August 27, 2025 • 46 mins
Ep. 298 - Vaping in the Non-Binary Restroom
David and Brad return from their summer hiatus to survey the magnificent wreckage of American civilization, where zombie squirrels roam the land, food influencers dodge oncoming vehicles, and Democrats argue that violent crime isn't that bad.
Trump continues his exhausting winning streak by actually cleaning up Washington D.C., while his legal persecutors discover the ancient art of the boomerang—turns out mortgage fraud investigations work both ways. Meanwhile, Cracker Barrel's new CEO decides the best way to honor Americana is to eliminate everything American about it, because nothing says "business genius" like alienating your entire customer base for woke points.
Plus: Generation Z declares war on millennial workout pants. It's episode 298 of truth bombs, logic grenades, and the increasingly surreal reality of a nation that's forgotten how to think straight.
David and Brad return from their summer hiatus to survey the magnificent wreckage of American civilization, where zombie squirrels roam the land, food influencers dodge oncoming vehicles, and Democrats argue that violent crime isn't that bad.
Trump continues his exhausting winning streak by actually cleaning up Washington D.C., while his legal persecutors discover the ancient art of the boomerang—turns out mortgage fraud investigations work both ways. Meanwhile, Cracker Barrel's new CEO decides the best way to honor Americana is to eliminate everything American about it, because nothing says "business genius" like alienating your entire customer base for woke points.
Plus: Generation Z declares war on millennial workout pants. It's episode 298 of truth bombs, logic grenades, and the increasingly surreal reality of a nation that's forgotten how to think straight.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity
David Pridham and L Bradley's sheaf.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Well Brod. There it is smoking in the non binary
restroom of choice. What a great song kids had to school.
Kids in the South have been back in school for
a couple of weeks. Now up North, not as much,
but some very interesting, interesting, very interesting stuff going on,
(01:13):
and kids are heading back to school. They don't smoke
that much anymore. They vape.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Yeah, I would be vaping in the non binary room,
Motley Crue. If they were re recording this would have
to do it as vaping in the non binary restroom,
which would not have as much impact as smoking in
the boys room. I don't think, But what do I know.
I can't figure anything out anymore.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yeah, I have no idea. But it's it is uh,
it is interesting. It's that you know. And here in
the Pritam household, we are, at least certain constituencies within
said household are ready for those school bells to ring
in the doors to open. We are ready. Yeah, But anyway, Uh,
Pritam and Chief Podcast, we are back after a brief
(01:57):
hiatus for the summer. But we're here. The dog days
of summer of descended upon us. Up in the northeast Bread.
We're experiencing, uh, the the uh outer periphery of the
big hurricane. Aaron got some serious wins here. But no,
it's sunny. It's sunny, but high season wins. Ah.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Well there, you know.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Yeah, I'm staying far away from the seas. But otherwise
things are things are good. We're getting ready to go
back to back to school. You're getting ready to welcome
a new chief into the world and a new sun
in law. So that's uh, that's all good. But we
we we have to sort of buckle down take care
of some business. Uh. First, we we want to welcome
(02:43):
everyone here on the iHeartRadio podcast radio network. We are
here on this podcast network, but also we're on any
podcast network you can you can go to and you
can download us on Apple, Google, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon, Twitter,
(03:06):
any of them, any of them. You just you hit
like on the episode, you subscribe. And that way, if
you subscribe every day, when a new episode of IP
frequently and there have been two hundred and ninety eight
of them, believe it or not, when they drop, you
will be the first to know. It'll pop up. You'll
have a notification if you enable notifications, which you should
(03:29):
do with respect to this podcast, and then you can
listen right away. We recommend as soon as that hits
you get up out of bed, you immediately start playing
the podcast. You support all of the good sponsors of
the show, sponsors of the show, and you continue to
(03:50):
listen like create dummy accounts, subscribe with those dummy accounts,
listen again, like more dummy accounts, and it's just it
just can become a full time I'm gig. You just
constantly are creating these new personas that are liking and
listening to IP frequently, and eventually you'll be the smartest
person in the room. Guy or gal. Guy or gal.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Yeah, doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Though anymore, we don't know the difference between a guy
or a gal and so just person, just here, although
you know, human is probably a stretch at times because
there are people who like to wear cat's ears and
tails and I think they're referred to as fuzzies, maybe
hurries something some such things.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
So you can't even really say humans. You just have
to say listeners.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
I think that's safe because if you're listening to the podcast,
then I think it's fair to call you a listener.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
And do we really have sponsors?
Speaker 2 (04:52):
It would be amazing, Sure do Sure do sponsors, listeners, subscribers,
all that. And you know, the or we talk, the
more people listen, and that's a it's a great thing.
Now listen, I am. I don't know about you, Brad.
We talked last week about being tired of winning, and
I'm downright exhausted at this point. There are you know,
(05:15):
the trumpet? It is so fast and furious. What's going
on with Trump, whether it's this Ukraine deal or settling
six or seven global conflicts depending on who you listen to,
or the DC the takeover the DC police, and now
he's he was I don't know if you saw this,
but Trump came out and he had the National Guard
(05:37):
into the White House for a lunch.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
If you saw that, I did not see that.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
I had about five hundred pizzas. And then he had
burgers made by the White House chef and he fed
them all. And then he said, listen, I get this takeover.
The DC police seems to be going well. All crime
pretty much every category of crime is down. And now
they're starting to wipe out homeless encampments and they're uh,
(06:03):
they're they're going to be cleaning up the parks, which
I think is great. I I as someone who you know,
my grandparents were from d C. I spent a lot
of time there when I was young, went to law
school in d C and the DC area, and and
so I know that that those parks and and that
that city is a great city, and and you know,
he actually seems to be cleaning it up. But he
(06:26):
was speaking to all these guys and gals who are
members of the National Guard and talking about the pizza,
and then he and he's and then he gets on
this so it's talking about the parks, and he said, listen,
you guys continue to fight the crime and get the
crime down. I am going to I am going to
focus on the grass of the parks, and then he
(06:47):
started talking about the different types of grass at his
golf courses and how he is personally going to make
sure that they have the best grass with the best
top of the line sprinkler systems in ground, in ground, Brad,
and so will be grass in the parks. He said,
you worry, said, you all worry about fighting crime, and
I'm gonna worry about the grass and then we're going
to meet and the city is going to be going
(07:08):
to be great again. So that's where that's where he's at.
I mean, it is a it is a an amazing
uh project that he's got. He's got going on there.
But you know, he's solving world world crises, the border crisis,
he's dealing with tariffs sitting, and now he's cleaning up
the streets of Washington, d C.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yeah, I mean, buddy, it's a you know, I was
going to say, it's hard to take exception to any
of that, except that there are literally millions of people
who are taking exception, so that I find it fascinating.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Again, I have not done in depth research on this,
as everyone knows. Listening to the podcast for five minutes,
the news drives me crazy. I don't pay.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Attention to it, which you know may be to my detriment.
But I'm counting on you, and I know that you
will do a good job of letting me know, you know,
if World War three has started, or you know, if
there are missiles in the air, or aliens have landed asteroids, yeah, asteroids,
whatever the case may be, I'll let I know that
you will let me know so I can respond appropriately.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
But the general news stuff I can't do.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
And so I have not done deep research into this,
but I find it fascinating that in order there is
unquestionably and has been for decades. Right, I mean this
is not a new You can't blame Joe Biden for
crime in d C.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Right, I mean I was an.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Agent in in the Baltimore Division, but which covers the
state of Maryland and.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
The state of Delaware, not that that's relevant.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
And so we worked, you know, Maryland obviously a butts
the District of Columbia, and so we worked.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
I was on a violent crime squad. We worked with
the DC guys.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
To work you know, cases that we're going back and
forth from the border districts in Maryland which are right
along with DC. Very violent, lots of gang activity there.
And so I'm very familiar with the amount of crime
in Washington, you see, and it's extraordinary, right, I mean,
there are places, certainly when I was working there, where
you just could not go. If you did not live there,
(09:08):
you could not go there. You were taking your life
in your hands. And so there's no question that the
amount of crime, particularly violent crime, drug related crime, in
the nation's capital was extraordinarily high.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
And I don't know where the blame falls for that.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I certainly don't have the data and information to be
able to point fingers and say, well, it's because of
this and because of.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
That, and that doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
The fact of the matter is that violent crime in
our nation's capital was and has been at an extraordinary level.
And Trump took a look at that and said, I
don't think that reflects well on our country, right, that
our nation's capital, there are places that you can go
within sight of Congressional office buildings, within sight of this Smithsonian,
(10:00):
within sight of the Jefferson Memorial, where you are taking
your life in your hands. That should not be the case.
