March 27, 2024 • 53 mins
This episode tackles "fake news" and media "echo chambers," advocating for "fact-checking" and "media literacy" to discern "truth" in our "post-truth" era. Join the call for "transparency" and "critical thinking" in safeguarding the "integrity of truth."
YOUTUBE LINK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtXVWWdpygo
Remember, your Perch isn’t just a place to sit; it’s a place to seek a higher perspective.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Well, good afternoon, good evening, good morning,
fellow perchers.
It is us again.
I'm sure you missed ustremendously.
Tree, how are you today?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I am under the weather, but I'm here Playing
hurt, ready to go Playing hurt.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Ready to rumble?
Okay, you know she's putting inthe time.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Just an FYI.
Can I just give a?
This is Toby's show, See that.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
She's already distancing herself from it.
She's like if this turns out tobe a bomb, she wants something.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I have no idea what we're discussing.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
This is his show.
I am just a passenger on thiscrazy train, and this is her
bystander.
She says, yes on this crazytrain.
That's right.
Absolutely Not the conductor onthis crazy train.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Let us get it going.
All right, let's get ready torumble.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
We can let it roll.
So an interesting topic today.
It's one that we've talkedabout for quite some time, and
some of it's heavy, some of it'slight, but in either way, it's
kind of a disturbing trend thatwe've seen, and hopefully this
will resonate with many of youguys out there.
So let's get started.
Let's just kind of kick thisoff.
(01:08):
So, you know, we by nature, areinquisitive creatures and we
seek to understand, to know andto learn, and we ask a lot of
questions and, as a result ofthat, we form a lot of
conclusions that frame our viewon the world, and it's working.
So we decide whether we feelsafe or happy with our
surroundings, our politicians,the condition of our planet and
(01:30):
all these things based on theseconclusions.
But are we really only gettinghalf the story or, in some cases
, are we hearing a complete workof fiction?
We all say that we want to knowthe truth and that it is the
truth that matters, but howoften do we get enough of the
information dare I say all ofthe information in order for us
to come to this truth?
(01:51):
And how can we base ouropinions on fact when facts have
become so difficult to come by?
Let's face it opinions are notfacts.
You can have your own opinion,but somehow we've decided that
these days that you can alsohave your own facts, and that's
wrong and it can be verydangerous.
We need to agree to facts,since they should be irrefutable
(02:13):
.
And well, if we have adifferent opinion as a result of
those facts?
Well, that's where debate and,hopefully, compromise, will take
over.
The informational manipulationthat has grown and perfected
over the last few decades wouldmake you question whether there
really is such a thing as truthor fact anymore, or whether we
(02:34):
look for a narrative or morselof fact that meets our eroding
standards of what allows us tostand on our ground and call it
good enough.
You go out looking for tomatoes, you find tomatoes.
You go out looking torationalize your opinion on
something and you find enoughfact to satisfy what can often
be your low bar for requirement.
(02:56):
As a result of what is nowcommonly referred to as media
manipulation, people are forcedto do their own work, should
they be so inclined, in order toget to the facts and the truth,
the notion that a person canstate something through social
channels or even the formalmedia channels, and that that
that information could be takenas anything other than opinion
(03:17):
or, in many cases, purefabrication, is now an epidemic
of massive proportions, and weknow that most of what we hear
and see and read and talk onFacebook, x, instagram is often
so outrageous in order to elicitour engagement.
But what happened to areputable source of truth that
allows us to stay grounded?
So today, on Perch, we discussthe erosion of fact-based
(03:41):
opinion making, which is heavilyinfluenced by the near death of
objective fact reporting,leading to the rise and
proliferation of highlypolarized world that we live in.
Whether it's around globalwarming, the war in Ukraine, blm
immigration or even a pictureof Princess Kate, what we see
and hear is often, at best, onlyhalf the story.
(04:06):
Wow, that's a lot.
Huh, a lot.
See that there was a lot there.
A lot.
So, as we would say, there's alot to unpack.
A lot to digest.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
A lot to click on.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
So let's get unpacking.
Let's start with an easy one,okay?
So obviously the last,something easy.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
And all that Absolutely, that's pretty heavy.
And all that Absolutely, that'spretty heavy.
Well, the easiest one, that'spretty heavy.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Let's start with something that started kind of
lighthearted and now may not beso lighthearted, and that's this
whole Kate Princess of Walesthing, oh Lord.
So let's start there.
I mean, why do we have to fakepictures of people?
Why has it gotten to the point?
We'll talk about the differenttypes of media manipulation.
It's fascinating.
If you haven't spent any time,go Google eyes media
(04:45):
manipulation.
It is unbelievable how we havebeen, dare I say, con for so
long.
It's a little scary.
So let's talk about Kate.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Okay, no, because when you say things you know me,
my mind goes a thousanddifferent directions.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
But if you want to talk about Kate, we'll talk
about Kate, so why do we have tofake a picture of Kate?
Speaker 2 (05:10):
I don't know how to fake it, I think, because just
like and let's be honest, youknow I am not, we're here in
America, we're not over there,but we know that that's a I
shouldn't say that, yes, Ishould, sure you can.
They fabricate, that's whatthey do.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
The whole monarchy.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Oh, the monarchy it's always been smoke and mirrors.
It's about prestige, it's abouta look, it's about the look of
royalty, the look of you know,we can't have any imperfections,
because that's a mark againstus and that's why the people
have been at odds with them forthe longest.
Yes, money is an issue, butit's like, at the end of the day
(05:52):
, just like here in Americawhich we've gone off the rails
that's a different story.
But people say we pay you.
You are in those positionsbecause of our dollars and we
need to see you humanize.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Okay, and so then— but do things have to be perfect
, wouldn't people kind of like,if they know—and I guess now
it's come out that Kate may bequite poorly right, they think
she may have cancer right, shehas cancer, right, not quite.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
She put her own statement out.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
So why not just come clean on that?
Is there some reason we've gotto fake things?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Because we just said that, because that's a.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Does that show frailty?
It does Okay.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
And we know, but that's.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
So the monarchy can't show frailty, you don't think?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Of course, not.
Okay, interesting, but that'sbeen the image.
That's why they spend so muchmoney on PR and imagery, and
because what they think theworld needs to see is a picture
of perfection.
And so how dare we not beperfect?
So, and then, as they acquiesceto what the people are calling
(06:54):
for, they have started to, withthis newest generation, with you
know, kate and William, to sayoh, look at us at this event and
look at us being just like you.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Okay, but I would think to be just like you would
be to suffer from the same ills,absolutely.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
So it's interesting, they know it now, but now they
know it by default.
Yeah, so those of you who havebeen in a cave.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
I'll read this really quickly For those of you who
don't know what we're talkingabout.
We're sitting out there sayingwho's Kate Winslow all about?
On March 11th, the family, thefamily, the royal family
released a picture of Kate toshow that everything was fine,
that she was okay.
And what was interesting was itmade it into all the nudity,
all the major media channels,and then, all of a sudden, a
(07:38):
couple of them started toquestion it and it says at first
it was just social mediasleuths, pointing out apparent
discrepancies with the pictures,but then four of the world's
largest news agencies theAssociated Press, reuters, getty
Images and Agence France Pressall issued what they call kill
notices to the picture and tookit down.
You can find it out online.
(07:58):
I'll show you a quick picture ofit here, with a circle through
it.
They started to finddiscrepanciesrepancies, and I
mean the first thing I thinkabout is who goes looking for
discrepancies to begin with,unless that's common practice,
right?
I mean, because some none ofthese were that obvious.
I mean one of them was like ahand in the wrong place but can
I, can, I, can I perch on thisfor a minute.
America has done the same thingwell, oh, we're gonna get to
(08:21):
that, oh, trust me.
Okay, I was gonna say we haveall to be remember.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
We've had presidents that were in wheelchairs and we
couldn't show the wheelchair.
Oh yeah, we did so.
How is that any different?
Speaker 1 (08:32):
none, none whatsoever .
I just think it's all.
It's interesting because in inthis particular article they
actually talk about, they say annbc news analyst analysis of
the photo suggests that theseinconsistencies show
manipulation of the image.
And so a lot of what we'regoing to talk about today is
either half the story or, insome cases, the fact that
stories have been completelymanipulated to make us act or
(08:55):
feel or respond in certain ways.
Now who's the puppet masterhere?
Speaker 2 (09:00):
and that's so.
We'll be one and I just want to.
I want to piggyback off them.
Bring one more example of whatwe've done recently.
I shouldn't say we, because hewants to spin it when reality is
(09:37):
.
People didn't question why theynever showed the room.
This is a man that has takenyou, if you agree with him or
disagree with him.
He has taken great delight toshow the crowds that he draws,
because that's part of his stick.
I draw a lot of people.
People love me.
People love me.
No one took the time, exceptone journalist there, to take a
(09:59):
beat and say well, why we didn'tsee these people's faces?
Why are you making thesestatements that they adore you?
Let's see their adoration.
Besides Tim Scott, you knowkissing down to his throne, but
my point is it goes back to whatyou're saying wholeheartedly,
so people had half the story.
So, they took that and ran withit.
Well, if you even showed thefull picture, you would have saw
(10:23):
that there really wasn't anyblack people in the room.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
There was also one.
You know, to be fair to bothsides, there was a rally that a
Democratic nominee did duringthe last election where the
picture showed them talking to athrong of people and then they
pulled back and that was allthere was was that front of
people.
So, again, it's this photomanipulation that we're supposed
(10:51):
to look at.
It go.
Oh, wow, this candidate is verysuccessful.
Oh, this particular person isis, you know, is is popular with
the black voter and all of that.
It's made to manipulate us.
It's made to make us thinksomething that's very different.
So we got got to photomanipulation quickly and I
actually pulled a couple asideand for those of you who listen
to us on YouTube, we'll actuallysuperimpose some of these
pictures as part of it.
(11:11):
For those of you who arelistening to us on Spotify or
another audio channel, we'll putit on our Perch website so you
can look at them.
But some of them are justclearly obvious that they're
trying to elicit some changes oremotion in us, that that that
really shouldn't be there.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So if I can just chime in on what.
Toby just said I would.
I would ask that let this bethe time where those of you who
appreciate the audio listenerswe truly do don't want you to
stop listening, but in thissense is I will love for you to
go over.
Go on YouTube subscribe,because some things you know,
like I said like her face halfthe time.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
You got to see she got to fix her face on some of
the things I say really my faceis my face but you know my face
is always truthful now take thatfor whatever crazy things her
face.
Just there's no words for it.
It really isn't it's my facethat's true okay so, anyway, so
here's one.
So this came out and this, forthose of you who can see, was a
(12:08):
Ralph Lauren commercial, andthis is what the woman looked
like when they actually took thepicture, and this is what
actually showed up on the cover.
All right, now, that's a clearcase of photo manipulation, and
obviously the folks Well, it'ssome black and whites, I don't
(12:31):
know how clear, well, but look,look, look, how her body shape
here, and look at her body shape.
Right, it's clearly beenmanipulated.
Now, why?
This is clearly an attractivewoman.
Why do we need to make her eventhinner than she already is?
Okay, there's clearly a storyhere that we've got to
understand and it's like oh well, if you're not, if you're not
super thin, you're notattractive.
It's, it's body shaming.
So why in the world does amagazine or a fashion designer
(12:52):
like Ralph Lauren feel compelledto take somebody who looks
perfectly natural in fact, morenatural, quite honestly, here
than she looks over here?
She looks almost emaciated overhere.
So so why?
Okay, you can ask yourself that.
Here's an interesting one.
This apparently came out duringthe fires in the Aborigine in
Australia, and this was thepicture that came out.
(13:13):
This was a woman, a young girlcaught in the fires In Australia
.
For those of you who can see itAgain, for those of you who
look online, it'd be great.
What is it really?
It's actually made up of twocompletely separate photos,
neither of which happened atthat time.
The picture of the girl wassuperimposed with a fire picture
and then created this pictureto create an image to have us
(13:36):
what feel sorry for these people, donate money, somehow affect
our senses Clearly bogus andphoto manipulation.
There was one that came up andI don't have a picture of this
one where, during COVID, theyclaimed that they had pictures
of dolphins swimming in thecanals in Venice and what they
(13:59):
said is, now that people are nolonger out on the streets and
doing all this stuff, nature isreturning to its natural places
of you know, harvesting orswimming, and all that
Completely bogus, completelybogus.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Well, wait one minute , so it goes.
