August 1, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- The Kamala book & her possible campaign
- The white commercials & good genes
- Global warming & the cost
- Canada tariff & jobs created
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and he Armstrong and Getty. Once you
left office, I'm just curious.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
I'm gonna get into the details and I'm gonna I
want to talk about your your.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Coming book one before we do that. I'm just curious.
Once once you left office, how long before you turned
on the news again? Months? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Months, I am you know, I'm just not into self mutilation,
and I just.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
I am.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Yeah. Lots of cooking shows.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Oh good British bake Off and Stuff Kitchen is one
of my favorite. Amazing sure, yeah, yeah. The Kamala Harris
was always good at those kind of interviews. It was
just perfectly fine. Can she do? Will she can't? Will
she do any real interviews? The New York Times even
said yesterday when talking all this talk about her running
(01:16):
for president, her people believe she needs to do hard
interviews and that's what doomed her last time, and she's
going to do that this time around. I say, bring
it on. I want to see her have to answer
for any of those policies she never did in the past,
so right, Well, and if she does that and it
goes well, it won't, there's not a chance we'll all
go to the polls and vote. By the way, just
(01:36):
to obviously Colbert is a fawning leftist weasel, which is
a shame. But if somebody's interviewing me and made a
jokey question like that or asked joky question, and I said, yeah,
not really, and I'm watching the Golf Channel a lot,
and he said, amazing, I would think, oh my god,
(01:57):
that is so creepy. Well, we played the Clipper said
I like to watch the kitchen and he said, amazing.
Are you gonna call her Mamla next to you, weasel? Well,
there's such a hunger for someone to root for if
you're a Democrat, and I get that. Sure you want
your team to win, and there's no particular person right now,
(02:21):
And I guess that's why we played the clip earlier.
She came out to thunderous applause that lasted like a
long time, like it was Bruce Springsteen, and then the
crowd broke into a chance of USA USA to Kamala Harris. Yeah,
an embarrassing, but they haven't watched the news in Mons,
So that's something, yes, Katie.
Speaker 5 (02:42):
So I've never been to a show like that, but
I've seen in TV don't they have like applause cues
and like chant thys? Could that have been going on
in the background, just like.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
I don't know about chant chews, but you can't get
that kind of thunderous applause without That was real encion.
That was real enthusiasm, an adoration, which again I think
it's just a we hate Trump and oh my god,
we have nothing. We have had no good news. He
keeps winning, we keep losing, just to the approval ratings
are in the toilet right on that front. And I'll
(03:15):
just read a little bit of this. It's super duper long.
I should have highlighted the best parts. Maybe I'll do
that over the weekend. I read the Mark Alper newsletter
every day, and he did a faux version of the
first chapter of Kamala Harris's book. She's got a book
out and it's it's pretty funny, but it's really really long.
But I'll just hit you with a little bit of it.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
It's entitled one hundred and seven Days, which is the
count of days last year on which she said anything coherent.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Yeah, one hundred and seven days about her campaign, and
now she can go on these shows and talk about
her book, which is what you do in your earning
for president. Anyway, Here's the fake version of the book
that Mark Alpern wrote, starting with chapter one, the elevator.
There are forty three buttons. That's a bad start. There
are forty three buttons in the West Wing elevator. I
counted them three times on the morning I decided to
run on forty three gleaming plastic squares, each one of
(04:03):
them a portal to a sub basement full of secrets, regrets,
or fluorescent lights. I pressed the G for goolag what
we called the press office, when the polling dropped below
thirty nine percent. The decision to run for president wasn't
so much a decision as a medical event, a thrombosis
of ambition, a blood cut of destiny. One moment, I
was pacing in the Roosevelt room, practicing my sincerely amused
(04:23):
laugh for a TikTok q and a about mental health apps.
The next I was speaking in tongues to the ghost
of Walter Mondale. I don't know what that means. And
then this Joe had vanished, not died, not resigned, just
slipped into a pocket universe somewhere between Scranton in senility.
They found his shoes in the rose gardens, still tied,
no footprints, just a pile of Werthers wrappers and an
(04:44):
open classified folder labeled very sensitive, no joke. The Secret
Service filed a missing person's report, and the Democratic National
Committee filed a lawsuit against reality.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
It fell to me and it goes, oh, like that,
that's beautiful. It really is read as much that as
you want. I'll read a little bit here. I had
one hundred and seven days, one hundred and seven chances
to impersonate lucidity. I learned that the line between commander
in chief and celebrity mental breakdown is thinner than a
CNN chirn. One morning I woke up convinced I was
(05:15):
Angela Bassett. Another I tried to ban time zones for equity.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Oh my god. What's notable about this? I think?