And so let's get our arms around this and you know,
make that history. Let's turn the nation's capital back into
what it was, you know, in the nineteen fifties, sixties,
(10:21):
whatever the case, may be a safe place, a place
people desire to go, a place they can go, a
place they can safely go. Let's do that, and that
is what he is doing. And you can argue with
the details, right, you can say, well, he shouldn't have
done this, he should have done that, and fine, you know,
like mind's reasonable minds can argue as to the actual implementation.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
Of that policy.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
What I find fascinating is that there are people who
are arguing that shouldn't be the policy, that the policy
should be none. To let DC continue to just spiral
down into a cesspool of violent crime. That's better than
turning in it again into a gem.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Or maybe not again. I mean, maybe you want to
take the position it was never all that great.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Fine, but what Trump's trying to do is make it great, right,
turn it into a gem, something that the country can
be proud of. And in order to disagree with that concept,
you then have to hold the concept of no, we
should just let it continue to.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Do what it's doing. And that I don't get, and
that has.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
To arise from you know, some form of what do
they call it, Trump derangement syndrome, and it has to
arise from that because no reasonable human being if you're
given choice. Hey, there's a capital of a country, okay,
And in that capital there are some really remarkable things
to see and visit, museums that tell that nation's history,
(11:47):
good and bad. There are memorials there that are impressive
and worth seeing. You know that it is the seat
of government, and you're allowed to go and participate in
and go watch congress in set. You can tour the
executive mansion of the of the President of.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
The head of government. You know you can. You can
do all that in this capital. Wow. Okay, sounds like
cool place. Yeah, no, it is cool place, except.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
The violent crime is so high there that there is
a decent possibility that you will be the victim of
crime if you go, Oh, well, why would the country
allow that?
Speaker 4 (12:25):
Well, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
Well who's responsible for that? Well, I don't know, but
that's the case. Oh golly, okay, But but there's a guy,
the actual head of the executive branch at this point,
who's saying, no, no, no, we should fix that, we
should clean that up, and we should allow every American
and those visiting us from other countries to safely enjoy
(12:48):
all that this capital has to offer.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
Would you be behind that?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Well?
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Sure, why wouldn't I be behind that?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
So you're telling me that I have a choice between
being in you know, a significant violent crime area that
is prohibiting me from enjoying all these things, or we
can solve that problem and I can enjoy these things
safely and securely and get the maximum benefit out of it.
Speaker 4 (13:09):
Yes, that's your choice. How does anyone pick a How
does anyone pick no?
Speaker 2 (13:16):
No?
Speaker 4 (13:16):
Leave it dangerous and violent?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Because I like it that way?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
You can't.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
The only way that you can say that is well,
I hate the guy doing the good thing so much
that I'd rather wallow in the bad.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
Thing than accept the good thing. And that is nuts.
I mean, that is a syndrome of some sort.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
It's interesting because he I can't tell if he's doing
this intentionally or not, right, I can't tell, but he
literally in the DC thing he's got. The Democrats are
all opposing what he's doing because they're deranged, right, and
they're having to argue that the city is not that bad,
(14:03):
which is crazy, right.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Which is yeah, it's demonstrably great.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah, I mean you got people being shot. I mean, yeah,
it is bad. I mean I remember when they opened
that metro system. I was really young, but yeah, it
was the best metro system in the world and you
could feel safe on there all the time. And now
I wouldn't even go on that in a million years now.
I mean when I lived there and was in school,
(14:26):
I used to go down, take the Virginia Square Line down,
you connect to the Reagan Airport. You get there in
like fifteen minutes. You're right at your gate, and it
was amazing. And this was the late nineties, and then
you can't do that now. But it is. It's telling
(14:47):
and I again I can't tell if he's doing it
intentionally or it's just a byproduct. But the Democrats are
beside themselves.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
Well think about that.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
I mean, let's just accept them at their argument. So
as you framed it, and I'm sure you're correct about this.
They're saying, well, we should leave DC alone because it's
not that bad. Okay, Democrats or whoever's taking this position.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
So you want to leave it alone because it's not
that bad.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
You admit that it could be better, and you admit
that the steps that the Trump administration are taking are
in fact making it better or at least resolving those issues, right,
because better is a matter of opinion. But you admit
that your position is that the violent crime exists, it's
just not overwhelming, and you admit that the steps the
(15:34):
Trump administration are taking are dealing with those levels of
violent crime.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
And reducing them. We all agree on that.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
You just don't think he should do that because he's
Donald Trump. So you're willing to live with a degree
of violent crime well beyond that which is possible, right,
you can reduce it to a great degree. And we
all agree that that's being done, but you don't want
to do it because it's Donald Trum.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
I'm doing it. That's nuts.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Who how do you possibly support people are taking the
position of, well, I thought that bad.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
We should leave alone. Stupid.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Yeah, I mean, I think they're they're defending the status quo. Actually,
it's crazy. I've never I have never seen I've never
seen any anything like it. But in another front, and
I don't know if you saw this, but yesterday the
New York Supreme Court, which is the New York Appellate Court,
(16:31):
you know, and then there's a New York Court of Appeals,
which is there state Supreme court. But you remember, remember
that that Judge Ergowan who had that trial where Trump
the Trump organization supposedly over valued the the or overestimated
the value of some real estate holdings for purposes of
getting a mortgage to purchase alone, to purchase a large
(16:56):
property in New York City, and for the criminal fraud drive.
Remember that.
Speaker 4 (17:01):
Yeah, so this is the one.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
There were so many trials back in that period that
I certainly cannot keep them straight. So is this the
one where he was accused of overvaluing the property so
that he could get a loan. He got the loan,
He paid off the loan with a distress, and there
is no.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
There's no aggrieved party here.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
The banks actually said under under oath that they wanted
to do more business with him because you know, the
deal was so smooth and they you know that that.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
So who I mean, just I realize you're get beyond this,
but just to explain so because there may be other
people don't understand, don't you In a lawsuit, doesn't someone
have to have been aggrieved?
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Well, this was brought by the DA party. This was
brought by the Attorney General of the statement of the State.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
People of New York were aggrieved in this back.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Well, this woman ran for office, right for be the
A G Laquisha James. She ran for office and she
sid her platform was I will prosecute Donald Trump if elected.
I will get them. Okay, not not. Donald Trump has
committed this crime and we need to Nope, I will
get them. But whatever, there's somehow shades of Kafka, and
(18:19):
you know we we'll figure out the crime later. Don't
worry about it. Well, don't don't you don't you worry
about it. So you know, she came up with this
thing where where there was an application for a loan
where arguably the property, the the properties used as collateral
(18:40):
were overvalued in the application. And when you file an application,
you certify the value of those whatever the collateral is,
and you know you sign it. You know it is
what it is mortgage for a house. So they keep
in mind, this is a this is a case where
as you said, loan was paid back in full with interest.
The bank didn't complaine that, no one complained. There was
(19:04):
a half a billion dollar, five hundred million dollar plush
sanction placed on Trump as a result of this trial.
Was it a judge trial, No, it was by the judge,
the judge bench trial. The judge pluck the judge. He
imposed a five hundred million dollar penalty. He refused to
(19:25):
stay execution of the judgment pending appeal. So Trump had
to post some crazy ass bond. So you had to
go out and leverage a bunch of his assets to
post the bond, which he did. But it's not easy.
It's not easy. Million bucks and crazy interest is accruing
on this while he's doing it, and they're trying to
(19:45):
execute the judgment on several of his properties in New York.
I mean, it's just a big headache. And so yesterday
the New York Supreme Court, again their intermediate appellate Court,
overturned the judges were in terms of the They reduced
it from half a billion to zero. They kept the
(20:08):
they kept his finding of fraud with respect to the
over evaluation, but basically eliminating the entire judgment. And now
that goes up to the Supreme Court to see whether
or not the rest of the thing is vacated. But
I mean, just astounding the scope of the victory right
in that in that case. And what is even more
(20:32):
interesting is there are now investigations going on with respect
to this Laquisha James, right, because she has two houses,
and on her mortgage applications for these two houses, she
listed both as her primary residents. Right. Fraud, clear fraud.
Adam Schiff, the guy who lied about the Russia thing,
(20:54):
who you know, the it just just it's just unbelievable.
The guy's now a senator from California. But he comes
out and he says, you know, there is clear evidence
of collusion between Trump and this is not twenty seventeen
between Trump and Russia. I've seen it, but it's confident,
(21:15):
top secret. You can't. He just lied, He's made it up,
made it up. But he apparently had two homes, one
in la one in Maryland, and he lied on the
application for the Maryland home saying that was his primary residence,
which couldn't be the case because he's a representative and
now a senator from the state of California. And they
also now have this woman who Biden appointed to the
(21:36):
Federal Reserve who did something similar. And you know, I'm
not one for all this investigating and police state stuff.
Crazy about it. But at the same time, what they
put him through, and the fact that all these people
are throwing these stones and they live in glasshouses and
(21:56):
they've committed identical quotes fraud is it's just it's just hysterical,
and it is, you know, emblematic of where we are
as a society. Now. It's too bad, it's too bad.
But I mean, these people are are are just the worst.
And you know, it would be nice if Trump. I
(22:19):
think if Trump said listen, enough is enough. These people
are all fraudsters, they all but but you know what
they are. We're not going to pursue it. I've ordered
the Attorney General not to pursue it. We're going to
move on to things that are more important. But that's
not going to happen. You and I both know that,
so we may as well be entertained.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Well, I mean, it's just we've talked about there's a
million times on this very fine program. Is that you
know that the Democrats, the left, they have engaged in
this law fair campaign primarily against Donald Trump, but others
as well, many of them within Donald Trump's circle of influence.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Right, so it's sort of against the whole Trump thing.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
And as though that that was always going to be
a one sided thing, as though it was something that
the left could accuse the right of malfeasance and turn
it into just absolute nonsense.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
And one would hope that this would be good for
the country. Is that folks who did that, you know
there were repercussions for that.