But maybe in that particularstatement about the dolphins in
Venice.
But there was scientificevidence that nature was
correcting itself with usdriving less, putting less
pollutants more fish.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
So we create a picture to push that narrative.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
But the problem is and I hate to bring this up
who's the guy that sends youover to air Jesse Smollett?
It's that same thing, so it'sthe Jesse that sent you over to
air jesse smollett.
It's that same thing, so it's.
It's the jesse smollettsyndrome like.
So it is people at it was.
You know, is and has been thelgbtq community under attack
forever.
So someone created ormanipulated a story which took
(14:56):
away from the real struggle.
So those things really didhappen.
During covet a lot ofself-correction was happening,
but when you take things likethat in a false narrative, it
kind of rains on all of thepositives.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
When you find out it's it's it's been manipulated,
you feel duped right, just likeyou.
You brought up the smollettcase.
I mean, are there cases wherethere's been hate crimes?
Absolutely there's there.
It's undeniable.
But when you fabricate them tosomehow either perpetuate your
own story or do things like that, you take away from the story
and that's that's what I thinkyou know.
(15:30):
Dolphins in venice are now,ironically enough, national.
National smithsonian, severalyears later, actually did
photograph dolphins in Venice,but to me I think all of your
points have a higher theme or ahigher calling.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
It was like why would we allow ourselves to have one
incident totally change ourbelief system?
Why would we have one andthat's both ways right?
It was like these are oneincident to be like.
See, I knew all of this wasfabricated, as if the LGBTQ
community plus haven't been, youknow, going through all the
(16:09):
things that happened, but wedidn't know, didn't we?
Speaker 1 (16:11):
We didn't know they were fabricated.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
And when we found out , we felt duped.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
We felt like we'd been had.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
So what I'm saying is why do we not attach the blame
to that one person and that oneincident?
And oftentimes people take thatand be like like BLM.
Blm was a great movement, Somepositive things happened, and so
when something negativehappened, especially from people
on the top.
You know this whole thing is,this whole thing is so you tell
(16:42):
me, the work of months and years, all of that gets thrown away
because of the discovery of oneor something comes out, but to
me it says more about us thanthem that you dismiss everyone
suffering or pain because oneperson did something.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Well, you can't blame a class for anything.
You can't say that white peopleare to blame for this or black
people are to blame for this.
You have to say, in thisparticular case, to your point,
jesse Smollett did the wrongthing, or the person who created
that photography created thisnarrative to try to perpetuate
(17:17):
something that presumably was tohelp them.
In this next case, timemagazine created the cover of
the OJ Simpson murder and overlyblackened OJ Simpson because
they wanted to demonize blackpeople.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
There's really no other way to explain it Because
they think the darker you are,the more menacing you are
Correct.
So they wanted him to.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Correct.
We wanted to scare people.
Now there's no other way todescribe this because, as you
can see in the in the earlypictures, he is not a dark black
person or dark black man.
And yet by the time the coverof time magazine came out, when
it came clear that a heinouscrime had been committed, they
they clearly blackened the photodeeper than before so what's
(18:01):
the narrative?
Speaker 2 (18:01):
what are they trying to do?
Speaker 1 (18:02):
they're trying to before.
So what's the narrative?
What are they trying to do?
They're trying to sellmagazines, but what is the story
?
What's the message that they'retrying to manipulate here?
Speaker 2 (18:09):
And the reverse of that, and this has happened
multiple times.
It just happened two weeks agoagain.
Well, beyonce was lightenedagain.
It was like why does she needto appear to be white?
Why do you think her skin needsto be fairer?
Speaker 1 (18:22):
than what it is.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
So why is it?
Because it's the reverse ofthat.
So you needed him to appear tobe menacing and scary.
So you thought by darkening himyou accomplished that.
You thought by lightening abeautiful woman's skin would
make her more appealing, whichis absolutely bananas to me,
because white people tan.
(18:45):
And then that's when they sayyou know, I do it because I look
beautiful.
It's so confusing and I'm likeso you want them to tan to be
glamorous, but then, whenthey're black, you want them to
be lighter, and it's not like.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
This is a racist publication.
Presumably Time magazine didthis, the one in Newsweek.
As you can see here a muchlighter picture.
It is the same picture of OJSimpson, so you can't say, well,
maybe their picture was withdifferent lighting, it is the
same picture.
This one has been manipulated.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
But what was the timing of that magazine?
When did?
Speaker 1 (19:25):
that?
Didn't it come out during theOJ Simpson trial?
Yes, well, this is when he wasaccused of murder.
When we say that.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
I think again when you talk about half the story.
I think context matters.
At the time the country wasdivided.
And at the time OJ Simpson didbecome—.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
So do you think it's okay to manipulate a photo of
somebody and make them— you knownot to ask me that question.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
But I'm saying context matters.
When you said that this is nota—historically they haven't been
a racist magazine, and what Isaid, it's the light of the
times and at the time thecountry was divided.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
But Newsweek didn't see it necessarily.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
But that's what I'm.
I'm not supporting any of this.
What I'm saying is it's notuncommon for businesses to cater
to their customer.
So, at the time when a countryis divided, I'm not shocked that
someone who typically doesn'tyou know play in a field of you
know, identity politics did.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
But let's be honest.
Do you think anybody readingTime or Newsweek at that time
didn't know OJ Simpson was ablack athlete?
Speaker 2 (20:32):
What I truly believe in that time, that a lot of
people did not see it the waywe're looking at it, because,
you know, revision is historyright.
So at that time when it made, Idon't remember, I remember it
coming up a little, but itwasn't like the jesse small,
like the way scandals, the katemiddleton picture, it wasn't
(20:54):
like that because we were sodivided.
So it's not a big deal.
You know what's the big deal?
He's a black man and people sawhim as this horrible, mean
person.
So why do I care what light youshow a man?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
I guess.
I guess to me that that's partof it is that they created a
more sinister.
I get it.
I'm not saying I agree withthem at all.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
I'm just saying, I think context matters is what
I'm saying.
I think it'll just be likeJeffrey Dahmer.
When Jeffrey Dahmer at the time, when here's a man that were
like literally cannibalizingpeople, do you think people care
about the imagery they put out?
Speaker 1 (21:32):
with Jeffrey Dahmer, I'm just saying but my point is
that's why they call it news andnot opinion, or that's why they
call it news and not satire, orit's supposed to be fact.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
But what wasn't fact about that?
Meaning, it's always beensensationalized, though, too, so
you can have fact andsensationalize the fact, if this
was the Inquirer or the Star, Iget it.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Time was supposed to be Newsweek, for that matter.
Matter the pillar of fact andinformation, and the first thing
they do is doctor, uh, a, a, uh, a convicted or a uh.
You know what am I saying?
Speaker 2 (22:11):
um, he was never convicted.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
He was never convicted an indicted murderer
and they have to somehow falsifyhe wasn't indicted he was
indicted, but no, no no.
No, you're right, he was lateron.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Remember I was later on, so that's what I'm saying At
the time.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Right, but you know they wanted him because he
wasn't he got.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Remember, at the time , the words we were saying to
describe OJ is he got off?
That's to say he got off, hegot off.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Anybody who was around at that time could tell
you exactly where they were whenthe verdict was announced.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
I can tell you, like it was yesterday, I was sitting
in a conference room with MartinBrower.
So, with that being said, theywon it because he got off, which
made him exonerated, which madehim a free man, not exonerated,
which made him a free man.
They wanted him to becriminalized, but this was
during the trial, so the nextone I'm going to show, and this
(23:03):
one's pretty obvious.
Right, that's my point.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Martin Luther King.
So Martin Luther Kingoriginally had this picture
taken by a photographer.
If you can see it again, pleaselook at our website or as part
of the YouTube podcast.
Okay, so he's given everybodythe peace sign.
Well, by the time he made thepublication, he's doing
something completely different.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
King gave the middle finger.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
King gave the middle finger and all of a sudden, it's
King.
Refuses to give interview toreporter, flips him the bird,
and so it paints this picture ofthis indignant, militant, angry
black man which is again,creates his persona.
Now, there were times when Kingwas an angry black man for a
lot of good reason, but whywould we perpetuate this?
(23:47):
Why would we allow thisphotograph to exist when it
clearly is false?
Speaker 2 (23:52):
And I honestly can't even think of a time he was an
angry black man.
He wasn't.
That was part of the thing,like how can you be so peaceful?
So even though his stance laterin life about nonviolence he
was opening his ways up tolooking at it differently, but
he always.
You know he was not retaliatoryat all, but yet we allow that
(24:15):
to occur.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
And this was back in the well, what year was King
active?
Oh, you told me the 50s.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
You know me in years, yeah, what year was King active
?
Oh, you told me the 50s, youknow me.
In years yeah, I know I'm notgood either 60s, 50s 60s.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
So I mean photo manipulation goes back a long
way.
And now, unfortunately, thebigger problem is we're getting
really damn good at it and it'sgetting harder and harder to
identify this, as people in thecomputer world will tell you.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
I wish they manipulate these thighs and they
don't come back.
Can we get that good?
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Trust me it doesn't work.
Living in the south of sweettea you got what you got.
So very interesting article Ifyou look on Wikipedia on the
topic of media manipulation.
And again, I guess my eyesopened when I started to say to
Tria, we need to talk about thefact that so often we will get
into arguments or conversationswith our friends and they'll say
(25:08):
well, how can you believe thatwhen you know that you know 50%
of people do this?
You know what are you talkingabout and then we'll go fact
check it and find out thatthat's not true.
I'll give you one that justhappened today, which is
unbelievable.
I was traveling back fromChicago.
My Uber driver, who's by allintents a knowledgeable
gentleman, said to me you knowwe're tired of these illegals
(25:29):
here in Chicago.
And I said well, I canunderstand how.
You know there's other issuesthat we have here in the United
States and Chicago, whether it'shomeless or whether it's, you
know, mental health.
And he goes do you know thatthey get $9,200 a month?
$9,200 a month and I said you'vegot to be kidding me.
He goes no, I read it the otherday.
It said they get $9,200 a monthand I'm sitting there going.
(25:52):
There's no way that that couldbe true.
There's no way, because I mean,let's face it, $9,200 a month
is what?
Over $9,200 a month is what?
Over $100,000 a year Do youreally believe?
Now here's a gentleman and he'sknowledgeable, he's versed, he
reads the news and he believesthat.
So I said, as soon as I gothome, I said I'm going to look
this one up, I'm going to lookthis one up.
(26:13):
So where did this one come from?
Well, there was a viral postdone about a month ago by a
Republican congresswoman out ofColorado, where she claimed that
the federal government wasgiving undocumented immigrant
families $2,200 a month.
Now, that's certainly not$9,200 a month, but $2,200 a
(26:35):
month.
So already we've got somebodygoing from $2,200 to $9,200.
So then I went to a fact-basedwebsite.
You know what?
It ain't true.
So here's an Uber driver who isangry and bitter at the fact
that he's working so hard,making $300 or $400 a day
clearly not making $9,200 a yearand angry at the fact that he
(26:58):
believes his government ispaying out $9,200 a month.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Factually untrue.
You know how I feel about thissubject.
I just I can't.
I can't, I really can't.
I say this to anybody and thiscould be.
Take it, apply it to whateveryou want.
If you allow yourself to holdon to truths and then go around
and proselytize, preach them andtake such hard stance, don't be
(27:32):
ignorant.
You owe it to yourself to beeducated and find out, and
educated means not go towhatever source.
Every state, every state hasdifferent what we consider
welfare policies.
It's state-driven.
It's not the government, it'sthe state.
So when you get your penniesall in a ruffle, is that an
(27:57):
expression?
Speaker 1 (27:57):
I think you can say that.
You can say that.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
If you get your pennies all in a ruffle about
something, first of all, look atyour state, because now you're
talking about your tax dollars,because that's what we say.
It's my tax dollars that aregoing to these poor people.
My tax dollars are going to allthis.
So it's incumbent on you tofind out the facts.
And the facts are in moststates across America, welfare
(28:22):
is minuscule.