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Is Halpern happen to hear part of his podcast I
think it was yesterday? Is like studiously even handed, like
serious about being a journalist. And if you get swept
up in partisanship, you can't be a good journalist, and
so he's not.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
But even a guy.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Like him finds the idea of Kamala penning a book
about that campaign.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
I watched his podcast how Much every day. They all agree,
including the Democrat represented on there. She was a horrible, horrible,
horrible candidate. Right, give you one more thing here. In
our first week, we lost Montana, not the primary, the
state its succeeded and joined the European Union. By day ten,
my approval rating was listed on Zillo. I don't know
(06:12):
what that means either, And yet I kept going because
every time I closed my eyes, I saw her Hillary
hovering like a thundercloud with a headband. She whispered win
or die, bitch, and then she vanished in a puffet
of expired chardonnay. So that's not a good start for
(06:33):
Kamala Harrison her book in her campaign that you know,
I don't think she has no support, Well, it's it
and has the stench of the loser about her. I
think it's the most delusional attempt to be president. I
can remember lots of people run for president and you think, wow,
you think you can win. But I mean, she has
tried it. Twice and just been absolutely spanked both times. Right,
(07:00):
even when she was getting of jokes.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
I mean, there are plenty of people that lose that
aren't nearly the butt o joke.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
That she is.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
It's borderline hilarious that she thinks, let's try this one
more time.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
Well, right, so the one hundred and seven days is
so she can go around making the point is I
had a hundreds. All I had was one hundred and
seven days most people have heard. The other way to
look at is that you were giving the given the
biggest head start anybody's ever had, where you just landed
as the nominee with all the money, They're ready to go,
the whole thing in place. You didn't have to go
(07:32):
through the primaries and do all that sort of stuff,
and it turned out the way it turned out.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
I believe the word you were looking to describe her
campaign was abysmal.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
Our list from her, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
From the other day, Yeah, abysmal ah.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
But again, you know, maybe my theory of the other
Day is at least in second place, not that she's delusional,
but that she will raise enough money from those who
are delusional that she can travel around the country, eating
and drinking and living in style on somebody else's tab
for at least another couple of years. I mean, because honestly,
(08:15):
you could live a very exotic, fun life considering she
and her her husband have a fair amount of money anyway,
if she got an infusionist, say three hundred and fifty
thousand dollars in contributions, and she'll get way more than
that for her pack or her committee or whatever the
heck it is, and she'll use it to as I said,
she will, you know, weigh in on the Touch and
(08:39):
Go race and Aspen and then the very close race
in Honolulu and then one in Miami Beach and live
a great life like Al Sharpton always.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
It's possible she's doing the Al Sharpton thing where you
run for president, because it's just a pretty good lifestyle
and it raises your Q factor, you get on more shows,
all the stuff. Just like you explain. I think she's serious.
I think she thinks she got really screwed a little
more from this fake bookcase. It's kind of funny. This
is not a story of triumph. It's a story of motion, sickness,
(09:08):
of Beije hotel rooms and interns named kai of crying
on hot mics and clapping for things you hate. Oh
my god, it's a story of a woman asked to
save a country that couldn't remember her job title. This
is one hundred and seven days. Hold your applause. You'll
need both hands to cover your face. It was a Friday,
(09:29):
always is the kind of Friday where you open your
inbox and know instinctively that democracy has thrown up in
its mouth. I was Vice President of the United States,
a title I wore like an inherited sweater. Two big,
slightly itchy, tolerated for family photos. I had spent three
and a half years giving speeches that nobody watched, cutting
ribbons at ev charging stations, and explaining to foreign dignitaries
(09:49):
exactly what it was I did. The President of Guatemala
once asked me, deadpan, do you run anything. I smiled,
but now suddenly I did. Wow. Uh, nobody will read
your book, but that's not the point of putting those
books out.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Oh boy, sad, sad, but enjoyable. Couldn't be freaking hilarious.
Jack is going to be shocked by this.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
One.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
More round one, more of the Sydney Sweeney genes that way.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Really, and it's a great one.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
You thought the people yelling about it being white supremacy
and all were full of crap.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
You were wrong.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
You have no idea how full of crap they were.
I mean, it's delicious, So stay tuned for that. After
a quick cord from our friends that simply save home security.
Look an alarm that goes off after they kick in
your door while you're at work.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
That's good. I mean, that's fine. That might help some.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
But the beauty of simply safe and it's amazing with
the active guard outdoor protection, it's cameras and live monitoring
agents and AI. They detect suspicious activity around your property
if someone's learned working agents, talk to them in real time,
turn on spotlight, call the cops, proactively deterring the crime
before your door gets kicked in.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
And I know what you're probably thinking. You're thinking, well,
if this is the best home security, as so many
publications have set, I'm sure it's you know, pretty pricey.