Speaker 4 (23:20):
Fine, You can file the lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
If you want, But if it turns out that it's nonsense,
as it seems these lawsuits have been, then there's going
to be some repercussions for that.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
That would be good.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
And maybe those repercussions are in fact what is happening,
which I've always just I have not ever been able
to understand how the left thinks that, Okay, we're going
to create this atmosphere in which law fair is common
and accepted, where we try to convince the American people
that what's best for the country is to attack use
(23:53):
the legal system, weaponize the legal system against our political opponents,
which is something to happen in just banana republics, but
we're going to do it here, and that's it's best
for our country if we do that, and we're going
to convince you of the fact of that, and certainly
the folks who fall on the left have all raised their.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
Hands said, fine, we're convinced, do it.
Speaker 3 (24:15):
It's best for the country to engage in this atmosphere
of lawfare. And then the shoe winds up on the
other foot, as which is as predictable and as inevitable
as anything can possibly be. And when the shoe winds
up at the other foot, everyone's looking around going wha,
wait a minute.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
You can't do this. No, it's your rule.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
You created the rule that lawfair was acceptable in the
United States of America. And now when it's being used
against you, because you're as big, if not bigger, a
douchebag than the person you originally accused. And now that
this lawfare is being used against you, you want to
hop up and down and say that's not fair.
Speaker 4 (24:59):
It's your rule.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
It's being applied in the same way, just against you.
So now you have to shut up. You must shut up.
I don't know what else to say about that.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
No, it's too bid. It is just I mean, these
are just the worst people like this. Luquisia James is horrific.
And the woman in remember that there was the case
in Atlanta they brought in Georgia where the DA was
sleeping with the prosecutor that brought the case and it
was all contrived. And then the Adam shift is just
if you look up, you know, worst people on the planet,
(25:36):
he's top three. So they certainly deserve it. But I
do wish that Trump would just say listen, you know,
I'm gonna rise above it. And but that's just you know,
it's not going to happen. And part of it is
his base. They're they're screaming for it. They they want
the Epstein files, they want these people, they want Hillary Clinton,
purp walked. You know, it is, it is. It's a
(26:03):
tight rope and I'll you know, Trump's not running against
he really doesn't care, so it'll be, uh, it'll be
interesting to see how this all shakes out. Are you did?
Do you ever ever go to the Cracker Barrel?
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Oh? Sure, yeah, we used to take when the kids
were little. We used to take road.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Trip after road trip, and I can't take a road
trip in this country without swinging through the occasional cracker barrel.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Well, I have you seen the changes at the Cracker
Barrel lately?
Speaker 4 (26:30):
Well?
Speaker 3 (26:31):
No, in fairness, while I have been in many a
Cracker Barrel. I probably have not been in one of
the last ten years.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
The kids are big. We don't do road trips anymore.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
So.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Well, the the new CEO of the Cracker Barrel, Julie
Fels Messino.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
Ah, yes, with her work of the false Messino Clinton,
New England Mesinos.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
I think here she is there, she.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Is there in the chat. She has taken over and
she's decided that there are certain changes that need to
be made to the Cracker Barrel. Okay, I mean it's
an iconic, right, you know, what would you change about? Well,
the first thing is the logo. She didn't like. She
didn't like the logo. The logo had the you know,
the the white guy sitting on the chair next to
(27:19):
the cracker barrel. They eliminated the white guy and the barrel.
And now they just have a new logo that says
Cracker Barrel. And then they changed the decord to make
it more modern and eliminated a lot of the stuff
in the stores. Our kids love to go to those stores.
And yeah, and it's it's seeming like remember bud Light, Yes,
(27:40):
when they had that dude come up and he was
the new spokesman for bud Light, Yes, and that you know,
brought them from like the number one beer in the
US down to like number fourteen. And that's something similar
is happening now. I guess with Cracker Barrel, their stock
just tanked. It was down like twin twenty percent yesterday.
(28:01):
I think it's down again today. People are starting to boycott.
You know, this is like this is like a blue
collar place, sure, people where people go, but this is
a woman. Yeah, the woman, the CEO fels Messino, is
a DEI person loves DEI, loves it, and so that's
(28:21):
driving her thinking here. So it may not be, you know,
the Cracker Barrel may not be the place to be anymore.
Just just warning.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
You, buddy, I'm sort of running out of like whatever
steam you.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Need to be incredulous anymore.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
Like my I've been incredulous for so long that I'm
starting to run out of like incredulity fuel, whatever that
might be. But I'll try to muster up some last
few drops for this. Okay, So you're you're the CEO,
which stands for chief executive officer of a company of
a business, and that business happens to be a restaurant business,
(29:05):
and that that's fine. We like restaurants in this country.
But in order to be a business, you have to
make more money than you than you spend, right, otherwise
you're going to wind up in bankruptcy and no longer
be a business that's pretty straight for it.
Speaker 4 (29:19):
Right, You're not being an NBA to understand that.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
And someone makes you the CEO of what at least
appears to be a successful business. So I e as
we just discussed, one in which you have customers who
like your brand, who are consuming your product, and therefore
are providing revenue that is at or above your expenses.
(29:45):
Right now, I don't know, I have not done research into,
you know, the state of Cracker Barrel's business, but my
guess is that they were at least profitable right that
they were they were making Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
They were rolling in dough. I was always packed.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
It's always packed. So they've been They've been around a
long long time. I don't know how long, but a
long long time, ever since I was a kid, which
is a long long time.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
And they're profitable, and according to you, they're doing very
very well. I have no problem believing that because, as
is the case with your experience and mine, every time
you're in their places where you're waiting. That's why they
have those little stores, because you're milling around in there
while you're waiting at a table. And to your point,
everybody loves the stuff that's in those stores. So now
you get made the CEO of that company. I would
(30:30):
love to have that job. You would love to have
that job. Right, You're you're given control of a successful company.
You probably have a very nice compensation package, and all
you have to do is keep the ship moving in
that positive direction. You don't have to be inventive, you
don't have to be clever. You're not an entrepreneur. You're
(30:51):
not starting a business. You're just you're handed the controls
of a ship that is up running, heading in the
right to and doing very well.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
All you've got to do is maintain that.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Flip the dam pancakes. Flip the pancakes. That's it.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
Theoretically, if you're the CEO, you must have some education
in this, right. I mean, you must be a business person,
maybe not academically trained, but at least experienced enough to go, Okay,
this is this is running well. We've got lots of customers.
Look at our financials. Wow, we're making a lot more money.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
Than we're losing. That's great. That's the objective of business.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
And at some point in time, these people, people like
this Messino woman, look in the mirror and Fell's Messino
look in the mirror and say, I am willing to
sacrifice all of that for an incredibly ill founded, very
sketchy political position that I hold. So the stockholders of
(31:50):
this business have made me the CEO, and there are
lots of employees to this business who are feeding their
families because of their employment with this business and are
able to do that because of its success. I am
going to sacrifice all of that for my personal political beliefs,
and I'm going to send this ship right to the
(32:11):
bottom because of that. What again, you're you're just an idiot.
And frankly, whoever put this woman in this position, I mean,
unless she is just a you know, just a master
of deceit and had everyone convinced that she was a
bottom line numbers kind of a gal who understood the
(32:32):
restaurant business and was looking to, you know, keep cracker
barrel on the path that was on and that's always
the face she presented. And then they gave her the
job and the next morning she walked in completely different.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
So if that's the case, okay, fine, but I doubt it.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
So whoever gave her this role, you are equally complicit
in the destruction of an otherwise very successful business that
was providing jobs, that was paying taxes, that was doing
all the things you want business to do because you
hold a personal political position that is going to just
tank this business.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
What what? What? What are any of these people doing?
Speaker 3 (33:11):
They should be sued by every cook and waiter and
a waitress and shopkeeper.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
How about a shareholder re.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Employed and shareholder that's being currently employed and or holding
shares in or both I guess I said, and.
Speaker 4 (33:25):
Or Cracker Brow the cracker Brow.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Well, listen, I don't know. I mean, we'll have to
follow this story. I for one, am skeptical that they
can write the ship once you get one of these
conservative groups protesting and like bud Light still has not
has not come back, although they're thinking about hiring the
girl from the jeans Ad, who I've never heard of before,
(33:50):
to drink beer on the TV. And I guess that
might worry you know, the jeans ad. There's some woman
in a jeans ad that's making all the liberal people crazy.
But that's neither here or there. Let's see what else
gen z. So let me ask you this, how how
focused are you on the whimsies of gen Z?
Speaker 4 (34:16):
Not terribly?
Speaker 3 (34:17):
Define gen Z for me, because I think at least
one or two of my girls are probably in that category.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
Is there a definition of gen Z?
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Sure? Gen Z is born between ninety seven and twenty twelve.