No one can survive on welfareand a lot of times and I can
speak for the state of Illinoisand I have someone close to me
that's over the department A lotof it is you have to work to
get anything.
They have companies that theysubsidize and say, hey, you go
over there, and a lot of timesit's less than minimum wage.
(28:42):
So you do the math, let it makesense to you.
So, before you take a stance,be educated on what you are
passionate about.
Preach it to your heart'scontent.
I don't care.
We don't have to agree, but youshould, before you tell people
what to think or how to think orwhat to believe, you should
know the facts, and you know.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
I don't agree.
I don't disagree with anythingyou just said there, but I just
believe that, as a function ofwhat's going on right now, it's
getting harder and harder tofind facts.
As I talked about in my openingcomment is that facts are
getting harder and harder tocome by because there are very
few sources, and I'm going tocall out two right now.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
But can I just say one thing Sure, come by because
there are very few sources andI'm going to call out two right
now.
But can I just say one thing?
So not when it comes down tothis, not every state.
It's public.
If you want to find out rightnow, we're in the state of
Alabama.
If you want to know what youget paid on Alabama unemployment
, it's right there.
What you get paid on welfare,what is it?
It's right there.
That is not anything to debate.
(29:41):
That is a state criteria.
Now I will tell you the max.
So it could be lower than that.
When you read these max, they'dbe like how can people survive
on it?
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Exactly so it's right there and you can't manipulate
that, but you're talking aboutone type of information Right.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
I understand that.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
I understand what you're saying, if it's a
government-funded program, youshould be able to go to that.
I want to call out two websitesthat I believe would be helpful
for people, because peoplelistening to this can say well,
you know, how do I really knowif something's true or not, and
even true or fact has some grayto it, and we'll talk about that
in a second here.
But there are two sites I dowant to call out.
One of them is Snopes, which isS-N-O-P-E-S.
(30:17):
Snopes is a good sign andthat's what I did when I got
back.
It's $9,200 for Uber, what's?
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Snopes.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Snopes is a website which is a fact-checking website
.
Another one is calledPolitiFact.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Now, you know, and the reason I'm saying it because
I can hear somebody watchingthis is it because that's where
we are right now?
Is it left-leaning or?
Speaker 1 (30:39):
right-leaning.
No, it claims to be objectiveand I tried to do kind of a
sniff test and I can tell youPolitiFact, which is the other
one I'm going to talk about herein a minute, is pretty centrist
, from what I can tell.
Now I'm sure if you're veryfar-leaning left you may believe
it's too conservative, it's toofar right, but at some point
again we have to agree that factis fact.
Your opinion can be whateveryou like, but if we can't agree
(31:00):
on fact we've got big problemsgoing on here.
So I want to fall on my ownsword here and we have
conversations all the time aboutvarious things that go on in
the world and how we believe andhow we feel about things.
So I'm going to take as Iconsider myself to be relatively
educated, I'm going to fall onmy sword on two current events
that I came down on the wrongside of that, I came down on the
(31:23):
wrong side of.
So the first one is I have beenrelatively vocal about the fact
that I didn't believe that webelonged in Ukraine and for a
number of reasons I still don't.
But the major reason I hung onit was I had read and heard and
listened to people talk aboutthe fact that we, as the United
States and NATO, had agreed notto ever recruit any other states
(31:47):
or any other countries east ofGermany after the unification of
Germany.
And I spouted it and I talkedabout it and I said look, we're
at fault here.
Some of you know Candace Owen.
Candace Owen went to Congressand talked about it.
There have been a number ofpeople that have come out and
said we agreed not to do it, webroke our rules.
(32:07):
Well, guess what?
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Sorry, nobody can see that if they audio my hard eye
roll Exactly.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
Fact speaking, it never happened that way.
There have been nuances, therehave been innuendos, there have
been inferences to it, but wenever factually agreed to that.
So guess what?
Okay, bullshit, all right.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
So that's number one, Bill tell them to stop
littering in your studio.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Fell on my sword on that one.
Okay, number two my partner incrime here, or what I call my
pill, my partner in life, knowsfull well how I feel about
tiktok.
Right, how do I feel abouttiktok?
Speaker 2 (32:44):
you almost shit, almost.
I send you a video.
Don't ever send me anythinglike from tiktok right and why
did I say that?
Speaker 1 (32:54):
why did I say I didn't want anything from tiktok
?
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I'm not going to even say why you originally told me
you said it Because it's ownedby China.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
I said it's a Chinese agent.
It's actually designed by theChinese government.
It's owned by the Chinesegovernment now.
And there are people out there,brian Kilmeade being one of
them Fox News who is convincingpeople that it's owned by the
Chinese government.
Well, the truth is it is notFactually speaking.
It is not Factually speaking.
(33:23):
It is not Now doesn't meanChina doesn't have an ownership
in it, but PolitiFact will tellyou that 60% of the parent
company, which is calledByteDance, is owned by global
investors, 20% by itsco-founders, 20% by its
employees and includingthousands of Americans actually
(33:43):
own it.
The Chinese government took a1% ownership stake in this
company.
So again, I consider myselffairly knowledgeable and that's
why I kind of challenged you andsaid it's easy to say with some
things, sure, you should knowthe facts, but sometimes it's
hard to find the facts it is,and I said that, and you've got
people literally on reputablenews agencies talking about
(34:07):
these things.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Okay, I'll put that one next.
What?
Speaker 1 (34:09):
we've said is sometimes these are
opinion-based articles and notreally fact-based articles.
So I was wrong on that one too.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Just make sure you give them a broom and a dustpan.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Hey, that's okay, that's okay.
So, with that being said, I dowant to talk about a couple of
different things.
Again.
This is from politifact, and Iwant to be fair to both sides of
the aisle.
So the state of the union wasabout what two weeks ago?
Three weeks ago, and whilebiden got some good press from
it, who got really bad pressfrom it?
That's right, katie britt.
(34:41):
Well done.
The way you nailed that one wasimpressive.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
So and I look.
I didn't know where you weregoing you remember katie britt?
How could I?
Speaking from her kitchenamerican people, you are in
trouble.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
I am telling you now lock up your children spend,
send your money, but I'm justsaying that, then it may have
been.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I'm just saying, yeah , I think I was spot on.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
That was a.
I was spot on.
That was a little thick.
Spot on, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
I didn't even rehearse it either, it just came
natural.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
The ambulance is here to pick her up.
Yeah, so anyway, politifact dida piece on fact checking for
Katie Britt's presentation, andthis is again a case where words
matter, where words matter, andI don't want to get too hung up
on it.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Oh, I don't know where you're going, but tread
lightly Because I okay, I'mgoing to let you finish, so
let's talk about this, okay.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
So here are just a couple of the things said during
and don't worry, I'm an equalopportunity offender.
I'm going to bring up Bidenhere in a minute.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
No, no, no.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
So the first thing is that during her presentation
Should be driven by fact.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Okay, yeah, we should .
Speaker 1 (35:42):
She said that Biden suspended all deportations.
Okay, as soon as he becamefirst day of office, he
suspended all deportations.
Okay, now the operative wordhere is all deportations.
Now, on the first day of office, biden did indeed publish a
memo pausing the removal ofcertain people who are illegal
(36:07):
in the United States.
Okay, and the court quicklystopped that pause, but he did
stop the removal of certainpeople.
So who's right?
Well, technically she is wrongbecause she said all deportation
stopped.
Now you could argue well, hestopped some, but she didn't say
some.
This is, this is the erosion offact.
(36:28):
Okay, so if she had said Bidencame in and stopped a lot of
deportations, would she havelost a lot of mileage with that?
No, would she have told thetruth?
Yes, but instead we lied.
We lied.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
And not only did we lie, it's, it's and and and part
of that same math.
Has he not deported?
How many people has he deportedon his watch?
So I think that's important tostate, though, toby, because
when the message is that hestopped all, and your response
back is like, well, there was apause, but you know the number
(37:04):
of people he has deported sincehe's been there.
So when you say it's-.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
But why did he deport so many?
Because there have been so manymore.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
Right, but that's not the point.
But my point being-.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
As one goes up, the other goes up.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
You are bringing up the fact that he stopped all.
No, not you love.
Oh my God.
You said you.
You are the messenger, so youjust said she said he stopped
all.
And not only did he stop all,we've had the highest
deportation rates, and yes,according to the number that
comes in, but tell all the facts.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
Correct.
That's the facts.
So the next one is Biden haltedthe construction of the border
wall.
Do you believe that's true?
No, it's not only not true, nottrue.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
They didn't even have .
Do you believe that's true?
Speaker 1 (37:46):
No, it's not only not true they resumed barrier
construction using the moneyCongress had previously
appropriated.
The administration has alsospent millions on barrier
repairs.
Now you can argue whether thebarrier is good or bad, or
whether it's effective or not,but the fact is they used money
that was already appropriatedfor and kept building it.
So in many ways this might beconsidered negative to some of
(38:07):
Biden's proponents who saidthank God he's here.
He stopped building the barrierwall.
He did not.
He continued to build theborder wall.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
And what were you missing?
Another large fact in there.
The fact was, when we, as theAmerican public, saw this border
wall conversation, the exactwords well, I'm not going to
quote him verbatim, because evenhe can't keep up with his own
words.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
But what he?
Speaker 2 (38:28):
said was American people weren't going to pay for
it, that he was going to get themoney from Mexico.
He said that so not only did westart building, but it was our
dollars because our funding.
So those are the facts andstate that.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
The third one I wanted to bring up from this,
and there were a couple ofothers.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
I pray if you miss the big one we're going to run.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
I may leave out the big one because, you know, for
purposes of time, Okay, wrap itup.
This is my monkey, this is mycircus, and I've been good Biden
chose to release to the US theman accused of killing Lakin
Riley.
And this is a very emotional one, because many of you know that
Lincoln Riley was a 22-year-oldUniversity of Georgia nursing
student who was killed by anillegal immigrant who had been
(39:11):
caught before and had beenreleased and, after his release,
actually did this heinous crime.
So this is one of those caseswhere, again, we prey on emotion
because it says that Bidenchose to release this person.
Now, obviously it's a tragedy.
Everybody, from either anybodywho's ever had children or
anything, knows that a murder isa horrible thing.
(39:31):
But to call out Biden forreleasing it so Biden doesn't
choose who gets released and whodoesn't, it's the justice
system.
Ok, so you can turn on all thatsemantic, it's not, it's erosion
of fact again.
So if they'd said under Biden'sgovernment this happened, that
would have been factually true.
But that's not what she said.
What she said was Biden choseto release to the United States
(39:54):
the man of accusing.
So obviously this is a casewhere words matter and facts
matter, and we need to getourselves in a position where we
stop creating opinion andcreating this fact.
So which is the one that youthink I missed, that I should?
Speaker 2 (40:09):
have the biggest one, the one that got everyone
heartstrings, when she told thestory of the, the immigrant that
was raped, and it wasn't evenlike it happened when we let
immigrants come into thiscountry and it didn't even
happen in america and it wasn'ton biden's watch, it wasn't even
his in America and it wasn't onBiden's watch, it wasn't even
his administration.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
But I just I don't understand why we had to lie
about these things, Becauseagain.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
you could, toby, come on For real.
You don't understand why we hadto lie.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
I could have rewritten this speech with four
different words and made itfactually accurate, and it
wouldn't have impacted.
It wouldn't have made as big animpact If you said look that he
stopped some deportations.
Do you think that would havehad a major?
Anyway?
So to be fair, let's talk aboutJoe Biden's latest speech
during the State of the Unionand again, let's fact check it.
(40:55):
And again, politifact is agreat place to go if you want to
get an idea of this.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
How much time do we have?
So the first one are yougetting bored?
I just want to make sure we getpast politics, because it's, is
it all politics?
No, I'm not.
Speaker 1 (41:07):
No, okay, is there other things you want to talk
about?
You told me I had free reign.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
I'm only on hour one of seven.
Here I'm a passenger you'reright, there you go.
But you know, sometimespassengers become backseat
drivers.
You're a backseat driver.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
Okay, I'm going to shut up.
So do you believe thatinflation has dropped from 9% to
3% and is the lowest in theworld?
Because that's what Biden said.
It's not.
Inflation has fallen, but we'renot the lowest in the world.
So, again, words matter.
Consumer studies show thatconsumer confidence is soaring.
