? I mean, Pittsburgh's kind
of the same. Last week is a close game against Cincinnati.
They get an eighty yard pick six and then a
fumble recovery for a touchdown.
Speaker 2 (01:05:47):
They were won by twenty two, but it was really
a more even game.
Speaker 4 (01:05:50):
You're right, So they're kind of the same type of teams. Man,
I have no Chicago. If Chicago evers even or lose
the turnover battle, they're they're gonna get smoked at some point.
But they keep doing it, so at some point you
have to say, are they going to keep doing that?
They that might be the case. No opinion this game whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
Yeah, there's a weird schedule in the NFL. The Packers
still have their two games of Chicago. They're backloaded at
the end of the season, and they played just a
couple of weeks apart at the end of the season,
and that's going to determine whether or not not only
green Bay wins the division, but perhaps whether or not
green Bay makes the playoffs or Chicago makes the playoffs. Sorry,
time to get a pick from Mike. Where are we going?
Speaker 4 (01:06:29):
Let's go, Let's go to college. I'm gonna go a
Friday night game. Actually first, Hawaii at UNLV on Friday.
Speaker 2 (01:06:36):
Yeah, that's kind of an interesting game. Hawaii is finally
good again. Their quarterback whether their coach is the guy
who was the quarterback the last time they were good,
Timmy Chang. They've been winning a lot of games. UNLV
had a coaching change in the offseason, but they got
a pretty big name coach over there on Dan Mullen,
and they've played pretty good.
Speaker 3 (01:06:57):
They're probably two of the four.
Speaker 2 (01:06:59):
Best teams in the Mountain in West Conference. I'm seeing
all of this stuff because I'm stalling because I can't here.
It is. UNLV is at home. It's always an odd
place you un be at home. They usually have more
opponent fans that are there, but probably not this time
because the opponent is Hawaii. That's a weird thing. Hawaiian's going. Well,
if you're in Hawaii, where would you go on vacation?
(01:07:19):
Probably Las Vegas, right, Yeah, I mean you don't think
of people who live in Hawaii going on vacation because
they're in the place. But the same thing I guess
is true about Las Vegas. When people live in Las Vegas,
where do they go? They can't go to Vegas because
they're already all right, what you Vegas is an UNLV
is favored by three points of the game.
Speaker 4 (01:07:39):
I'm taking Hawaii plus three in that game.
Speaker 3 (01:07:41):
Yeah, Hawaii's they're pretty good.
Speaker 2 (01:07:45):
I'm that usual program because obviously travels an issue over there.
Recruiting is a mixed bag. They're not part of any
area where there's any football strength. On the other hand,
when a kid gets an offer to go tuition free
to a college and play Major Division one college football.
Speaker 3 (01:08:04):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
I mean, I think I might pick Hawaii over hanging
around and say at Minnesota or Iowa City. So they're
pretty good team this year. But UNLV isn't bad either.
I want to hear your reasons for taking Hawaii.
Speaker 4 (01:08:16):
Yeah, Hawaii's batter team this year. They're definitely better in
the situation is perfect. Hawaii had a week off last week,
so they had two weeks to get ready for this
game prior to the bye week at home against San
Diego State, who is the best team in the Mountain One,
one of.
Speaker 2 (01:08:31):
The est defenses in America. They're really good on defense.
Speaker 4 (01:08:35):
Hawaii beat San Diego State thirty eight to six.
Speaker 2 (01:08:39):
The fact that you were going on thirty eight on
the defense is to be impressive.
Speaker 4 (01:08:42):
And their offense has been good, and they held their
offense down. The Hawaii's undervalue. They've won five games this
year as an underdog outright, so they continue to be undervalued.
Take a look at UNLV's got a good record, but
take a look at their home games. They haven't won
a home game by more than seven. In the Mountain West,
they beat Air Force, who's bad, by three. They lost
(01:09:05):
to New Mexico. And last week they beat Utah State
and double overtime by three, who's not good. Now they
play in a short week, playing on Friday. Hawaii had
a bye last week. Hawaii's defense, the offenses are close.
They're both over four hundred yards. UNLV has a little edge.
Hawaii's defense is one hundred yards per game better than UNLV's.
(01:09:27):
I think Hawaii wins this game out right, So I'm
gonna take plus three in that game.
Speaker 3 (01:09:31):
Okay, that's an interesting pick.
Speaker 2 (01:09:32):
That game is, as Mike said Friday night, and it's
a later start, as you might guess, but not too late,
because I've lost four games on a O I'm scrambling
in every idea that I have. I'm kind of second
guess again. I mentioned a couple of the games that
I thought about a lot. In fact, I'm not going
to take this game, but the other game that I
was going to ask Mike about in our preview, and
(01:09:54):
I chose a different game instead. I think it's a
really good game tonight, the Thursday night game full of
plays Houston. Houston started zero to three and they've been
outstanding since then. Their defense is really really good. In
the meantime, Buffalo's offense is spectacular. The line is five
and a half. I was really thinking about taking Houston
(01:10:15):
in the game. Davis Mills is going to be the
quarterback because but Strouds missed two games already and they
won with him. Anyway, I just moved against it. And
the following pick is I kind of hinted at it earlier.