Speaker 3 (34:32):
Oh yeah, okay, so I have two of my four
girls are therefore gen zs. So to the extent that
I am interested or familiar with their whimsies, which I am,
then I guess I am. I am familiar with the
whimsies of at least two gen Zers.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
So boomers, you're a boomer because you're born between forty
six and sixty four. I'm gen X sixty five to
eighty today, millennials, it's not about you, You're like, listen, well,
it's not always about you. It's not always about you.
Speaker 4 (35:08):
I don't think that's Is that right? We're both gen xers? Yeah? Okay, well,
I mean yeah, it's hard to believe.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
It's hard to believe, gen Y. There are also millennials
eighty one to ninety six gen Z ninety seven to
twenty twelve, and then Alpha Generation Alpha is twenty thirteen
to twenty twenty five. Bravo will probably be next. But
there is this big hullablu hullablu if you will, that
(35:36):
the gen Z folks. I don't know if there's some
sort of a coalition or a representative committee or I mean,
it begs a lot of questions when they get together.
They use Roberts rules to conduct their meetings. I don't know,
but apparently they are. They are up in arms about
(35:57):
a millennial garb, if you will, or a piece of clothing,
in particular workout leggings. The people at Generation Z have
said that they are no longer going to be adopting,
in hollering part the millennial fashion staple, which are workout leggings.
(36:22):
They said, get rid of them. And what they've done
is they've they don't like skin tight clothes. They prefer
loose fitting, baggy sweatpants or shorts while exercising. And this
is a recent report by Edited, which is a retail
analysis group that Brad Edited goes into detail about the
(36:45):
fashion trends in gen Z and and with respect to
the millennials, and it has noted this. There is a
stark contrast between the millennials in gen Z in terms
of workout clothes, so there's more bagginess afoot. Thought, I
(37:05):
thought that was interesting.
Speaker 4 (37:07):
You did. M oh okay, Well, as.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
A boomer again, you probably don't. You know, you put
on the Champion sweatshirt, the Chuck Chuck tailors and you
go to town. But that that's different. These people, Listen,
these people are they make a fashion statement when they
go to the gym.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Okay, and their fashion statement is that the bag ear
is better.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
Apparently, Yeah, okay, I don't.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
I don't care, Like I don't care what anybody wears
to the gym. I I mean, you know, if it's
ridiculous one way or the other, you know, I mean
if someone is wearing you know, like a like a
michelin Man suit, I would think that was crazy.
Speaker 4 (37:50):
And you will occasionally see, you know, people dressed.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Just what I believe to be inappropriately gals and you know,
basically wearing a bikini to the gym.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
But I don't.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
Generally speaking, I go to the gym to work out,
not to observe people's fashion choices.
Speaker 4 (38:06):
So I don't.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
I don't care, But I also don't know why it matters. Well,
why would anyone care what anyone else is wearing to
the gym? Again, unless it's for some reason so inappropriate
is to be, you know, culturally unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Next, Brad, let's see, we were talking the other day
on our other call about the somebody said something about rabbits.
Zombie rabbits.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Oh no, not zombie. There were rabbits with additional or not.
I guess any would be additional for rabbit, but like
whole little horny growths on their heads because of some virus.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
And then it was determined it could be just one rabbit.
But now zombie squirrels are becoming a thing. And this
is something It came to my attention as part of
my research on the rabbit thing. Covered in puss filled
like tumors. These squirrels have been botted across the US
and Kannada and uh and and so this is becoming
(39:05):
a big, big problem, these squirrels. It brings me back
to Peanut. Right, they probably shouldn't have been killed. But
I don't think Peanut had this disease. It's some sort
of a leprosy or something like.
Speaker 4 (39:18):
It's the vengeance of peanut.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
Apparently it could just starting squirrels, and you get.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
I'm not a big fan of of I mean, listen,
should they have taken that that squirrel and lobotomized it
or whatever they did? Kind of? I again, I don't
think so. But I also I don't know how I
would feel about having a squirrel just dark because those
things just all they're doing is just moving constantly.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
Just I do agree with you that squirrels tend to
be in motion. They seem to be very busy. But
I think it's uh, you know, I think they just
have stuff to do, right, I mean, that's you would
you would not consider it a pejorative to refer to
one of your employees as squirrel like, because you would
you would get that mental image of someone hustling. Squirrels
(40:06):
are on the hustle all the time.
Speaker 4 (40:08):
And so I agree with you. There.
Speaker 3 (40:11):
I am sorry for the squirrels that have this virus
which is causing I'm sure discomfort to the squirrels.
Speaker 4 (40:21):
And there you go. Yeah, I mean, I'm sad for
the rabbits, I'm sad for the squirrels. My guess is
this is a natural process. It will play itself out.
Speaker 3 (40:29):
Certainly in breezing through these articles, it seems like the
folks who you know, know the most about this are
sort of struggling, going, well, yeah, this happens.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
And does it? Does it? Though?
Speaker 4 (40:42):
Well I don't, I don't know. I mean, that's what
they're saying.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
Well, let me ask you this. Let me ask you
this before we wrap up, because we're about to wrap
up and this episode two ninety eight. Have you do
you do you when you're on the Twitter? Do you
follow any of these like it's it's the food influencers?
Do you know what that is?
Speaker 4 (41:00):
Well, buddy A, I don't have any social.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Media, so I mean the Facebook and Facebook.
Speaker 3 (41:05):
I don't have any social media and I don't follow anybody.
And so the answer would be no, I don't since
I follow no one, it would be impossible for me
to follow food influencers.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
It used to be. It used to be than in America.
You would you know, you'd want to go work for
a good, solid company that makes things. You'd want to
go be a you know, a lawyer or a doctor,
or work at a restaurant or or you know, working
a in a retail shop or textile something something that
(41:40):
you know, whatever floats you. But my grandfather pedaled dies
for goodness sakes. But now the new thing is these
people are like making their living. Everyone wants to be
an influencer. More people want to be an influencer in
Generation Z no, well generation Z what people want to
(42:00):
be an influencer than like a lawyer or doctor. It's
crazy when they do these polls. And influencers are just
people that go into like the McDonald's and eat a
cheeseburger and tell you how it is and so, and
it's happening everywhere, like everyone of you would be surprised
the number of people that do it. They it is crazy.
And all they're doing is filming you, filming them eating
(42:22):
and telling you what toys, with clothes, it's with everything.
But food influences are the worst. So if you take
a look at this, this is hysterical. This couple. Who
are these food influencers in like I don't know, in
Texarkana or something or I don't know.
Speaker 5 (42:41):
But but they, uh whatever, they're they're like sitting there
and they're eating, they're they're eating their food and then
a car comes in.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
They were not hurt.
Speaker 5 (42:54):
You get this video up you look at the video,
they're they're eating the food, they're taking a video of
them elves.
Speaker 4 (43:00):
Holy cow, I got a whole spread from when.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
I watched it. Oh but they're good. They're both fine.
So that's the reason I'm showing you laughing. But it's
sort of a there's some symbolism there for what I
think of this whole influencer culture. I mean, these people
are just there, they're trying all the food, they're getting
it for free because they're rating the restaurant, abusing that
whole thing. And then they get you know, some car
(43:25):
just drives in and just nax the Yeah, I didn't
think I get seriously hurt by this is.
Speaker 4 (43:32):
It is remarkable. They didn't look at all that flying glass.
I mean, think just that.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
Now.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
Was this an accident or was someone intentionally leveling the
food influencers?
Speaker 2 (43:46):
I don't. I would like to think it's the latter,
but for some reason I want to I would bet
it's the former. Yeah, maybe it's a zombie squirrel.
Speaker 3 (43:56):
This is remarkable. This is remarkable video of any type.
But yeah, there's there's literally glass all over the place
in this situation, and they in the former spread they
had a bit rocketed across the restaurant.
Speaker 2 (44:15):
So I ain't no cracker barrel, my friend.
Speaker 3 (44:18):
That's that's no cracker brel.
Speaker 4 (44:21):
No there, that's that's something, buddy, that's something.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
If you had if you had, if you had asked me,
is food influencing as a job high risk? I would
have said, well, I mean maybe your cholesterol will go up,
But beyond that, no, I don't think there's much risk involved.
Speaker 4 (44:42):
But apparently not, buddy. You could be hit by a.
Speaker 3 (44:44):
Moving vehicle inside a restaurant if you're a food influencer,
and so you know, kind of to your point, you
want to think twice about whether or not you want
to undertake food influencing as a as either a profession
or even a hobby, because you might get smacked by
a car.
Speaker 4 (45:02):
So there you go.
Speaker 3 (45:05):
Yeah, Well, but I mean, there it is. I think
that's about all we can do. We've we've discussed once
again the lunacy of our current political condition, the fact
that that lunacy has bled over into both our judicial
and business worlds, to the detriment of both. We've seen
the fact that rodents are protesting that by dressing themselves
(45:28):
up as zombies and nightmare creatures just to kind of
push back on the humans and say.
Speaker 4 (45:34):
No, you know, we don't like what you're doing.