(41:40):
Do you believe it's soaring?
We know it's not.
It's not.
Speaker 2 (41:44):
So facts matter, but did he say consumer?
Speaker 1 (41:50):
He said consumer studies show consumer confidence
is soaring, oh he said consumer.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Again, context matter .
Speaker 1 (41:56):
So he didn't say consumer, he said consumer
studies show consumer confidenceis soaring, which is not true.
Speaker 2 (42:04):
But that's different than saying.
He said the consumer sources,but the facts don't speak to
that.
I hear you.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
The survey's consumer sentiment score was lower than
it was in April 2020, astartling finding, given that in
April 2020, the unemploymentrate was 13.2% and Americans
were facing the uncertainty of aonce-a-century pandemic.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Can I ask a question?
Yes, yes I wanted you to say no, because I'm like where would I
have gone with that If you saidno, I would have been like you
think I was going to be quiet.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
No, never.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
What I don't understand about American
politics and maybe like thelender's bagel man, like he
always says, bagel I understandpeople I never understand.
I don't understand how can wecontinue to want it both ways,
meaning when you hear Americanconsensus I've heard time and
(43:02):
time again since I was a childand I haven't been a child in a
long time.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Oh, but you act childish.
Does that count?
Speaker 2 (43:08):
Yeah, I do have a childlike spirit.
Thank you, Toby, for sharingCaring and sharing.
Not always.
But what they say is we wantour American president, when he
speaks to the people, to bringup hope and positivity, and lie,
I'm sorry.
No, I'm sorry, Now I shut upall of this, and so this is what
(43:33):
I've been told that we want astrong leader.
That's positive, and let usknow, even when it's a shit
storm outside, that the sun isgoing to come out tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (43:44):
We want fucking Annie , excuse me this one's going to
be R-rated.
Sorry.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
We want freaking, annie.
We want to know that the sun isgoing to freaking, come out
tomorrow and all of the pain isgoing to go away, and we don't
want doom and gloom.
That's what I was told.
Speaker 1 (44:02):
She's on cold medication today.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
In case someone am facts, facts, the part is true.
Thank you for exposing mybusiness again, no problem I
always count on you, um, butthen I'm confused because if we
get up there and we have apresident that truly reads the
facts as we know it, you'venever paid this much for toilet
(44:24):
paper and you probably neverwill.
You can't afford that state.
Put it back.
Those are the facts.
You guess what?
It is shitty.
The climate is screwed up.
You know your children don'tknow crap.
That's because they sit in thehouse.
And if we came up and told thetruth, we would be like what the
hell Get rid of him.
So you're okay with.
And if we came up and told thetruth, we were like what the
(44:46):
hell Get rid of him.
Speaker 1 (44:46):
Where do we go?
So you're okay with lying?
You're okay with the presidentlying to you?
Speaker 2 (44:48):
No, I am okay with looking in the mirror and having
some honesty, but I understandthat I'm cut from a different
cloth number one.
Number two people need to like.
Literally after Biden gave thatspeech, I've even heard
Republicans say you know what hedid, well, or he?
(45:09):
I'm not a fan.
I wouldn't vote for him.
Just hear me out for a second.
Speaker 1 (45:13):
Like.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
I'm not a fan, I wouldn't vote for him, but
that's what we need.
We need someone to come out andtake charge and be
authoritative.
Yet, factually, we had, youknow, the orange oompa loompa.
He gets up there and he goes onhis tirade and you know who he
is and if I have to say his name, whatever you know, his name is
(45:34):
trump.
You know he gets up there and,like I'm gonna recap it, I'm
going to, and he swears and hedoes all these things that are
not presidential whatsoever, andhe has a mass of people that's
following him too.
So where do we stand?
Speaker 1 (45:51):
Why, if he's such a horrible guy?
Speaker 2 (45:54):
I didn't say that.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
I said that for them.
Why do so?
Speaker 2 (45:56):
many people follow him.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
Because they believe that there's so much deceit and
lack of truth.
You can call it lies, you cancall it whatever you want.
Speaker 2 (46:06):
And I don't agree with you.
I don't think it's okay for.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
Katie Britt to lie, any more than it's right for
President Biden to lie.
Anytime we get into that, thenall of a sudden it just becomes
this race to the bottom, whetherthat's propaganda or political
speeches or advertising.
If we get lied to, you cannotcreate.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
But can I step in there for one second?
Isn't it a difference?
And I can't stand.
I can't stand white lies.
That's just a little white lie.
A lie is a lie is a lie.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
But you just let Biden go.
I'm going to say what you justsaid, that it was okay to lie
because you didn't want to hearhow lousy the world was.
Speaker 2 (46:45):
I said that's what the world says.
Oh okay, I literally said theopposite.
Anybody I know Phil's listening.
I saw your head go up and down.
Speaker 1 (46:51):
Okay, all right, I said the world.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
I said he cannot tell the truth, he cannot come out
and say you know, you come home,do you?
That's all I'm asking I live ina truth.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
I live in a truth if the fact is, you probably won't
buy a house for the next two orthree years.
Speaker 2 (47:11):
Those are the facts and it's not going to change for
me how I live, but I understandhow people need to hear it's
going to get better and it ispeople need sunshine and
cupcakes Unicorns and cupcakesOkay.
But anyway, you made me lose mytrain of thought.
Okay, Carry on, go back to me.
(47:32):
So you know what.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
I'm actually and I don't know if you wanted to talk
about anything other because Iwas going to finish with a quiz
here.
I was going to quiz you andit's a game that everybody plays
.
Speaker 2 (47:42):
Oh boy, Now you got me all riled up in my cold
medicine war off.
There you go, oh no.
Speaker 1 (47:47):
So I was going to finish with four facts and a lie
.
Speaker 2 (47:51):
I heard of this.
Okay, I played this one before.
All right, everybody plays it,and I've done it in corporate
America, which is interesting.
Everybody plays it at work, youknow, give bit wider.
And this is courtesy of Snopes,which is again one of those
sites so wait, are you just?
Speaker 1 (48:08):
are you?
Is this personal?
Are you just trying to?
Oh, it's personal, it's game on.
Okay, let's see how you know Ihave no secrets.
Speaker 2 (48:12):
I may tell something about you.
These are things that happen inthe world.
I'm ready to tell it all.
Speaker 1 (48:16):
I would never tell anybody any more about you thank
you, they already know, trustme.
So these are.
These are all come out ofSnopes Five things that have
been questioned and challenged.
Speaker 2 (48:27):
So we're saying that Snopes is the authority and
everything you got down there.
They are Okay, whatever.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
God, please help us.
Some place has to be factchecking.
Five of them, all right.
Four of them are true and oneof them is a lie.
Okay, and we're going to goreal slow here.
The first one is a lie.
Okay, and we're going to goreal slow here.
Speaker 2 (48:44):
The first one is Washington State.
I thought this was going to berapid fire.
Why are we going slow?
Speaker 1 (48:47):
Because if I go fast, you'll tell me to slow down, or
you'll say you didn't hear it,or I'll repeat the question.
Speaker 2 (48:52):
Or you'll want to recount, or you'll say that Chad
was hanging or something.
Speaker 1 (48:55):
It'll be something.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
You liberals are always the same.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
All right anyway.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
Washington state in 2027 will no longer require you
to pass the bar exam for a lawdegree.
I heard about this.
I heard about this because Ithought about remember the movie
um idiocracy, idiocracy oridiot, yeah, when they got their
degree.
So that's the first one.
Speaker 1 (49:22):
You got to think about that, whether that's true
or false?
Okay, next one is Bill Gatesowns a farm that produces a lot
of potatoes for McDonald'sFrench fries.
Speaker 2 (49:34):
Stop it.
Speaker 1 (49:34):
I know where McDonald's potatoes come from,
that's number two Bill Gatesowns a farm that produces a lot
of the potatoes for McDonald'sFrench fries Okay.
The third one is Biden is thefirst US president to skip a
cognitive test.
Okay, you know what I mean.
Okay, all right, so that'snumber three.
Number four is Putin took hisdog in 2007 to a meeting with
(49:57):
then-German Chancellor AngelaMerkel, who was deathly afraid
of dogs.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
So no, no quick question.
So that's four, right?
Speaker 1 (50:07):
That's the fourth one .
Speaker 2 (50:07):
So it's three lies and one truth.
Speaker 1 (50:09):
No, no four lies and one truth.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
We haven't got the last one yet, you see, because
you jumped the gun.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
Okay, and the last one is the kingdom of Bhutan.
Have giant penises painted ontheir buildings to ward off evil
spirits.
Speaker 2 (50:21):
I like that Penises go away so four of these are
true.
One of them is a lie if I couldimagine people with penises
around their neck.
Nothing says safety like giantpenises, if I could, keep
certain people away, I'll walkaround with a hanger from my
chin.
I would do it in a heartbeat ifthey would stay.
(50:43):
The hell away from me.
No-transcript.
Speaker 1 (50:46):
That would be a hell of a fashion statement.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
I promise you I would do it.
I'm promising you that I'llhave it swinging back and forth
too.
Just stay away from me.
Speaker 1 (50:51):
That gives a new expression to swing.
Never mind, we're not going totalk about that.
One Okay, farm was Was.
Washington State will no longerrequire passage of the bar.
False Number two you don'tthink that's true, that's a lie.
So you believe that's the lie.
Speaker 2 (51:08):
You said they.
Speaker 1 (51:10):
I said Washington State will no longer require you
to pass the bar exam for yourlaw license by 2027.
Is that true or false?
Speaker 2 (51:17):
I heard this.
I've heard it.
I did hear that this is goingto happen.
I just didn't believe it.
So you think it's false.
Can we go back to the rest?
Just pass that one, okay.
Speaker 1 (51:28):
Bill Gates' farm produces.
You think that's false, false?
Okay, so the rest of them aretrue.
Wait, so it's only one, onlyone falsehood here.
Speaker 2 (51:37):
You're lying.
Speaker 1 (51:38):
I lie you not.
Stop it.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
I stop you not I thought it was all lies and one
truth.
These are all true, except forone.
Okay, go back.
Speaker 1 (51:45):
Rewind Washington.
Phil, we're going to needanother four hours for this
podcast.
Speaker 2 (51:48):
Just make it quick, just go back.
Speaker 1 (51:49):
Washington State doesn't.
Speaker 2 (51:51):
The answer has to be true.
That's true, it is true.
Speaker 1 (51:54):
Okay Okay.
Bill Gates Farm producespotatoes for McDonald's French
fries.
I'll say true, true, a largeportion biden is the first us
president to skip a cognitivetest.
Speaker 2 (52:08):
That is false.
That is indeed false.
I know that one.
So the last two are also true,which is putin took his dog to a
meeting.
Once I do the rules, I cananswer next.
Speaker 1 (52:14):
You're amazing, I am and and the biggest one well, I
shouldn't say biggest and penisin the same sentence, but the
biggest one here at the bottomis that giant penises apparently
do ward off evil spirits.
Speaker 2 (52:24):
Because the kingdom of Bhutan have not seen any evil
spirits in thousands of years.
Satan has been busy, and I'mgoing to get me a giant penis.
Speaker 1 (52:34):
I think you can order one from kingdom of Bhutancom
and we'll put that too long.
Speaker 2 (52:39):
You know the shipping .
We just had the cargo ship runinto something.
You won't get anything for awhile, until bridge.
Speaker 1 (52:47):
On that note, we tried to add some levity to
obviously a very challenging.
Speaker 2 (52:53):
I like this format.
How about I just not do?
Speaker 1 (52:55):
any work from now on?
How about you do nothingExactly?
Speaker 2 (52:57):
You just sit there, I just let you do everything and
I just comment I like this,we'll call it the Uber driver
podcast, and I'll remember totake cold medicine.
You, we'll call it the UberDriver Podcast, and.
Speaker 1 (53:03):
I'll remember to take cold medicine.
You just sit in the back and becritical.
Yes, that's great.
Absolutely.
I like that.
We'll call it the Uber Podcast.
You just sit in the back and becritical.
Speaker 2 (53:09):
Why you got to change from Perch.
Speaker 1 (53:10):
That's right, I don't know.
Anyway, I hope we added somelevity and brought some thought
process to the idea.
At the end of the day, youropinions, opinions based on fact
.