It is not. Monitoring plans start around a dollar a day.
There's a sixty day money back guarantee. If you don't
like it, no problem. There are no contracts. You're not
locked in because you're trying this thing and you're not
exactly a bold adventurer either. More than four million Americans
(11:28):
trust simply Safe already, and it's just so highly rated.
Visit simply safe dot com slash armstrong. You get fifty
percent off your new system with a professional monitoring plan
and your first month is free. That's simplysafe dot com
slash Armstrong. There's no safe like simply Safe. I can't
believe there's another round of the whole genes thing.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
All right, if she has good genes, just like the eugenesis,
just like the white and predecess.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
It's October first, so we've got quarterly numbers in.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
Remember the August first, depending on who you ask, what
did I say October?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
It's not October first, it's August first, and quarterly numbers
are in. And how did they look? How many companies?
Speaker 5 (12:07):
You know?
Speaker 2 (12:08):
I had a good quarter since there were predictions of
a recession because of the tariff thing and all that.
We can get into that later too. Stay with us Armstrong.
Speaker 6 (12:19):
Upon good genes activates a troubling historical associations for this country,
the American eugenics movement, and it's primed between like nineteen
hundred and nineteen forty weaponized the idea of good genes
just to justify white supremacism.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
That's a college professor who I think actually believes her
own bs about that genes commercial. Yeah, so a couple
of things.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Number one, here's another ESPN writer mortified by the fascist
third reiche gene and we should listen to the experts
like that lady.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
And then.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch, who was writing about this,
and he wrote some really funny stuff, but he mentioned
that Amber Rakin of The Independent tells us, well, what
we just heard. MSNBC declared Sydney Sweeney's ads there's an
unbrighted cultural shiftness toward whiteness. And just in case you
(13:15):
didn't know if that was a bad thing or a
good thing, the sub had his advertisements are always mirrors
of society, and sometimes what they reflect is ugly and startling.
Therefore whiteness is ugly and startling. Wow, he clipped ten Michael.
This is a fellow by the name of Lukewood who
was This was about eight years ago, I think when
he was a professor. He is now the president of
(13:36):
California State University Sacramento. He is the president of a university,
Go ahead and roll him.
Speaker 7 (13:43):
I would not say they're influenced by white people. They're
influenced by whiteness.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
What does that mean.
Speaker 7 (13:48):
Whiteness is an ideology, it's a culture, it's a value system.
And what we need to do is we need to
eliminate that value system.
Speaker 8 (13:56):
You want to eliminate whiteness.
Speaker 7 (13:59):
Whiteness, not white people whiteness.
Speaker 8 (14:01):
But how do you eliminate whiteness without eliminating white people?
Speaker 7 (14:05):
What I want to do is to create an environment
that is more collective, that is more value driven. And
I think that that flies an absolute oppositeness.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
A white people are evil? No, they're not evil, not
at all.
Speaker 8 (14:23):
And then if they're not evil, why would they treat
another human being to a point that a man like
you would want to eliminate whiteness?
Speaker 2 (14:33):
We are also anyway people. Yeah, the question is define
whiteness to me exactly?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Well, you know, and I could because I've read enough
woke garbage and the fight against it. It's absolutely true
that they call it whiteness because white people have a
lot of the power in Western civilization and guys neo
Marxists like Luke would and Luke, you are a neo Marxist.
You're a racist. You're a racialist, and I will spend
every ounce of my energy fight you and people like
(15:00):
you until God whisks me up to Heaven for the
cosmic ass kicking I've so richly earned. Wow, but you
are a rotten human being. But so, in just a
quick aside, can you imagine what I'd like to do
is eliminate jew nous, not Jewish people, but you know,
acting like a Jew, You know how Jews act, or
(15:22):
or even blackness. Saying black people are bad just the
way they act is really bad. Yeah, that's a very
good point. You would not get away with saying that
it's disgusting and despicable, and so is mister Wood. But anyway,
so getting back to Joonah Goldberg, who mentions the whiteness thing.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Uh, and this is what I thought was really really interesting.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
And this we don't need to quote unquote prove that
these people are full of crap, but I think this
shows the depth of how full of crap they are.
So Jodah quotes a couple of articles and Salon informs
that informs us that the u genics movement in the
US often promoted the idea of good genes to encourage
reproduction among white able bodies.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
It was part of some of their cold code words.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
We played the clip upun good genes activates troubling historical
associations for the country, blah blah blah. And interestingly enough, Jonah,
who you know, does this sort of thing for a living.
He thought, you know, I'm going to take their argument
literally and figure it out. And so they did what's
called an n gram search. It's a search for terms
(16:30):
like through everything published in the English language, certainly through history.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
And he did a search for the term good genes.