Speaker 3 (45:38):
And you know, again as another sign of just general dissatisfaction,
we've got people driving their buicks into food influencers in
the middle of them influencing. And if anything, this should
just be a warning to us all that things are
not going well.
Speaker 4 (45:54):
They need to go better. Do not be on the
side of people who.
Speaker 3 (45:58):
Are saying no, no, the crappy status quo is fine
because we don't like the people who are making things better.
No step over beyond the side of people who are
making things better and clearly in the vanguard of the
people who are making things better or us buddy right
here on this podcast. If you want to be on
(46:18):
the side of people making things better, then you come
right over here to this very fine program. We did
it this week, We'll do it again next week, right
here on IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
This has been IP frequently, once again, clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 4 (46:37):
You're welcome
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity
David Pridham and L Bradley's sheaf.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Well Brod. There it is smoking in the non binary
restroom of choice. What a great song kids had to school.
Kids in the South have been back in school for
a couple of weeks. Now up North, not as much,
but some very interesting, interesting, very interesting stuff going on,
(01:13):
and kids are heading back to school. They don't smoke
that much anymore. They vape.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Yeah, I would be vaping in the non binary room,
Motley Crue. If they were re recording this would have
to do it as vaping in the non binary restroom,
which would not have as much impact as smoking in
the boys room. I don't think, But what do I know.
I can't figure anything out anymore.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yeah, I have no idea. But it's it is uh,
it is interesting. It's that you know. And here in
the Pritam household, we are, at least certain constituencies within
said household are ready for those school bells to ring
in the doors to open. We are ready. Yeah, But anyway, Uh,
Pritam and Chief Podcast, we are back after a brief
(01:57):
hiatus for the summer. But we're here. The dog days
of summer of descended upon us. Up in the northeast Bread.
We're experiencing, uh, the the uh outer periphery of the
big hurricane. Aaron got some serious wins here. But no,
it's sunny. It's sunny, but high season wins. Ah.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
Well there, you know.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Yeah, I'm staying far away from the seas. But otherwise
things are things are good. We're getting ready to go
back to back to school. You're getting ready to welcome
a new chief into the world and a new sun
in law. So that's uh, that's all good. But we
we we have to sort of buckle down take care
of some business. Uh. First, we we want to welcome
(02:43):
everyone here on the iHeartRadio podcast radio network. We are
here on this podcast network, but also we're on any
podcast network you can you can go to and you
can download us on Apple, Google, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon, Twitter,
(03:06):
any of them, any of them. You just you hit
like on the episode, you subscribe. And that way, if
you subscribe every day, when a new episode of IP
frequently and there have been two hundred and ninety eight
of them, believe it or not, when they drop, you
will be the first to know. It'll pop up. You'll
have a notification if you enable notifications, which you should
(03:29):
do with respect to this podcast, and then you can
listen right away. We recommend as soon as that hits
you get up out of bed, you immediately start playing
the podcast. You support all of the good sponsors of
the show, sponsors of the show, and you continue to
(03:50):
listen like create dummy accounts, subscribe with those dummy accounts,
listen again, like more dummy accounts, and it's just it
just can become a full time I'm gig. You just
constantly are creating these new personas that are liking and
listening to IP frequently, and eventually you'll be the smartest
person in the room. Guy or gal. Guy or gal.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Yeah, doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Though anymore, we don't know the difference between a guy
or a gal and so just person, just here, although
you know, human is probably a stretch at times because
there are people who like to wear cat's ears and
tails and I think they're referred to as fuzzies, maybe
hurries something some such things.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
So you can't even really say humans. You just have
to say listeners.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
I think that's safe because if you're listening to the podcast,
then I think it's fair to call you a listener.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
And do we really have sponsors?
Speaker 2 (04:52):
It would be amazing, Sure do Sure do sponsors, listeners, subscribers,
all that. And you know, the or we talk, the
more people listen, and that's a it's a great thing.
Now listen, I am. I don't know about you, Brad.
We talked last week about being tired of winning, and
I'm downright exhausted at this point. There are you know,
(05:15):
the trumpet? It is so fast and furious. What's going
on with Trump, whether it's this Ukraine deal or settling
six or seven global conflicts depending on who you listen to,
or the DC the takeover the DC police, and now
he's he was I don't know if you saw this,
but Trump came out and he had the National Guard
(05:37):
into the White House for a lunch.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
If you saw that, I did not see that.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
I had about five hundred pizzas. And then he had
burgers made by the White House chef and he fed
them all. And then he said, listen, I get this takeover.
The DC police seems to be going well. All crime
pretty much every category of crime is down. And now
they're starting to wipe out homeless encampments and they're uh,
(06:03):
they're they're going to be cleaning up the parks, which
I think is great. I I as someone who you know,
my grandparents were from d C. I spent a lot
of time there when I was young, went to law
school in d C and the DC area, and and
so I know that that those parks and and that
that city is a great city, and and you know,
he actually seems to be cleaning it up. But he
(06:26):
was speaking to all these guys and gals who are
members of the National Guard and talking about the pizza,
and then he and he's and then he gets on
this so it's talking about the parks, and he said, listen,
you guys continue to fight the crime and get the
crime down. I am going to I am going to
focus on the grass of the parks, and then he
(06:47):
started talking about the different types of grass at his
golf courses and how he is personally going to make
sure that they have the best grass with the best
top of the line sprinkler systems in ground, in ground, Brad,
and so will be grass in the parks. He said,
you worry, said, you all worry about fighting crime, and
I'm gonna worry about the grass and then we're going
to meet and the city is going to be going
(07:08):
to be great again. So that's where that's where he's at.
I mean, it is a it is a an amazing
uh project that he's got. He's got going on there.
But you know, he's solving world world crises, the border crisis,
he's dealing with tariffs sitting, and now he's cleaning up
the streets of Washington, d C.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Yeah, I mean, buddy, it's a you know, I was
going to say, it's hard to take exception to any
of that, except that there are literally millions of people
who are taking exception, so that I find it fascinating.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Again, I have not done in depth research on this,
as everyone knows. Listening to the podcast for five minutes,
the news drives me crazy. I don't pay.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Attention to it, which you know may be to my detriment.
But I'm counting on you, and I know that you
will do a good job of letting me know, you know,
if World War three has started, or you know, if
there are missiles in the air, or aliens have landed asteroids, yeah, asteroids,
whatever the case may be, I'll let I know that
you will let me know so I can respond appropriately.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
But the general news stuff I can't do.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
And so I have not done deep research into this,
but I find it fascinating that in order there is
unquestionably and has been for decades. Right, I mean this
is not a new You can't blame Joe Biden for
crime in d C.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Right, I mean I was an.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Agent in in the Baltimore Division, but which covers the
state of Maryland and.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
The state of Delaware, not that that's relevant.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
And so we worked, you know, Maryland obviously a butts
the District of Columbia, and so we worked.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
I was on a violent crime squad. We worked with
the DC guys.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
To work you know, cases that we're going back and
forth from the border districts in Maryland which are right
along with DC. Very violent, lots of gang activity there.
And so I'm very familiar with the amount of crime
in Washington, you see, and it's extraordinary, right, I mean,
there are places, certainly when I was working there, where
you just could not go. If you did not live there,
(09:08):
you could not go there. You were taking your life
in your hands. And so there's no question that the
amount of crime, particularly violent crime, drug related crime, in
the nation's capital was extraordinarily high.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
And I don't know where the blame falls for that.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I certainly don't have the data and information to be
able to point fingers and say, well, it's because of
this and because of.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
That, and that doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
The fact of the matter is that violent crime in
our nation's capital was and has been at an extraordinary level.
And Trump took a look at that and said, I
don't think that reflects well on our country, right, that
our nation's capital, there are places that you can go
within sight of Congressional office buildings, within sight of this Smithsonian,
(10:00):
within sight of the Jefferson Memorial, where you are taking
your life in your hands. That should not be the case.
And so let's get our arms around this and you know,
make that history. Let's turn the nation's capital back into
what it was, you know, in the nineteen fifties, sixties,
(10:21):
whatever the case, may be a safe place, a place
people desire to go, a place they can go, a
place they can safely go. Let's do that, and that
is what he is doing. And you can argue with
the details, right, you can say, well, he shouldn't have
done this, he should have done that, and fine, you know,
like mind's reasonable minds can argue as to the actual implementation.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
Of that policy.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
What I find fascinating is that there are people who
are arguing that shouldn't be the policy, that the policy
should be none. To let DC continue to just spiral
down into a cesspool of violent crime. That's better than
turning in it again into a gem.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Or maybe not again. I mean, maybe you want to
take the position it was never all that great.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
Fine, but what Trump's trying to do is make it great, right,
turn it into a gem, something that the country can
be proud of. And in order to disagree with that concept,
you then have to hold the concept of no, we
should just let it continue to.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Do what it's doing. And that I don't get, and
that has.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
To arise from you know, some form of what do
they call it, Trump derangement syndrome, and it has to
arise from that because no reasonable human being if you're
given choice. Hey, there's a capital of a country, okay,
And in that capital there are some really remarkable things
to see and visit, museums that tell that nation's history,
(11:47):
good and bad. There are memorials there that are impressive
and worth seeing. You know that it is the seat
of government, and you're allowed to go and participate in
and go watch congress in set. You can tour the
executive mansion of the of the President of.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
The head of government. You know you can. You can
do all that in this capital. Wow. Okay, sounds like
cool place. Yeah, no, it is cool place, except.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
The violent crime is so high there that there is
a decent possibility that you will be the victim of
crime if you go, Oh, well, why would the country
allow that?