Let's stop acting like idiotsand taking the dog food that
they feed us.
So, on that note, fellowperchlings, we wish you good
tidings.
Good day and we'll see youagain soon, take care, thank you
(53:43):
.
Well, good afternoon, good evening, good morning,
fellow perchers.
It is us again.
I'm sure you missed ustremendously.
Tree, how are you today?
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I am under the weather, but I'm here Playing
hurt, ready to go Playing hurt.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Ready to rumble?
Okay, you know she's putting inthe time.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Just an FYI.
Can I just give a?
This is Toby's show, See that.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
She's already distancing herself from it.
She's like if this turns out tobe a bomb, she wants something.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I have no idea what we're discussing.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
This is his show.
I am just a passenger on thiscrazy train, and this is her
bystander.
She says, yes on this crazytrain.
That's right.
Absolutely Not the conductor onthis crazy train.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Let us get it going.
All right, let's get ready torumble.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
We can let it roll.
So an interesting topic today.
It's one that we've talkedabout for quite some time, and
some of it's heavy, some of it'slight, but in either way, it's
kind of a disturbing trend thatwe've seen, and hopefully this
will resonate with many of youguys out there.
So let's get started.
Let's just kind of kick thisoff.
(01:08):
So, you know, we by nature, areinquisitive creatures and we
seek to understand, to know andto learn, and we ask a lot of
questions and, as a result ofthat, we form a lot of
conclusions that frame our viewon the world, and it's working.
So we decide whether we feelsafe or happy with our
surroundings, our politicians,the condition of our planet and
(01:30):
all these things based on theseconclusions.
But are we really only gettinghalf the story or, in some cases
, are we hearing a complete workof fiction?
We all say that we want to knowthe truth and that it is the
truth that matters, but howoften do we get enough of the
information dare I say all ofthe information in order for us
to come to this truth?
(01:51):
And how can we base ouropinions on fact when facts have
become so difficult to come by?
Let's face it opinions are notfacts.
You can have your own opinion,but somehow we've decided that
these days that you can alsohave your own facts, and that's
wrong and it can be verydangerous.
We need to agree to facts,since they should be irrefutable
(02:13):
.
And well, if we have adifferent opinion as a result of
those facts?
Well, that's where debate and,hopefully, compromise, will take
over.
The informational manipulationthat has grown and perfected
over the last few decades wouldmake you question whether there
really is such a thing as truthor fact anymore, or whether we
(02:34):
look for a narrative or morselof fact that meets our eroding
standards of what allows us tostand on our ground and call it
good enough.
You go out looking for tomatoes, you find tomatoes.
You go out looking torationalize your opinion on
something and you find enoughfact to satisfy what can often
be your low bar for requirement.
(02:56):
As a result of what is nowcommonly referred to as media
manipulation, people are forcedto do their own work, should
they be so inclined, in order toget to the facts and the truth,
the notion that a person canstate something through social
channels or even the formalmedia channels, and that that
that information could be takenas anything other than opinion
(03:17):
or, in many cases, purefabrication, is now an epidemic
of massive proportions, and weknow that most of what we hear
and see and read and talk onFacebook, x, instagram is often
so outrageous in order to elicitour engagement.
But what happened to areputable source of truth that
allows us to stay grounded?
So today, on Perch, we discussthe erosion of fact-based
(03:41):
opinion making, which is heavilyinfluenced by the near death of
objective fact reporting,leading to the rise and
proliferation of highlypolarized world that we live in.
Whether it's around globalwarming, the war in Ukraine, blm
immigration or even a pictureof Princess Kate, what we see
and hear is often, at best, onlyhalf the story.
(04:06):
Wow, that's a lot.
Huh, a lot.
See that there was a lot there.
A lot.
So, as we would say, there's alot to unpack.
A lot to digest.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
A lot to click on.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
So let's get unpacking.
Let's start with an easy one,okay?
So obviously the last,something easy.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
And all that Absolutely, that's pretty heavy.
And all that Absolutely, that'spretty heavy.
Well, the easiest one, that'spretty heavy.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Let's start with something that started kind of
lighthearted and now may not beso lighthearted, and that's this
whole Kate Princess of Walesthing, oh Lord.
So let's start there.
I mean, why do we have to fakepictures of people?
Why has it gotten to the point?
We'll talk about the differenttypes of media manipulation.
It's fascinating.
If you haven't spent any time,go Google eyes media
(04:45):
manipulation.
It is unbelievable how we havebeen, dare I say, con for so
long.
It's a little scary.
So let's talk about Kate.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Okay, no, because when you say things you know me,
my mind goes a thousanddifferent directions.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
But if you want to talk about Kate, we'll talk
about Kate, so why do we have tofake a picture of Kate?
Speaker 2 (05:10):
I don't know how to fake it, I think, because just
like and let's be honest, youknow I am not, we're here in
America, we're not over there,but we know that that's a I
shouldn't say that, yes, Ishould, sure you can.
They fabricate, that's whatthey do.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
The whole monarchy.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Oh, the monarchy it's always been smoke and mirrors.
It's about prestige, it's abouta look, it's about the look of
royalty, the look of you know,we can't have any imperfections,
because that's a mark againstus and that's why the people
have been at odds with them forthe longest.
Yes, money is an issue, butit's like, at the end of the day
(05:52):
, just like here in Americawhich we've gone off the rails
that's a different story.
But people say we pay you.
You are in those positionsbecause of our dollars and we
need to see you humanize.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Okay, and so then— but do things have to be perfect
, wouldn't people kind of like,if they know—and I guess now
it's come out that Kate may bequite poorly right, they think
she may have cancer right, shehas cancer, right, not quite.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
She put her own statement out.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
So why not just come clean on that?
Is there some reason we've gotto fake things?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Because we just said that, because that's a.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Does that show frailty?
It does Okay.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
And we know, but that's.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
So the monarchy can't show frailty, you don't think?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Of course, not.
Okay, interesting, but that'sbeen the image.
That's why they spend so muchmoney on PR and imagery, and
because what they think theworld needs to see is a picture
of perfection.
And so how dare we not beperfect?
So, and then, as they acquiesceto what the people are calling
(06:54):
for, they have started to, withthis newest generation, with you
know, kate and William, to sayoh, look at us at this event and
look at us being just like you.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Okay, but I would think to be just like you would
be to suffer from the same ills,absolutely.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
So it's interesting, they know it now, but now they
know it by default.
Yeah, so those of you who havebeen in a cave.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
I'll read this really quickly For those of you who
don't know what we're talkingabout.
We're sitting out there sayingwho's Kate Winslow all about?
On March 11th, the family, thefamily, the royal family
released a picture of Kate toshow that everything was fine,
that she was okay.
And what was interesting was itmade it into all the nudity,
all the major media channels,and then, all of a sudden, a
(07:38):
couple of them started toquestion it and it says at first
it was just social mediasleuths, pointing out apparent
discrepancies with the pictures,but then four of the world's
largest news agencies theAssociated Press, reuters, getty
Images and Agence France Pressall issued what they call kill
notices to the picture and tookit down.
You can find it out online.
(07:58):
I'll show you a quick picture ofit here, with a circle through
it.
They started to finddiscrepanciesrepancies, and I
mean the first thing I thinkabout is who goes looking for
discrepancies to begin with,unless that's common practice,
right?
I mean, because some none ofthese were that obvious.
I mean one of them was like ahand in the wrong place but can
I, can, I, can I perch on thisfor a minute.
America has done the same thingwell, oh, we're gonna get to
(08:21):
that, oh, trust me.
Okay, I was gonna say we haveall to be remember.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
We've had presidents that were in wheelchairs and we
couldn't show the wheelchair.
Oh yeah, we did so.
How is that any different?
Speaker 1 (08:32):
none, none whatsoever .
I just think it's all.
It's interesting because in inthis particular article they
actually talk about, they say annbc news analyst analysis of
the photo suggests that theseinconsistencies show
manipulation of the image.
And so a lot of what we'regoing to talk about today is
either half the story or, insome cases, the fact that
stories have been completelymanipulated to make us act or
(08:55):
feel or respond in certain ways.
Now who's the puppet masterhere?
Speaker 2 (09:00):
and that's so.
We'll be one and I just want to.
I want to piggyback off them.
Bring one more example of whatwe've done recently.
I shouldn't say we, because hewants to spin it when reality is
(09:37):
.
People didn't question why theynever showed the room.
This is a man that has takenyou, if you agree with him or
disagree with him.
He has taken great delight toshow the crowds that he draws,
because that's part of his stick.
I draw a lot of people.
People love me.
People love me.
No one took the time, exceptone journalist there, to take a
(09:59):
beat and say well, why we didn'tsee these people's faces?
Why are you making thesestatements that they adore you?
Let's see their adoration.
Besides Tim Scott, you knowkissing down to his throne, but
my point is it goes back to whatyou're saying wholeheartedly,
so people had half the story.
So, they took that and ran withit.
Well, if you even showed thefull picture, you would have saw
(10:23):
that there really wasn't anyblack people in the room.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
There was also one.
You know, to be fair to bothsides, there was a rally that a
Democratic nominee did duringthe last election where the
picture showed them talking to athrong of people and then they
pulled back and that was allthere was was that front of
people.
So, again, it's this photomanipulation that we're supposed
(10:51):
to look at.
It go.
Oh, wow, this candidate is verysuccessful.
Oh, this particular person isis, you know, is is popular with
the black voter and all of that.
It's made to manipulate us.
It's made to make us thinksomething that's very different.
So we got got to photomanipulation quickly and I
actually pulled a couple asideand for those of you who listen
to us on YouTube, we'll actuallysuperimpose some of these
pictures as part of it.
(11:11):
For those of you who arelistening to us on Spotify or
another audio channel, we'll putit on our Perch website so you
can look at them.
But some of them are justclearly obvious that they're
trying to elicit some changes oremotion in us, that that that
really shouldn't be there.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
So if I can just chime in on what.
Toby just said I would.
I would ask that let this bethe time where those of you who
appreciate the audio listenerswe truly do don't want you to
stop listening, but in thissense is I will love for you to
go over.
Go on YouTube subscribe,because some things you know,
like I said like her face halfthe time.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
You got to see she got to fix her face on some of
the things I say really my faceis my face but you know my face
is always truthful now take thatfor whatever crazy things her
face.
Just there's no words for it.
It really isn't it's my facethat's true okay so, anyway, so
here's one.
So this came out and this, forthose of you who can see, was a
(12:08):
Ralph Lauren commercial, andthis is what the woman looked
like when they actually took thepicture, and this is what
actually showed up on the cover.
All right, now, that's a clearcase of photo manipulation, and
obviously the folks Well, it'ssome black and whites, I don't
(12:31):
know how clear, well, but look,look, look, how her body shape
here, and look at her body shape.
Right, it's clearly beenmanipulated.
Now, why?
This is clearly an attractivewoman.
Why do we need to make her eventhinner than she already is?
Okay, there's clearly a storyhere that we've got to
understand and it's like oh well, if you're not, if you're not
super thin, you're notattractive.
It's, it's body shaming.
So why in the world does amagazine or a fashion designer
(12:52):
like Ralph Lauren feel compelledto take somebody who looks
perfectly natural in fact, morenatural, quite honestly, here
than she looks over here?
She looks almost emaciated overhere.
So so why?
Okay, you can ask yourself that.
Here's an interesting one.
This apparently came out duringthe fires in the Aborigine in
Australia, and this was thepicture that came out.
(13:13):
This was a woman, a young girlcaught in the fires In Australia
.
For those of you who can see itAgain, for those of you who
look online, it'd be great.
What is it really?
It's actually made up of twocompletely separate photos,
neither of which happened atthat time.
The picture of the girl wassuperimposed with a fire picture
and then created this pictureto create an image to have us
(13:36):
what feel sorry for these people, donate money, somehow affect
our senses Clearly bogus andphoto manipulation.
There was one that came up andI don't have a picture of this
one where, during COVID, theyclaimed that they had pictures
of dolphins swimming in thecanals in Venice and what they
(13:59):
said is, now that people are nolonger out on the streets and
doing all this stuff, nature isreturning to its natural places
of you know, harvesting orswimming, and all that
Completely bogus, completelybogus.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Well, wait one minute , so it goes.
But maybe in that particularstatement about the dolphins in
Venice.