There are several divisions in which if you're one of
four teams and the other three teams are great, you know,
it's really hard for four teams to have a winning
(01:10:36):
record in a division because there's so many teams that
play one another. I'm looking at Arizona, a team that's
three and seven, and I'm going to take them as
a three point underdog against Jacksonville. Now, Jacksonville's in a
conference that isn't all that strong itself once you get
past Indianapolis, but I admit they've played a decent enough
schedule the Jaguars have, and they've scored a lot of points.
(01:10:57):
I just think that Arizona at three and se maybe
better than people think. And I've got somewhere in here
they're scheduled it I should rattle I have it or not.
Maybe I don't, But the schedule that Arizona has played,
they're playing an outstanding team every week, and they're playing
the best offenses in the NFL. They lost last week
(01:11:18):
in the game that Paul mentioned, but San Francisco is
really good. I think this is a bigger game for
them than it is for Jacksonville. Maybe Arizona's already out
of it and they don't have a chance here, but
this is a team that's finally in a position with
a beatable opponent. Jacksonville's won a few games this year,
but two three points and maybe sitting on a loss
(01:11:38):
and I just like the fact that Arizona is getting
the full three points at home against the Jaguars, and
I think that the Cardinals I'm not saying. I do
have the listing over here. I want to quickly rattle
through who Arizona's played, and you understand whether three and seven.
This is going backwards, starting with last week and going
backward after that. San Francisco, Seattle, Ellis, Green Bay, Indianapolis,
(01:12:02):
an easy game against Tennessee and before that Seattle, San
Francisco again and then starting the season with Carolina New Orleans.
Speaker 3 (01:12:09):
New Orleans is not that.
Speaker 2 (01:12:10):
Cool, but that's just they're playing a lot of really
good teams. Also, the backup quarterback Presette looks like he's
going to play again.
Speaker 3 (01:12:17):
He threw last.
Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
Week and the game the pulpic were set through for
four hundred and fifty two yards. Now, part of that
is they were behind, so they're a passing every play
but throwing for four hundred and fifty two yards against
the defense like San Francisco, even though the score was lopsided.
There's something to be said for that. And I think
that Arizona's going to win the game outright. It's of
all the games that I had out there. It's the
(01:12:39):
one I guess I feel most confident, in part because
I'm getting the three point pad.
Speaker 3 (01:12:43):
Any thoughts in that game, Mike, Well, I agreed.
Speaker 4 (01:12:46):
With you last week and we didn't use it, but
that game law, So maybe you don't want me to
agree with you, but I agree this is a game
we're strongly considering this week with Arizona. First of all,
if you looked at it, I know, I know there
are comments from behind, But if you looked at the
final stats last week, I know had Paul had San Francisco,
but Arizona had four hundred and eighty eight yards to
(01:13:06):
two hundred and eighty for San Francis. Right, they got up,
gained by well over two hundred yards and won the
game by almost twenty I don't know if I've ever
seen that. In the NFL, Arizona five of their seven
losses has come by four points or less. Jacksonville is
coming off a huge win against the Chargers, which wasn't
a great spot Chargers going across the country. There's no
(01:13:29):
way on land points on the road with Jacksonville. Don't
think they're that good. To be honest with you, and
I agree, I think Arizona is a good chance to
win this game.
Speaker 2 (01:13:35):
Okay, those are our selections. Recapping real quickly, Paul. It's
hard to argue against Paul because the Bears keep winning.
I mean, if the Bears are down by four points
with a minute of ten seconds left in the game,
I don't even care if they have the ball, They're
going to get a touchdown and win the game by
three points. So they're gonna it's they're doing every single
single week. Posts they finally got a coach, but they
(01:13:57):
are winning games that they've been all played for fifty
eight minutes. It just it's true. Part of me kind
of hopes, and eventually teams like that get their come
up and often it's the end the postseason when a
team that over it, like the ven Vikings a couple
of years ago were overachieving the turnover margin and knocked
out of the playoffs. I'm hoping their come upance is
(01:14:19):
that they get beaten twice by.
Speaker 3 (01:14:21):
The Packers later out of the season.
Speaker 2 (01:14:23):
But the way the injuries are going in the NFL,
who even knows what will happen by them.
Speaker 3 (01:14:28):
Hey, Paul's taking that pick. I guess I agree.
Speaker 2 (01:14:30):
With him, but I just worry that the Bear's luck's gonna,
you know, wear down. In one week, Mike takes Hawaii
to either beat UNLV or lose by three or less,
and I have the same point spread getting three points
as I take Arizona against Jacksonville any of the Cardinals
to win or lose by less than three points. That's
our podcast. We'll be back next week for Thanksgiving Week podcasts.
Speaker 1 (01:14:57):
The Mark Belling podcast is a production of Eye Heart
Radio Podcasts. Production and engineering by Paul Kronforest. The Mark
Billing podcast is presented by you Line for quality shipping
and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock. Visit
you line dot com. Listen to all of Mark's podcasts,
always available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
(01:15:19):
you listen to your favorite podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.