Speaker 4 (12:25):
Well, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
Well who's responsible for that? Well, I don't know, but
that's the case. Oh golly, okay, But but there's a guy,
the actual head of the executive branch at this point,
who's saying, no, no, no, we should fix that, we
should clean that up, and we should allow every American
and those visiting us from other countries to safely enjoy
(12:48):
all that this capital has to offer.
Speaker 4 (12:49):
Would you be behind that?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Well?
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Sure, why wouldn't I be behind that?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
So you're telling me that I have a choice between
being in you know, a significant violent crime area that
is prohibiting me from enjoying all these things, or we
can solve that problem and I can enjoy these things
safely and securely and get the maximum benefit out of it.
Speaker 4 (13:09):
Yes, that's your choice. How does anyone pick a How
does anyone pick no?
Speaker 2 (13:16):
No?
Speaker 4 (13:16):
Leave it dangerous and violent?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Because I like it that way?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
You can't.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
The only way that you can say that is well,
I hate the guy doing the good thing so much
that I'd rather wallow in the bad.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
Thing than accept the good thing. And that is nuts.
I mean, that is a syndrome of some sort.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
It's interesting because he I can't tell if he's doing
this intentionally or not, right, I can't tell, but he
literally in the DC thing he's got. The Democrats are
all opposing what he's doing because they're deranged, right, and
they're having to argue that the city is not that bad,
(14:03):
which is crazy, right.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Which is yeah, it's demonstrably great.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah, I mean you got people being shot. I mean, yeah,
it is bad. I mean I remember when they opened
that metro system. I was really young, but yeah, it
was the best metro system in the world and you
could feel safe on there all the time. And now
I wouldn't even go on that in a million years now.
I mean when I lived there and was in school,
(14:26):
I used to go down, take the Virginia Square Line down,
you connect to the Reagan Airport. You get there in
like fifteen minutes. You're right at your gate, and it
was amazing. And this was the late nineties, and then
you can't do that now. But it is. It's telling
(14:47):
and I again I can't tell if he's doing it
intentionally or it's just a byproduct. But the Democrats are
beside themselves.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
Well think about that.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
I mean, let's just accept them at their argument. So
as you framed it, and I'm sure you're correct about this.
They're saying, well, we should leave DC alone because it's
not that bad. Okay, Democrats or whoever's taking this position.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
So you want to leave it alone because it's not
that bad.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
You admit that it could be better, and you admit
that the steps that the Trump administration are taking are
in fact making it better or at least resolving those issues, right,
because better is a matter of opinion. But you admit
that your position is that the violent crime exists, it's
just not overwhelming, and you admit that the steps the
(15:34):
Trump administration are taking are dealing with those levels of
violent crime.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
And reducing them. We all agree on that.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
You just don't think he should do that because he's
Donald Trump. So you're willing to live with a degree
of violent crime well beyond that which is possible, right,
you can reduce it to a great degree. And we
all agree that that's being done, but you don't want
to do it because it's Donald Trum.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
I'm doing it. That's nuts.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Who how do you possibly support people are taking the
position of, well, I thought that bad.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
We should leave alone. Stupid.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Yeah, I mean, I think they're they're defending the status quo. Actually,
it's crazy. I've never I have never seen I've never
seen any anything like it. But in another front, and
I don't know if you saw this, but yesterday the
New York Supreme Court, which is the New York Appellate Court,
(16:31):
you know, and then there's a New York Court of Appeals,
which is there state Supreme court. But you remember, remember
that that Judge Ergowan who had that trial where Trump
the Trump organization supposedly over valued the the or overestimated
the value of some real estate holdings for purposes of
getting a mortgage to purchase alone, to purchase a large
(16:56):
property in New York City, and for the criminal fraud drive.
Remember that.
Speaker 4 (17:01):
Yeah, so this is the one.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
There were so many trials back in that period that
I certainly cannot keep them straight. So is this the
one where he was accused of overvaluing the property so
that he could get a loan. He got the loan,
He paid off the loan with a distress, and there
is no.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
There's no aggrieved party here.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
The banks actually said under under oath that they wanted
to do more business with him because you know, the
deal was so smooth and they you know that that.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
So who I mean, just I realize you're get beyond this,
but just to explain so because there may be other
people don't understand, don't you In a lawsuit, doesn't someone
have to have been aggrieved?
Speaker 2 (17:48):
Well, this was brought by the DA party. This was
brought by the Attorney General of the statement of the State.
Speaker 4 (17:54):
People of New York were aggrieved in this back.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Well, this woman ran for office, right for be the
A G Laquisha James. She ran for office and she
sid her platform was I will prosecute Donald Trump if elected.
I will get them. Okay, not not. Donald Trump has
committed this crime and we need to Nope, I will
get them. But whatever, there's somehow shades of Kafka, and
(18:19):
you know we we'll figure out the crime later. Don't
worry about it. Well, don't don't you don't you worry
about it. So you know, she came up with this
thing where where there was an application for a loan
where arguably the property, the the properties used as collateral
(18:40):
were overvalued in the application. And when you file an application,
you certify the value of those whatever the collateral is,
and you know you sign it. You know it is
what it is mortgage for a house. So they keep
in mind, this is a this is a case where
as you said, loan was paid back in full with interest.
The bank didn't complaine that, no one complained. There was
(19:04):
a half a billion dollar, five hundred million dollar plush
sanction placed on Trump as a result of this trial.
Was it a judge trial, No, it was by the judge,
the judge bench trial. The judge pluck the judge. He
imposed a five hundred million dollar penalty. He refused to
(19:25):
stay execution of the judgment pending appeal. So Trump had
to post some crazy ass bond. So you had to
go out and leverage a bunch of his assets to
post the bond, which he did. But it's not easy.
It's not easy. Million bucks and crazy interest is accruing
on this while he's doing it, and they're trying to
(19:45):
execute the judgment on several of his properties in New York.
I mean, it's just a big headache. And so yesterday
the New York Supreme Court, again their intermediate appellate Court,
overturned the judges were in terms of the They reduced
it from half a billion to zero. They kept the
(20:08):
they kept his finding of fraud with respect to the
over evaluation, but basically eliminating the entire judgment. And now
that goes up to the Supreme Court to see whether
or not the rest of the thing is vacated. But
I mean, just astounding the scope of the victory right
in that in that case. And what is even more
(20:32):
interesting is there are now investigations going on with respect
to this Laquisha James, right, because she has two houses,
and on her mortgage applications for these two houses, she
listed both as her primary residents. Right. Fraud, clear fraud.
Adam Schiff, the guy who lied about the Russia thing,
(20:54):
who you know, the it just just it's just unbelievable.
The guy's now a senator from California. But he comes
out and he says, you know, there is clear evidence
of collusion between Trump and this is not twenty seventeen
between Trump and Russia. I've seen it, but it's confident,
(21:15):
top secret. You can't. He just lied, He's made it up,
made it up. But he apparently had two homes, one
in la one in Maryland, and he lied on the
application for the Maryland home saying that was his primary residence,
which couldn't be the case because he's a representative and
now a senator from the state of California. And they
also now have this woman who Biden appointed to the
(21:36):
Federal Reserve who did something similar. And you know, I'm
not one for all this investigating and police state stuff.
Crazy about it. But at the same time, what they
put him through, and the fact that all these people
are throwing these stones and they live in glasshouses and
(21:56):
they've committed identical quotes fraud is it's just it's just hysterical,
and it is, you know, emblematic of where we are
as a society. Now. It's too bad, it's too bad.
But I mean, these people are are are just the worst.
And you know, it would be nice if Trump. I
(22:19):
think if Trump said listen, enough is enough. These people
are all fraudsters, they all but but you know what
they are. We're not going to pursue it. I've ordered
the Attorney General not to pursue it. We're going to
move on to things that are more important. But that's
not going to happen. You and I both know that,
so we may as well be entertained.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Well, I mean, it's just we've talked about there's a
million times on this very fine program. Is that you
know that the Democrats, the left, they have engaged in
this law fair campaign primarily against Donald Trump, but others
as well, many of them within Donald Trump's circle of influence.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Right, so it's sort of against the whole Trump thing.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
And as though that that was always going to be
a one sided thing, as though it was something that
the left could accuse the right of malfeasance and turn
it into just absolute nonsense.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
And one would hope that this would be good for
the country. Is that folks who did that, you know
there were repercussions for that.
Speaker 4 (23:20):
Fine, You can file the lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
If you want, But if it turns out that it's nonsense,
as it seems these lawsuits have been, then there's going
to be some repercussions for that.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
That would be good.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
And maybe those repercussions are in fact what is happening,
which I've always just I have not ever been able
to understand how the left thinks that, Okay, we're going
to create this atmosphere in which law fair is common
and accepted, where we try to convince the American people
that what's best for the country is to attack use
(23:53):
the legal system, weaponize the legal system against our political opponents,
which is something to happen in just banana republics, but
we're going to do it here, and that's it's best
for our country if we do that, and we're going
to convince you of the fact of that, and certainly
the folks who fall on the left have all raised their.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
Hands said, fine, we're convinced, do it.