But there was scientificevidence that nature was
correcting itself with usdriving less, putting less
pollutants more fish.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
So we create a picture to push that narrative.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
But the problem is and I hate to bring this up
who's the guy that sends youover to air Jesse Smollett?
It's that same thing, so it'sthe Jesse that sent you over to
air jesse smollett.
It's that same thing, so it's.
It's the jesse smollettsyndrome like.
So it is people at it was.
You know, is and has been thelgbtq community under attack
forever.
So someone created ormanipulated a story which took
(14:56):
away from the real struggle.
So those things really didhappen.
During covet a lot ofself-correction was happening,
but when you take things likethat in a false narrative, it
kind of rains on all of thepositives.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
When you find out it's it's it's been manipulated,
you feel duped right, just likeyou.
You brought up the smollettcase.
I mean, are there cases wherethere's been hate crimes?
Absolutely there's there.
It's undeniable.
But when you fabricate them tosomehow either perpetuate your
own story or do things like that, you take away from the story
and that's that's what I thinkyou know.
(15:30):
Dolphins in venice are now,ironically enough, national.
National smithsonian, severalyears later, actually did
photograph dolphins in Venice,but to me I think all of your
points have a higher theme or ahigher calling.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
It was like why would we allow ourselves to have one
incident totally change ourbelief system?
Why would we have one andthat's both ways right?
It was like these are oneincident to be like.
See, I knew all of this wasfabricated, as if the LGBTQ
community plus haven't been, youknow, going through all the
(16:09):
things that happened, but wedidn't know, didn't we?
Speaker 1 (16:11):
We didn't know they were fabricated.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
And when we found out , we felt duped.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
We felt like we'd been had.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
So what I'm saying is why do we not attach the blame
to that one person and that oneincident?
And oftentimes people take thatand be like like BLM.
Blm was a great movement, Somepositive things happened, and so
when something negativehappened, especially from people
on the top.
You know this whole thing is,this whole thing is so you tell
(16:42):
me, the work of months and years, all of that gets thrown away
because of the discovery of oneor something comes out, but to
me it says more about us thanthem that you dismiss everyone
suffering or pain because oneperson did something.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Well, you can't blame a class for anything.
You can't say that white peopleare to blame for this or black
people are to blame for this.
You have to say, in thisparticular case, to your point,
jesse Smollett did the wrongthing, or the person who created
that photography created thisnarrative to try to perpetuate
(17:17):
something that presumably was tohelp them.
In this next case, timemagazine created the cover of
the OJ Simpson murder and overlyblackened OJ Simpson because
they wanted to demonize blackpeople.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
There's really no other way to explain it Because
they think the darker you are,the more menacing you are
Correct.
So they wanted him to.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Correct.
We wanted to scare people.
Now there's no other way todescribe this because, as you
can see in the in the earlypictures, he is not a dark black
person or dark black man.
And yet by the time the coverof time magazine came out, when
it came clear that a heinouscrime had been committed, they
they clearly blackened the photodeeper than before so what's
(18:01):
the narrative?
Speaker 2 (18:01):
what are they trying to do?
Speaker 1 (18:02):
they're trying to before.
So what's the narrative?
What are they trying to do?
They're trying to sellmagazines, but what is the story
?
What's the message that they'retrying to manipulate here?
Speaker 2 (18:09):
And the reverse of that, and this has happened
multiple times.
It just happened two weeks agoagain.
Well, beyonce was lightenedagain.
It was like why does she needto appear to be white?
Why do you think her skin needsto be fairer?
Speaker 1 (18:22):
than what it is.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
So why is it?
Because it's the reverse ofthat.
So you needed him to appear tobe menacing and scary.
So you thought by darkening himyou accomplished that.
You thought by lightening abeautiful woman's skin would
make her more appealing, whichis absolutely bananas to me,
because white people tan.
(18:45):
And then that's when they sayyou know, I do it because I look
beautiful.
It's so confusing and I'm likeso you want them to tan to be
glamorous, but then, whenthey're black, you want them to
be lighter, and it's not like.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
This is a racist publication.
Presumably Time magazine didthis, the one in Newsweek.
As you can see here a muchlighter picture.
It is the same picture of OJSimpson, so you can't say, well,
maybe their picture was withdifferent lighting, it is the
same picture.
This one has been manipulated.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
But what was the timing of that magazine?
When did?
Speaker 1 (19:25):
that?
Didn't it come out during theOJ Simpson trial?
Yes, well, this is when he wasaccused of murder.
When we say that.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
I think again when you talk about half the story.
I think context matters.
At the time the country wasdivided.
And at the time OJ Simpson didbecome—.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
So do you think it's okay to manipulate a photo of
somebody and make them— you knownot to ask me that question.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
But I'm saying context matters.
When you said that this is nota—historically they haven't been
a racist magazine, and what Isaid, it's the light of the
times and at the time thecountry was divided.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
But Newsweek didn't see it necessarily.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
But that's what I'm.
I'm not supporting any of this.
What I'm saying is it's notuncommon for businesses to cater
to their customer.
So, at the time when a countryis divided, I'm not shocked that
someone who typically doesn'tyou know play in a field of you
know, identity politics did.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
But let's be honest.
Do you think anybody readingTime or Newsweek at that time
didn't know OJ Simpson was ablack athlete?
Speaker 2 (20:32):
What I truly believe in that time, that a lot of
people did not see it the waywe're looking at it, because,
you know, revision is historyright.
So at that time when it made, Idon't remember, I remember it
coming up a little, but itwasn't like the jesse small,
like the way scandals, the katemiddleton picture, it wasn't
(20:54):
like that because we were sodivided.
So it's not a big deal.
You know what's the big deal?
He's a black man and people sawhim as this horrible, mean
person.
So why do I care what light youshow a man?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
I guess.
I guess to me that that's partof it is that they created a
more sinister.
I get it.
I'm not saying I agree withthem at all.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
I'm just saying, I think context matters is what
I'm saying.
I think it'll just be likeJeffrey Dahmer.
When Jeffrey Dahmer at the time, when here's a man that were
like literally cannibalizingpeople, do you think people care
about the imagery they put out?
Speaker 1 (21:32):
with Jeffrey Dahmer, I'm just saying but my point is
that's why they call it news andnot opinion, or that's why they
call it news and not satire, orit's supposed to be fact.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
But what wasn't fact about that?
Meaning, it's always beensensationalized, though, too, so
you can have fact andsensationalize the fact, if this
was the Inquirer or the Star, Iget it.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Time was supposed to be Newsweek, for that matter.
Matter the pillar of fact andinformation, and the first thing
they do is doctor, uh, a, a, uh, a convicted or a uh.
You know what am I saying?
Speaker 2 (22:11):
um, he was never convicted.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
He was never convicted an indicted murderer
and they have to somehow falsifyhe wasn't indicted he was
indicted, but no, no no.
No, you're right, he was lateron.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Remember I was later on, so that's what I'm saying At
the time.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Right, but you know they wanted him because he
wasn't he got.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Remember, at the time , the words we were saying to
describe OJ is he got off?
That's to say he got off, hegot off.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Anybody who was around at that time could tell
you exactly where they were whenthe verdict was announced.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
I can tell you, like it was yesterday, I was sitting
in a conference room with MartinBrower.
So, with that being said, theywon it because he got off, which
made him exonerated, which madehim a free man, not exonerated,
which made him a free man.
They wanted him to becriminalized, but this was
during the trial, so the nextone I'm going to show, and this
(23:03):
one's pretty obvious.
Right, that's my point.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Martin Luther King.
So Martin Luther Kingoriginally had this picture
taken by a photographer.
If you can see it again, pleaselook at our website or as part
of the YouTube podcast.
Okay, so he's given everybodythe peace sign.
Well, by the time he made thepublication, he's doing
something completely different.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
King gave the middle finger.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
King gave the middle finger and all of a sudden, it's
King.
Refuses to give interview toreporter, flips him the bird,
and so it paints this picture ofthis indignant, militant, angry
black man which is again,creates his persona.
Now, there were times when Kingwas an angry black man for a
lot of good reason, but whywould we perpetuate this?
(23:47):
Why would we allow thisphotograph to exist when it
clearly is false?
Speaker 2 (23:52):
And I honestly can't even think of a time he was an
angry black man.
He wasn't.
That was part of the thing,like how can you be so peaceful?
So even though his stance laterin life about nonviolence he
was opening his ways up tolooking at it differently, but
he always.
You know he was not retaliatoryat all, but yet we allow that
(24:15):
to occur.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
And this was back in the well, what year was King
active?
Oh, you told me the 50s.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
You know me in years, yeah, what year was King active
?
Oh, you told me the 50s, youknow me.
In years yeah, I know I'm notgood either 60s, 50s 60s.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
So I mean photo manipulation goes back a long
way.
And now, unfortunately, thebigger problem is we're getting
really damn good at it and it'sgetting harder and harder to
identify this, as people in thecomputer world will tell you.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
I wish they manipulate these thighs and they
don't come back.
Can we get that good?
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Trust me it doesn't work.
Living in the south of sweettea you got what you got.
So very interesting article Ifyou look on Wikipedia on the
topic of media manipulation.
And again, I guess my eyesopened when I started to say to
Tria, we need to talk about thefact that so often we will get
into arguments or conversationswith our friends and they'll say
(25:08):
well, how can you believe thatwhen you know that you know 50%
of people do this?
You know what are you talkingabout and then we'll go fact
check it and find out thatthat's not true.
I'll give you one that justhappened today, which is
unbelievable.
I was traveling back fromChicago.
My Uber driver, who's by allintents a knowledgeable
gentleman, said to me you knowwe're tired of these illegals
(25:29):
here in Chicago.
And I said well, I canunderstand how.
You know there's other issuesthat we have here in the United
States and Chicago, whether it'shomeless or whether it's, you
know, mental health.
And he goes do you know thatthey get $9,200 a month?
$9,200 a month and I said you'vegot to be kidding me.
He goes no, I read it the otherday.
It said they get $9,200 a monthand I'm sitting there going.
(25:52):
There's no way that that couldbe true.
There's no way, because I mean,let's face it, $9,200 a month
is what?
Over $9,200 a month is what?
Over $100,000 a year Do youreally believe?
Now here's a gentleman and he'sknowledgeable, he's versed, he
reads the news and he believesthat.
So I said, as soon as I gothome, I said I'm going to look
this one up, I'm going to lookthis one up.
(26:13):
So where did this one come from?
Well, there was a viral postdone about a month ago by a
Republican congresswoman out ofColorado, where she claimed that
the federal government wasgiving undocumented immigrant
families $2,200 a month.
Now, that's certainly not$9,200 a month, but $2,200 a
(26:35):
month.
So already we've got somebodygoing from $2,200 to $9,200.
So then I went to a fact-basedwebsite.
You know what?
It ain't true.
So here's an Uber driver who isangry and bitter at the fact
that he's working so hard,making $300 or $400 a day
clearly not making $9,200 a yearand angry at the fact that he
(26:58):
believes his government ispaying out $9,200 a month.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Factually untrue.
You know how I feel about thissubject.
I just I can't.
I can't, I really can't.
I say this to anybody and thiscould be.
Take it, apply it to whateveryou want.
If you allow yourself to holdon to truths and then go around
and proselytize, preach them andtake such hard stance, don't be
(27:32):
ignorant.
You owe it to yourself to beeducated and find out, and
educated means not go towhatever source.
Every state, every state hasdifferent what we consider
welfare policies.
It's state-driven.
It's not the government, it'sthe state.
So when you get your penniesall in a ruffle, is that an
(27:57):
expression?
Speaker 1 (27:57):
I think you can say that.
You can say that.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
If you get your pennies all in a ruffle about
something, first of all, look atyour state, because now you're
talking about your tax dollars,because that's what we say.
It's my tax dollars that aregoing to these poor people.
My tax dollars are going to allthis.
So it's incumbent on you tofind out the facts.
And the facts are in moststates across America, welfare
(28:22):
is minuscule.
No one can survive on welfareand a lot of times and I can
speak for the state of Illinoisand I have someone close to me
that's over the department A lotof it is you have to work to
get anything.
They have companies that theysubsidize and say, hey, you go
over there, and a lot of timesit's less than minimum wage.
(28:42):
So you do the math, let it makesense to you.
So, before you take a stance,be educated on what you are
passionate about.
Preach it to your heart'scontent.
I don't care.
We don't have to agree, but youshould, before you tell people
what to think or how to think orwhat to believe, you should
know the facts, and you know.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
I don't agree.
I don't disagree with anythingyou just said there, but I just
believe that, as a function ofwhat's going on right now, it's
getting harder and harder tofind facts.
As I talked about in my openingcomment is that facts are
getting harder and harder tocome by because there are very
few sources, and I'm going tocall out two right now.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
But can I just say one thing Sure, come by because
there are very few sources andI'm going to call out two right
now.
But can I just say one thing?
So not when it comes down tothis, not every state.
It's public.
If you want to find out rightnow, we're in the state of
Alabama.
If you want to know what youget paid on Alabama unemployment
, it's right there.
What you get paid on welfare,what is it?
It's right there.
That is not anything to debate.
(29:41):
That is a state criteria.
Now I will tell you the max.
So it could be lower than that.
When you read these max, they'dbe like how can people survive
on it?
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Exactly so it's right there and you can't manipulate
that, but you're talking aboutone type of information Right.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
I understand that.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
I understand what you're saying, if it's a
government-funded program, youshould be able to go to that.
I want to call out two websitesthat I believe would be helpful
for people, because peoplelistening to this can say well,
you know, how do I really knowif something's true or not, and
even true or fact has some grayto it, and we'll talk about that
in a second here.
But there are two sites I dowant to call out.
One of them is Snopes, which isS-N-O-P-E-S.
(30:17):
Snopes is a good sign andthat's what I did when I got
back.
It's $9,200 for Uber, what's?
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Snopes.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
Snopes is a website which is a fact-checking website
.
Another one is calledPolitiFact.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Now, you know, and the reason I'm saying it because
I can hear somebody watchingthis is it because that's where
we are right now?
Is it left-leaning or?
Speaker 1 (30:39):
right-leaning.
No, it claims to be objectiveand I tried to do kind of a
sniff test and I can tell youPolitiFact, which is the other
one I'm going to talk about herein a minute, is pretty centrist
, from what I can tell.
Now I'm sure if you're veryfar-leaning left you may believe
it's too conservative, it's toofar right, but at some point
again we have to agree that factis fact.
Your opinion can be whateveryou like, but if we can't agree
(31:00):
on fact we've got big problemsgoing on here.
So I want to fall on my ownsword here and we have
conversations all the time aboutvarious things that go on in
the world and how we believe andhow we feel about things.
So I'm going to take as Iconsider myself to be relatively
educated, I'm going to fall onmy sword on two current events
that I came down on the wrongside of that, I came down on the
(31:23):
wrong side of.
So the first one is I have beenrelatively vocal about the fact
that I didn't believe that webelonged in Ukraine and for a
number of reasons I still don't.
But the major reason I hung onit was I had read and heard and
listened to people talk aboutthe fact that we, as the United
States and NATO, had agreed notto ever recruit any other states
(31:47):
or any other countries east ofGermany after the unification of
Germany.
And I spouted it and I talkedabout it and I said look, we're
at fault here.
Some of you know Candace Owen.
Candace Owen went to Congressand talked about it.
There have been a number ofpeople that have come out and
said we agreed not to do it, webroke our rules.
(32:07):
Well, guess what?
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Sorry, nobody can see that if they audio my hard eye
roll Exactly.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
Fact speaking, it never happened that way.
There have been nuances, therehave been innuendos, there have
been inferences to it, but wenever factually agreed to that.
So guess what?
Okay, bullshit, all right.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
So that's number one, Bill tell them to stop
littering in your studio.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Fell on my sword on that one.
Okay, number two my partner incrime here, or what I call my
pill, my partner in life, knowsfull well how I feel about
tiktok.
Right, how do I feel abouttiktok?
Speaker 2 (32:44):
you almost shit, almost.
I send you a video.
Don't ever send me anythinglike from tiktok right and why
did I say that?
Speaker 1 (32:54):
why did I say I didn't want anything from tiktok
?
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I'm not going to even say why you originally told me
you said it Because it's ownedby China.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
I said it's a Chinese agent.
It's actually designed by theChinese government.
It's owned by the Chinesegovernment now.
And there are people out there,brian Kilmeade being one of
them Fox News who is convincingpeople that it's owned by the
Chinese government.
Well, the truth is it is notFactually speaking.
It is not Factually speaking.
(33:23):
It is not Now doesn't meanChina doesn't have an ownership
in it, but PolitiFact will tellyou that 60% of the parent
company, which is calledByteDance, is owned by global
investors, 20% by itsco-founders, 20% by its
employees and includingthousands of Americans actually
(33:43):
own it.
The Chinese government took a1% ownership stake in this
company.
So again, I consider myselffairly knowledgeable and that's
why I kind of challenged you andsaid it's easy to say with some
things, sure, you should knowthe facts, but sometimes it's
hard to find the facts it is,and I said that, and you've got
people literally on reputablenews agencies talking about
(34:07):
these things.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Okay, I'll put that one next.
What?
Speaker 1 (34:09):
we've said is sometimes these are
opinion-based articles and notreally fact-based articles.
So I was wrong on that one too.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Just make sure you give them a broom and a dustpan.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Hey, that's okay, that's okay.
So, with that being said, I dowant to talk about a couple of
different things.
Again.
This is from politifact, and Iwant to be fair to both sides of
the aisle.
So the state of the union wasabout what two weeks ago?
Three weeks ago, and whilebiden got some good press from
it, who got really bad pressfrom it?
That's right, katie britt.
(34:41):
Well done.
The way you nailed that one wasimpressive.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
So and I look.
I didn't know where you weregoing you remember katie britt?
How could I?
Speaking from her kitchenamerican people, you are in
trouble.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
I am telling you now lock up your children spend,
send your money, but I'm justsaying that, then it may have
been.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I'm just saying, yeah , I think I was spot on.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
That was a.
I was spot on.
That was a little thick.
Spot on, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
I didn't even rehearse it either, it just came
natural.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
The ambulance is here to pick her up.
Yeah, so anyway, politifact dida piece on fact checking for
Katie Britt's presentation, andthis is again a case where words
matter, where words matter, andI don't want to get too hung up
on it.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Oh, I don't know where you're going, but tread
lightly Because I okay, I'mgoing to let you finish, so
let's talk about this, okay.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
So here are just a couple of the things said during
and don't worry, I'm an equalopportunity offender.
I'm going to bring up Bidenhere in a minute.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
No, no, no.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
So the first thing is that during her presentation
Should be driven by fact.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Okay, yeah, we should .
Speaker 1 (35:42):
She said that Biden suspended all deportations.
Okay, as soon as he becamefirst day of office, he
suspended all deportations.
Okay, now the operative wordhere is all deportations.
Now, on the first day of office, biden did indeed publish a
memo pausing the removal ofcertain people who are illegal
(36:07):
in the United States.
Okay, and the court quicklystopped that pause, but he did
stop the removal of certainpeople.
So who's right?
Well, technically she is wrongbecause she said all deportation
stopped.
Now you could argue well, hestopped some, but she didn't say
some.
This is, this is the erosion offact.
(36:28):
Okay, so if she had said Bidencame in and stopped a lot of
deportations, would she havelost a lot of mileage with that?
No, would she have told thetruth?
Yes, but instead we lied.
We lied.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
And not only did we lie, it's, it's and and and part
of that same math.
Has he not deported?
How many people has he deportedon his watch?
So I think that's important tostate, though, toby, because
when the message is that hestopped all, and your response
back is like, well, there was apause, but you know the number
(37:04):
of people he has deported sincehe's been there.
So when you say it's-.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
But why did he deport so many?
Because there have been so manymore.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
Right, but that's not the point.
But my point being-.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
As one goes up, the other goes up.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
You are bringing up the fact that he stopped all.
No, not you love.
Oh my God.
You said you.
You are the messenger, so youjust said she said he stopped
all.
And not only did he stop all,we've had the highest
deportation rates, and yes,according to the number that
comes in, but tell all the facts.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
Correct.
That's the facts.
So the next one is Biden haltedthe construction of the border
wall.
Do you believe that's true?
No, it's not only not true, nottrue.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
They didn't even have .
Do you believe that's true?
Speaker 1 (37:46):
No, it's not only not true they resumed barrier
construction using the moneyCongress had previously
appropriated.
The administration has alsospent millions on barrier
repairs.
Now you can argue whether thebarrier is good or bad, or
whether it's effective or not,but the fact is they used money
that was already appropriatedfor and kept building it.
So in many ways this might beconsidered negative to some of
(38:07):
Biden's proponents who saidthank God he's here.
He stopped building the barrierwall.
He did not.
He continued to build theborder wall.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
And what were you missing?
Another large fact in there.
The fact was, when we, as theAmerican public, saw this border
wall conversation, the exactwords well, I'm not going to
quote him verbatim, because evenhe can't keep up with his own
words.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
But what he?
Speaker 2 (38:28):
said was American people weren't going to pay for
it, that he was going to get themoney from Mexico.
He said that so not only did westart building, but it was our
dollars because our funding.
So those are the facts andstate that.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
The third one I wanted to bring up from this,
and there were a couple ofothers.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
I pray if you miss the big one we're going to run.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
I may leave out the big one because, you know, for
purposes of time, Okay, wrap itup.
This is my monkey, this is mycircus, and I've been good Biden
chose to release to the US theman accused of killing Lakin
Riley.
And this is a very emotional one, because many of you know that
Lincoln Riley was a 22-year-oldUniversity of Georgia nursing
student who was killed by anillegal immigrant who had been
(39:11):
caught before and had beenreleased and, after his release,
actually did this heinous crime.
So this is one of those caseswhere, again, we prey on emotion
because it says that Bidenchose to release this person.
Now, obviously it's a tragedy.
Everybody, from either anybodywho's ever had children or
anything, knows that a murder isa horrible thing.
(39:31):
But to call out Biden forreleasing it so Biden doesn't
choose who gets released and whodoesn't, it's the justice
system.
Ok, so you can turn on all thatsemantic, it's not, it's erosion
of fact again.
So if they'd said under Biden'sgovernment this happened, that
would have been factually true.
But that's not what she said.
What she said was Biden choseto release to the United States
(39:54):
the man of accusing.
So obviously this is a casewhere words matter and facts
matter, and we need to getourselves in a position where we
stop creating opinion andcreating this fact.
So which is the one that youthink I missed, that I should?
Speaker 2 (40:09):
have the biggest one, the one that got everyone
heartstrings, when she told thestory of the, the immigrant that
was raped, and it wasn't evenlike it happened when we let
immigrants come into thiscountry and it didn't even
happen in america and it wasn'ton biden's watch, it wasn't even
his in America and it wasn't onBiden's watch, it wasn't even
his administration.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
But I just I don't understand why we had to lie
about these things, Becauseagain.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
you could, toby, come on For real.
You don't understand why we hadto lie.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
I could have rewritten this speech with four
different words and made itfactually accurate, and it
wouldn't have impacted.
It wouldn't have made as big animpact If you said look that he
stopped some deportations.
Do you think that would havehad a major?
Anyway?
So to be fair, let's talk aboutJoe Biden's latest speech
during the State of the Unionand again, let's fact check it.
(40:55):
And again, politifact is agreat place to go if you want to
get an idea of this.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
How much time do we have?
So the first one are yougetting bored?
I just want to make sure we getpast politics, because it's, is
it all politics?
No, I'm not.
Speaker 1 (41:07):
No, okay, is there other things you want to talk
about?
You told me I had free reign.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
I'm only on hour one of seven.
Here I'm a passenger you'reright, there you go.
But you know, sometimespassengers become backseat
drivers.
You're a backseat driver.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
Okay, I'm going to shut up.
So do you believe thatinflation has dropped from 9% to
3% and is the lowest in theworld?
Because that's what Biden said.
It's not.
Inflation has fallen, but we'renot the lowest in the world.
So, again, words matter.
Consumer studies show thatconsumer confidence is soaring.
(41:40):
Do you believe it's soaring?
We know it's not.
It's not.
Speaker 2 (41:44):
So facts matter, but did he say consumer?
Speaker 1 (41:50):
He said consumer studies show consumer confidence
is soaring, oh he said consumer.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Again, context matter .