Speaker 3 (24:15):
It's best for the country to engage in this atmosphere
of lawfare. And then the shoe winds up on the
other foot, as which is as predictable and as inevitable
as anything can possibly be. And when the shoe winds
up at the other foot, everyone's looking around going wha,
wait a minute.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
You can't do this. No, it's your rule.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
You created the rule that lawfair was acceptable in the
United States of America. And now when it's being used
against you, because you're as big, if not bigger, a
douchebag than the person you originally accused. And now that
this lawfare is being used against you, you want to
hop up and down and say that's not fair.
Speaker 4 (24:59):
It's your rule.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
It's being applied in the same way, just against you.
So now you have to shut up. You must shut up.
I don't know what else to say about that.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
No, it's too bid. It is just I mean, these
are just the worst people like this. Luquisia James is horrific.
And the woman in remember that there was the case
in Atlanta they brought in Georgia where the DA was
sleeping with the prosecutor that brought the case and it
was all contrived. And then the Adam shift is just
if you look up, you know, worst people on the planet,
(25:36):
he's top three. So they certainly deserve it. But I
do wish that Trump would just say listen, you know,
I'm gonna rise above it. And but that's just you know,
it's not going to happen. And part of it is
his base. They're they're screaming for it. They they want
the Epstein files, they want these people, they want Hillary Clinton,
purp walked. You know, it is, it is. It's a
(26:03):
tight rope and I'll you know, Trump's not running against
he really doesn't care, so it'll be, uh, it'll be
interesting to see how this all shakes out. Are you did?
Do you ever ever go to the Cracker Barrel?
Speaker 4 (26:16):
Oh? Sure, yeah, we used to take when the kids
were little. We used to take road.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Trip after road trip, and I can't take a road
trip in this country without swinging through the occasional cracker barrel.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Well, I have you seen the changes at the Cracker
Barrel lately?
Speaker 4 (26:30):
Well?
Speaker 3 (26:31):
No, in fairness, while I have been in many a
Cracker Barrel. I probably have not been in one of
the last ten years.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
The kids are big. We don't do road trips anymore.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
So.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Well, the the new CEO of the Cracker Barrel, Julie
Fels Messino.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
Ah, yes, with her work of the false Messino Clinton,
New England Mesinos.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
I think here she is there, she.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Is there in the chat. She has taken over and
she's decided that there are certain changes that need to
be made to the Cracker Barrel. Okay, I mean it's
an iconic, right, you know, what would you change about? Well,
the first thing is the logo. She didn't like. She
didn't like the logo. The logo had the you know,
the the white guy sitting on the chair next to
(27:19):
the cracker barrel. They eliminated the white guy and the barrel.
And now they just have a new logo that says
Cracker Barrel. And then they changed the decord to make
it more modern and eliminated a lot of the stuff
in the stores. Our kids love to go to those stores.
And yeah, and it's it's seeming like remember bud Light, Yes,
(27:40):
when they had that dude come up and he was
the new spokesman for bud Light, Yes, and that you know,
brought them from like the number one beer in the
US down to like number fourteen. And that's something similar
is happening now. I guess with Cracker Barrel, their stock
just tanked. It was down like twin twenty percent yesterday.
(28:01):
I think it's down again today. People are starting to boycott.
You know, this is like this is like a blue
collar place, sure, people where people go, but this is
a woman. Yeah, the woman, the CEO fels Messino, is
a DEI person loves DEI, loves it, and so that's
(28:21):
driving her thinking here. So it may not be, you know,
the Cracker Barrel may not be the place to be anymore.
Just just warning.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
You, buddy, I'm sort of running out of like whatever
steam you.
Speaker 4 (28:36):
Need to be incredulous anymore.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
Like my I've been incredulous for so long that I'm
starting to run out of like incredulity fuel, whatever that
might be. But I'll try to muster up some last
few drops for this. Okay, So you're you're the CEO,
which stands for chief executive officer of a company of
a business, and that business happens to be a restaurant business,
(29:05):
and that that's fine. We like restaurants in this country.
But in order to be a business, you have to
make more money than you than you spend, right, otherwise
you're going to wind up in bankruptcy and no longer
be a business that's pretty straight for it.
Speaker 4 (29:19):
Right, You're not being an NBA to understand that.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
And someone makes you the CEO of what at least
appears to be a successful business. So I e as
we just discussed, one in which you have customers who
like your brand, who are consuming your product, and therefore
are providing revenue that is at or above your expenses.
(29:45):
Right now, I don't know, I have not done research into,
you know, the state of Cracker Barrel's business, but my
guess is that they were at least profitable right that
they were they were making Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
They were rolling in dough. I was always packed.
Speaker 4 (30:02):
It's always packed. So they've been They've been around a
long long time. I don't know how long, but a
long long time, ever since I was a kid, which
is a long long time.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
And they're profitable, and according to you, they're doing very
very well. I have no problem believing that because, as
is the case with your experience and mine, every time
you're in their places where you're waiting. That's why they
have those little stores, because you're milling around in there
while you're waiting at a table. And to your point,
everybody loves the stuff that's in those stores. So now
you get made the CEO of that company. I would
(30:30):
love to have that job. You would love to have
that job. Right, You're you're given control of a successful company.
You probably have a very nice compensation package, and all
you have to do is keep the ship moving in
that positive direction. You don't have to be inventive, you
don't have to be clever. You're not an entrepreneur. You're
(30:51):
not starting a business. You're just you're handed the controls
of a ship that is up running, heading in the
right to and doing very well.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
All you've got to do is maintain that.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Flip the dam pancakes. Flip the pancakes. That's it.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
Theoretically, if you're the CEO, you must have some education
in this, right. I mean, you must be a business person,
maybe not academically trained, but at least experienced enough to go, Okay,
this is this is running well. We've got lots of customers.
Look at our financials. Wow, we're making a lot more money.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
Than we're losing. That's great. That's the objective of business.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
And at some point in time, these people, people like
this Messino woman, look in the mirror and Fell's Messino
look in the mirror and say, I am willing to
sacrifice all of that for an incredibly ill founded, very
sketchy political position that I hold. So the stockholders of
(31:50):
this business have made me the CEO, and there are
lots of employees to this business who are feeding their
families because of their employment with this business and are
able to do that because of its success. I am
going to sacrifice all of that for my personal political beliefs,
and I'm going to send this ship right to the
(32:11):
bottom because of that. What again, you're you're just an idiot.
And frankly, whoever put this woman in this position, I mean,
unless she is just a you know, just a master
of deceit and had everyone convinced that she was a
bottom line numbers kind of a gal who understood the
(32:32):
restaurant business and was looking to, you know, keep cracker
barrel on the path that was on and that's always
the face she presented. And then they gave her the
job and the next morning she walked in completely different.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
So if that's the case, okay, fine, but I doubt it.
Speaker 3 (32:46):
So whoever gave her this role, you are equally complicit
in the destruction of an otherwise very successful business that
was providing jobs, that was paying taxes, that was doing
all the things you want business to do because you
hold a personal political position that is going to just
tank this business.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
What what? What? What are any of these people doing?
Speaker 3 (33:11):
They should be sued by every cook and waiter and
a waitress and shopkeeper.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
How about a shareholder re.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Employed and shareholder that's being currently employed and or holding
shares in or both I guess I said, and.
Speaker 4 (33:25):
Or Cracker Brow the cracker Brow.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Well, listen, I don't know. I mean, we'll have to
follow this story. I for one, am skeptical that they
can write the ship once you get one of these
conservative groups protesting and like bud Light still has not
has not come back, although they're thinking about hiring the
girl from the jeans Ad, who I've never heard of before,
(33:50):
to drink beer on the TV. And I guess that
might worry you know, the jeans ad. There's some woman
in a jeans ad that's making all the liberal people crazy.
But that's neither here or there. Let's see what else
gen z. So let me ask you this, how how
focused are you on the whimsies of gen Z?
Speaker 4 (34:16):
Not terribly?
Speaker 3 (34:17):
Define gen Z for me, because I think at least
one or two of my girls are probably in that category.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
Is there a definition of gen Z?
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Sure? Gen Z is born between ninety seven and twenty twelve.
Speaker 3 (34:32):
Oh yeah, okay, so I have two of my four
girls are therefore gen zs. So to the extent that
I am interested or familiar with their whimsies, which I am,
then I guess I am. I am familiar with the
whimsies of at least two gen Zers.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
So boomers, you're a boomer because you're born between forty
six and sixty four. I'm gen X sixty five to
eighty today, millennials, it's not about you, You're like, listen, well,
it's not always about you. It's not always about you.