Speaker 1 (41:56):
So he didn't say consumer, he said consumer
studies show consumer confidenceis soaring, which is not true.
Speaker 2 (42:04):
But that's different than saying.
He said the consumer sources,but the facts don't speak to
that.
I hear you.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
The survey's consumer sentiment score was lower than
it was in April 2020, astartling finding, given that in
April 2020, the unemploymentrate was 13.2% and Americans
were facing the uncertainty of aonce-a-century pandemic.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Can I ask a question?
Yes, yes I wanted you to say no, because I'm like where would I
have gone with that If you saidno, I would have been like you
think I was going to be quiet.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
No, never.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
What I don't understand about American
politics and maybe like thelender's bagel man, like he
always says, bagel I understandpeople I never understand.
I don't understand how can wecontinue to want it both ways,
meaning when you hear Americanconsensus I've heard time and
(43:02):
time again since I was a childand I haven't been a child in a
long time.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Oh, but you act childish.
Does that count?
Speaker 2 (43:08):
Yeah, I do have a childlike spirit.
Thank you, Toby, for sharingCaring and sharing.
Not always.
But what they say is we wantour American president, when he
speaks to the people, to bringup hope and positivity, and lie,
I'm sorry.
No, I'm sorry, Now I shut upall of this, and so this is what
(43:33):
I've been told that we want astrong leader.
That's positive, and let usknow, even when it's a shit
storm outside, that the sun isgoing to come out tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (43:44):
We want fucking Annie , excuse me this one's going to
be R-rated.
Sorry.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
We want freaking, annie.
We want to know that the sun isgoing to freaking, come out
tomorrow and all of the pain isgoing to go away, and we don't
want doom and gloom.
That's what I was told.
Speaker 1 (44:02):
She's on cold medication today.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
In case someone am facts, facts, the part is true.
Thank you for exposing mybusiness again, no problem I
always count on you, um, butthen I'm confused because if we
get up there and we have apresident that truly reads the
facts as we know it, you'venever paid this much for toilet
(44:24):
paper and you probably neverwill.
You can't afford that state.
Put it back.
Those are the facts.
You guess what?
It is shitty.
The climate is screwed up.
You know your children don'tknow crap.
That's because they sit in thehouse.
And if we came up and told thetruth, we would be like what the
hell Get rid of him.
So you're okay with.
And if we came up and told thetruth, we were like what the
(44:46):
hell Get rid of him.
Speaker 1 (44:46):
Where do we go?
So you're okay with lying?
You're okay with the presidentlying to you?
Speaker 2 (44:48):
No, I am okay with looking in the mirror and having
some honesty, but I understandthat I'm cut from a different
cloth number one.
Number two people need to like.
Literally after Biden gave thatspeech, I've even heard
Republicans say you know what hedid, well, or he?
(45:09):
I'm not a fan.
I wouldn't vote for him.
Just hear me out for a second.
Speaker 1 (45:13):
Like.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
I'm not a fan, I wouldn't vote for him, but
that's what we need.
We need someone to come out andtake charge and be
authoritative.
Yet, factually, we had, youknow, the orange oompa loompa.
He gets up there and he goes onhis tirade and you know who he
is and if I have to say his name, whatever you know, his name is
(45:34):
trump.
You know he gets up there and,like I'm gonna recap it, I'm
going to, and he swears and hedoes all these things that are
not presidential whatsoever, andhe has a mass of people that's
following him too.
So where do we stand?
Speaker 1 (45:51):
Why, if he's such a horrible guy?
Speaker 2 (45:54):
I didn't say that.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
I said that for them.
Why do so?
Speaker 2 (45:56):
many people follow him.
Speaker 1 (45:57):
Because they believe that there's so much deceit and
lack of truth.
You can call it lies, you cancall it whatever you want.
Speaker 2 (46:06):
And I don't agree with you.
I don't think it's okay for.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
Katie Britt to lie, any more than it's right for
President Biden to lie.
Anytime we get into that, thenall of a sudden it just becomes
this race to the bottom, whetherthat's propaganda or political
speeches or advertising.
If we get lied to, you cannotcreate.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
But can I step in there for one second?
Isn't it a difference?
And I can't stand.
I can't stand white lies.
That's just a little white lie.
A lie is a lie is a lie.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
But you just let Biden go.
I'm going to say what you justsaid, that it was okay to lie
because you didn't want to hearhow lousy the world was.
Speaker 2 (46:45):
I said that's what the world says.
Oh okay, I literally said theopposite.
Anybody I know Phil's listening.
I saw your head go up and down.
Speaker 1 (46:51):
Okay, all right, I said the world.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
I said he cannot tell the truth, he cannot come out
and say you know, you come home,do you?
That's all I'm asking I live ina truth.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
I live in a truth if the fact is, you probably won't
buy a house for the next two orthree years.
Speaker 2 (47:11):
Those are the facts and it's not going to change for
me how I live, but I understandhow people need to hear it's
going to get better and it ispeople need sunshine and
cupcakes Unicorns and cupcakesOkay.
But anyway, you made me lose mytrain of thought.
Okay, Carry on, go back to me.
(47:32):
So you know what.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
I'm actually and I don't know if you wanted to talk
about anything other because Iwas going to finish with a quiz
here.
I was going to quiz you andit's a game that everybody plays
.
Speaker 2 (47:42):
Oh boy, Now you got me all riled up in my cold
medicine war off.
There you go, oh no.
Speaker 1 (47:47):
So I was going to finish with four facts and a lie
.
Speaker 2 (47:51):
I heard of this.
Okay, I played this one before.
All right, everybody plays it,and I've done it in corporate
America, which is interesting.
Everybody plays it at work, youknow, give bit wider.
And this is courtesy of Snopes,which is again one of those
sites so wait, are you just?
Speaker 1 (48:08):
are you?
Is this personal?
Are you just trying to?
Oh, it's personal, it's game on.
Okay, let's see how you know Ihave no secrets.
Speaker 2 (48:12):
I may tell something about you.
These are things that happen inthe world.
I'm ready to tell it all.
Speaker 1 (48:16):
I would never tell anybody any more about you thank
you, they already know, trustme.
So these are.
These are all come out ofSnopes Five things that have
been questioned and challenged.
Speaker 2 (48:27):
So we're saying that Snopes is the authority and
everything you got down there.
They are Okay, whatever.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
God, please help us.
Some place has to be factchecking.
Five of them, all right.
Four of them are true and oneof them is a lie.
Okay, and we're going to goreal slow here.
The first one is a lie.
Okay, and we're going to goreal slow here.
Speaker 2 (48:44):
The first one is Washington State.
I thought this was going to berapid fire.
Why are we going slow?
Speaker 1 (48:47):
Because if I go fast, you'll tell me to slow down, or
you'll say you didn't hear it,or I'll repeat the question.
Speaker 2 (48:52):
Or you'll want to recount, or you'll say that Chad
was hanging or something.
Speaker 1 (48:55):
It'll be something.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
You liberals are always the same.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
All right anyway.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
Washington state in 2027 will no longer require you
to pass the bar exam for a lawdegree.
I heard about this.
I heard about this because Ithought about remember the movie
um idiocracy, idiocracy oridiot, yeah, when they got their
degree.
So that's the first one.
Speaker 1 (49:22):
You got to think about that, whether that's true
or false?
Okay, next one is Bill Gatesowns a farm that produces a lot
of potatoes for McDonald'sFrench fries.
Speaker 2 (49:34):
Stop it.
Speaker 1 (49:34):
I know where McDonald's potatoes come from,
that's number two Bill Gatesowns a farm that produces a lot
of the potatoes for McDonald'sFrench fries Okay.
The third one is Biden is thefirst US president to skip a
cognitive test.
Okay, you know what I mean.
Okay, all right, so that'snumber three.
Number four is Putin took hisdog in 2007 to a meeting with
(49:57):
then-German Chancellor AngelaMerkel, who was deathly afraid
of dogs.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
So no, no quick question.
So that's four, right?
Speaker 1 (50:07):
That's the fourth one .
Speaker 2 (50:07):
So it's three lies and one truth.
Speaker 1 (50:09):
No, no four lies and one truth.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
We haven't got the last one yet, you see, because
you jumped the gun.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
Okay, and the last one is the kingdom of Bhutan.
Have giant penises painted ontheir buildings to ward off evil
spirits.
Speaker 2 (50:21):
I like that Penises go away so four of these are
true.
One of them is a lie if I couldimagine people with penises
around their neck.
Nothing says safety like giantpenises, if I could, keep
certain people away, I'll walkaround with a hanger from my
chin.
I would do it in a heartbeat ifthey would stay.
(50:43):
The hell away from me.
No-transcript.
Speaker 1 (50:46):
That would be a hell of a fashion statement.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
I promise you I would do it.
I'm promising you that I'llhave it swinging back and forth
too.
Just stay away from me.
Speaker 1 (50:51):
That gives a new expression to swing.
Never mind, we're not going totalk about that.
One Okay, farm was Was.
Washington State will no longerrequire passage of the bar.
False Number two you don'tthink that's true, that's a lie.
So you believe that's the lie.
Speaker 2 (51:08):
You said they.
Speaker 1 (51:10):
I said Washington State will no longer require you
to pass the bar exam for yourlaw license by 2027.
Is that true or false?
Speaker 2 (51:17):
I heard this.
I've heard it.
I did hear that this is goingto happen.
I just didn't believe it.
So you think it's false.
Can we go back to the rest?
Just pass that one, okay.
Speaker 1 (51:28):
Bill Gates' farm produces.
You think that's false, false?
Okay, so the rest of them aretrue.
Wait, so it's only one, onlyone falsehood here.
Speaker 2 (51:37):
You're lying.
Speaker 1 (51:38):
I lie you not.
Stop it.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
I stop you not I thought it was all lies and one
truth.
These are all true, except forone.
Okay, go back.
Speaker 1 (51:45):
Rewind Washington.
Phil, we're going to needanother four hours for this
podcast.
Speaker 2 (51:48):
Just make it quick, just go back.
Speaker 1 (51:49):
Washington State doesn't.
Speaker 2 (51:51):
The answer has to be true.
That's true, it is true.
Speaker 1 (51:54):
Okay Okay.
Bill Gates Farm producespotatoes for McDonald's French
fries.
I'll say true, true, a largeportion biden is the first us
president to skip a cognitivetest.
Speaker 2 (52:08):
That is false.
That is indeed false.
I know that one.
So the last two are also true,which is putin took his dog to a
meeting.
Once I do the rules, I cananswer next.
Speaker 1 (52:14):
You're amazing, I am and and the biggest one well, I
shouldn't say biggest and penisin the same sentence, but the
biggest one here at the bottomis that giant penises apparently
do ward off evil spirits.
Speaker 2 (52:24):
Because the kingdom of Bhutan have not seen any evil
spirits in thousands of years.
Satan has been busy, and I'mgoing to get me a giant penis.
Speaker 1 (52:34):
I think you can order one from kingdom of Bhutancom
and we'll put that too long.
Speaker 2 (52:39):
You know the shipping .
We just had the cargo ship runinto something.
You won't get anything for awhile, until bridge.
Speaker 1 (52:47):
On that note, we tried to add some levity to
obviously a very challenging.
Speaker 2 (52:53):
I like this format.
How about I just not do?
Speaker 1 (52:55):
any work from now on?
How about you do nothingExactly?
Speaker 2 (52:57):
You just sit there, I just let you do everything and
I just comment I like this,we'll call it the Uber driver
podcast, and I'll remember totake cold medicine.
You, we'll call it the UberDriver Podcast, and.
Speaker 1 (53:03):
I'll remember to take cold medicine.
You just sit in the back and becritical.
Yes, that's great.
Absolutely.
I like that.
We'll call it the Uber Podcast.
You just sit in the back and becritical.
Speaker 2 (53:09):
Why you got to change from Perch.
Speaker 1 (53:10):
That's right, I don't know.
Anyway, I hope we added somelevity and brought some thought
process to the idea.
At the end of the day, youropinions, opinions based on fact
.
Let's stop acting like idiotsand taking the dog food that
they feed us.
So, on that note, fellowperchlings, we wish you good
tidings.
Good day and we'll see youagain soon, take care, thank you
(53:43):
.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.