Speaker 4 (35:08):
I don't think that's Is that right? We're both gen xers? Yeah? Okay, well,
I mean yeah, it's hard to believe.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
It's hard to believe, gen Y. There are also millennials
eighty one to ninety six gen Z ninety seven to
twenty twelve, and then Alpha Generation Alpha is twenty thirteen
to twenty twenty five. Bravo will probably be next. But
there is this big hullablu hullablu if you will, that
(35:36):
the gen Z folks. I don't know if there's some
sort of a coalition or a representative committee or I mean,
it begs a lot of questions when they get together.
They use Roberts rules to conduct their meetings. I don't know,
but apparently they are. They are up in arms about
(35:57):
a millennial garb, if you will, or a piece of clothing,
in particular workout leggings. The people at Generation Z have
said that they are no longer going to be adopting,
in hollering part the millennial fashion staple, which are workout leggings.
(36:22):
They said, get rid of them. And what they've done
is they've they don't like skin tight clothes. They prefer
loose fitting, baggy sweatpants or shorts while exercising. And this
is a recent report by Edited, which is a retail
analysis group that Brad Edited goes into detail about the
(36:45):
fashion trends in gen Z and and with respect to
the millennials, and it has noted this. There is a
stark contrast between the millennials in gen Z in terms
of workout clothes, so there's more bagginess afoot. Thought, I
(37:05):
thought that was interesting.
Speaker 4 (37:07):
You did. M oh okay, Well, as.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
A boomer again, you probably don't. You know, you put
on the Champion sweatshirt, the Chuck Chuck tailors and you
go to town. But that that's different. These people, Listen,
these people are they make a fashion statement when they
go to the gym.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Okay, and their fashion statement is that the bag ear
is better.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
Apparently, Yeah, okay, I don't.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
I don't care, Like I don't care what anybody wears
to the gym. I I mean, you know, if it's
ridiculous one way or the other, you know, I mean
if someone is wearing you know, like a like a
michelin Man suit, I would think that was crazy.
Speaker 4 (37:50):
And you will occasionally see, you know, people dressed.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Just what I believe to be inappropriately gals and you know,
basically wearing a bikini to the gym.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
But I don't.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
Generally speaking, I go to the gym to work out,
not to observe people's fashion choices.
Speaker 4 (38:06):
So I don't.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
I don't care, But I also don't know why it matters. Well,
why would anyone care what anyone else is wearing to
the gym? Again, unless it's for some reason so inappropriate
is to be, you know, culturally unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Next, Brad, let's see, we were talking the other day
on our other call about the somebody said something about rabbits.
Zombie rabbits.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Oh no, not zombie. There were rabbits with additional or not.
I guess any would be additional for rabbit, but like
whole little horny growths on their heads because of some virus.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
And then it was determined it could be just one rabbit.
But now zombie squirrels are becoming a thing. And this
is something It came to my attention as part of
my research on the rabbit thing. Covered in puss filled
like tumors. These squirrels have been botted across the US
and Kannada and uh and and so this is becoming
(39:05):
a big, big problem, these squirrels. It brings me back
to Peanut. Right, they probably shouldn't have been killed. But
I don't think Peanut had this disease. It's some sort
of a leprosy or something like.
Speaker 4 (39:18):
It's the vengeance of peanut.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
Apparently it could just starting squirrels, and you get.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
I'm not a big fan of of I mean, listen,
should they have taken that that squirrel and lobotomized it
or whatever they did? Kind of? I again, I don't
think so. But I also I don't know how I
would feel about having a squirrel just dark because those
things just all they're doing is just moving constantly.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
Just I do agree with you that squirrels tend to
be in motion. They seem to be very busy. But
I think it's uh, you know, I think they just
have stuff to do, right, I mean, that's you would
you would not consider it a pejorative to refer to
one of your employees as squirrel like, because you would
you would get that mental image of someone hustling. Squirrels
(40:06):
are on the hustle all the time.
Speaker 4 (40:08):
And so I agree with you. There.
Speaker 3 (40:11):
I am sorry for the squirrels that have this virus
which is causing I'm sure discomfort to the squirrels.
Speaker 4 (40:21):
And there you go. Yeah, I mean, I'm sad for
the rabbits, I'm sad for the squirrels. My guess is
this is a natural process. It will play itself out.
Speaker 3 (40:29):
Certainly in breezing through these articles, it seems like the
folks who you know, know the most about this are
sort of struggling, going, well, yeah, this happens.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
And does it? Does it? Though?
Speaker 4 (40:42):
Well I don't, I don't know. I mean, that's what
they're saying.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
Well, let me ask you this. Let me ask you
this before we wrap up, because we're about to wrap
up and this episode two ninety eight. Have you do
you do you when you're on the Twitter? Do you
follow any of these like it's it's the food influencers?
Do you know what that is?
Speaker 4 (41:00):
Well, buddy A, I don't have any social.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Media, so I mean the Facebook and Facebook.
Speaker 3 (41:05):
I don't have any social media and I don't follow anybody.
And so the answer would be no, I don't since
I follow no one, it would be impossible for me
to follow food influencers.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
It used to be. It used to be than in America.
You would you know, you'd want to go work for
a good, solid company that makes things. You'd want to
go be a you know, a lawyer or a doctor,
or work at a restaurant or or you know, working
a in a retail shop or textile something something that
(41:40):
you know, whatever floats you. But my grandfather pedaled dies
for goodness sakes. But now the new thing is these
people are like making their living. Everyone wants to be
an influencer. More people want to be an influencer in
Generation Z no, well generation Z what people want to
(42:00):
be an influencer than like a lawyer or doctor. It's
crazy when they do these polls. And influencers are just
people that go into like the McDonald's and eat a
cheeseburger and tell you how it is and so, and
it's happening everywhere, like everyone of you would be surprised
the number of people that do it. They it is crazy.
And all they're doing is filming you, filming them eating
(42:22):
and telling you what toys, with clothes, it's with everything.
But food influences are the worst. So if you take
a look at this, this is hysterical. This couple. Who
are these food influencers in like I don't know, in
Texarkana or something or I don't know.
Speaker 5 (42:41):
But but they, uh whatever, they're they're like sitting there
and they're eating, they're they're eating their food and then
a car comes in.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
They were not hurt.
Speaker 5 (42:54):
You get this video up you look at the video,
they're they're eating the food, they're taking a video of
them elves.
Speaker 4 (43:00):
Holy cow, I got a whole spread from when.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
I watched it. Oh but they're good. They're both fine.
So that's the reason I'm showing you laughing. But it's
sort of a there's some symbolism there for what I
think of this whole influencer culture. I mean, these people
are just there, they're trying all the food, they're getting
it for free because they're rating the restaurant, abusing that
whole thing. And then they get you know, some car
(43:25):
just drives in and just nax the Yeah, I didn't
think I get seriously hurt by this is.
Speaker 4 (43:32):
It is remarkable. They didn't look at all that flying glass.
I mean, think just that.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
Now.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
Was this an accident or was someone intentionally leveling the
food influencers?
Speaker 2 (43:46):
I don't. I would like to think it's the latter,
but for some reason I want to I would bet
it's the former. Yeah, maybe it's a zombie squirrel.
Speaker 3 (43:56):
This is remarkable. This is remarkable video of any type.
But yeah, there's there's literally glass all over the place
in this situation, and they in the former spread they
had a bit rocketed across the restaurant.
Speaker 2 (44:15):
So I ain't no cracker barrel, my friend.
Speaker 3 (44:18):
That's that's no cracker brel.
Speaker 4 (44:21):
No there, that's that's something, buddy, that's something.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
If you had if you had, if you had asked me,
is food influencing as a job high risk? I would
have said, well, I mean maybe your cholesterol will go up,
But beyond that, no, I don't think there's much risk involved.
Speaker 4 (44:42):
But apparently not, buddy. You could be hit by a.
Speaker 3 (44:44):
Moving vehicle inside a restaurant if you're a food influencer,
and so you know, kind of to your point, you
want to think twice about whether or not you want
to undertake food influencing as a as either a profession
or even a hobby, because you might get smacked by
a car.
Speaker 4 (45:02):
So there you go.
Speaker 3 (45:05):
Yeah, Well, but I mean, there it is. I think
that's about all we can do. We've we've discussed once
again the lunacy of our current political condition, the fact
that that lunacy has bled over into both our judicial
and business worlds, to the detriment of both. We've seen
the fact that rodents are protesting that by dressing themselves
(45:28):
up as zombies and nightmare creatures just to kind of
push back on the humans and say.
Speaker 4 (45:34):
No, you know, we don't like what you're doing.
Speaker 3 (45:38):
And you know, again as another sign of just general dissatisfaction,
we've got people driving their buicks into food influencers in
the middle of them influencing. And if anything, this should
just be a warning to us all that things are
not going well.
Speaker 4 (45:54):
They need to go better. Do not be on the
side of people who.
Speaker 3 (45:58):
Are saying no, no, the crappy status quo is fine
because we don't like the people who are making things better.
No step over beyond the side of people who are
making things better and clearly in the vanguard of the
people who are making things better or us buddy right
here on this podcast. If you want to be on
(46:18):
the side of people making things better, then you come
right over here to this very fine program. We did
it this week, We'll do it again next week, right
here on IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
This has been IP frequently, once again, clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 4 (46:37):
You're welcome
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!