And here you go. If you search for mentions of good.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Genes blah blah blah, you'll discover that there are basically
no mentions of the term until the early nineteen seventies,
nobody said it. And it takes off like a rocket
after that. I don't want to get deep into the
weeds here, he writes. But the American eugenics move but
it started to die in the nineteen forties, and the
reckoning with its legacy began in earnest in the nineteen seventies.
(17:05):
At the precise moment the term started taking off. If
you google for things like good genes, you'll find countless
stories about athletes, including many, many black athletes, and how
they have you guessed it, good genes. You can do
the same thing with good genes and cancer and good
genes in almost anything, and you'll find scads, piles, heaps
(17:25):
of usages that have no connection to Francis Galton, widely
seen as the founder of eugenics, along with planned parenthood
or Well Hitler. It's not a term that anybody's ever
used in that context.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
That's pretty interesting. So the premise is completely false. That
is not a term that was being used in the
early twentieth century.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
And even if it was, that would still be a
stupid argument. But their premise isn't even correct. Wow, so
again what you knew. They're full of crap. Now you
know how full of crap?
Speaker 2 (17:58):
What a dumb contra. If you missed a segment or
an hour, especially on a Friday, subscribe to the podcast
Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Well, this is why the radioactive wasp nest was just
found at a site where the US used to make
nuclear bombs.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Sounds scary, but don't worry.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
They're sending a dad with a whiffleball bat to take
care of it.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I send the door something, screen, door something, everyone in
where's the baby, Where's a bit radioactive wasps?
Speaker 1 (18:33):
I was into the Japanese post WW two horror movies
for a while, where it was always the same thing.
Radioactivity had caused a crab to become enormous, or a
chicken or a lizard or whatever. I don't think did
they ever do a wasp, because that would be terrifying.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
I have so much to say about the end of
World War Two, but I'm hanging on till week after
next when the whole country is talking about the eightieth
anniversary up in the bom Yeah, okay, all right, fair enough.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
So among the great things the Trump administration has done,
Donald J himself, certainly the borders, I think in a
lot of people's minds maybe number one. But rolling back
the climate cult is way towards the top, with the
help of Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright. And there's
(19:23):
a new report out. Kim Strassel in the Wall Street
Journals writing about it, and it's just so good. And look,
we're not oil company hacks here. You don't have a
oh you are wow.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
That explains the Ferrari.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
We don't have any particular you know, the dog in
the fight as they say, although dog fighting is abhorrent.
I just want to know what the truth is and
have good sound policy based on the truth.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
But the Energy Department issued a report.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Entitled and this is Sexy, A Critical Review of Impacts
of Great house Gas Emissions on the US Climate, and
the New York Times, among others, just foaming with indignation,
just try to shame it their climate skeptics who misrepresented
cherry pick as they undermine an attack the scientific consensus.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Which is a hell of a change from you know,
during the Biden years. But as Kim Wrights.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Note, what's missing from this diatribe a favorite word of
the critics, yet one they couldn't deploy here denier. The report,
written by five respected scientists, including the former chief scientific
officer in the Obama Energy Department, does not deny the
climate is changing. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, in an opening letter,
(20:44):
notes climate change is real and it deserves attention. The
report instead provides a holistic picture of the messy reality
of climate research, it's many areas of uncertainty, disputes, unknowns.
Many people never hear about this complicated debate since only
a subset of scientists with the correct views are given voice.
(21:05):
She points out that the idea of scientific consensus is
the opposite of what science is. You test, you test,
you test, you look for flaws, you look for improvements. Anyway,
here are some non controversial findings from the report based
on peer reviewed literature from recent years. And it might
surprise lefties. This is the evil Trump administration. Global warming
(21:27):
has risks, it also has benefits, including greater agricultural productivity.
We still don't know the extent to which human activity
plays a role in warming because of natural variability, data limitations,
uncertain models, and fluctuations in solar activity, so it's difficult
to say how much affect humans have had. Models predicting
(21:49):
what is to come are all over the map. US
historical data does not support claims of increased frequency or
intensity of extreme weather.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
It's just not there. It comes and goes in ways.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
I know.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
I've seen those charts, and even in like the Washington
Post of New York Times, they've been fair enough to
point out that, yeah, this wasn't worse hurricane season. I
mean it was worse than last year, but it's third
to like the fifties or whatever. And by the way,
go ahead jack your midsense, just that there's no clear
graph showing that things are getting worse with the with
(22:23):
the extreme weather.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
I was going to say, as a part time South
Carolinian with property there, I am really really into the
question of hurricanes and hurricane frequency right on the coast. Anyway,
US climate policies, even drastic ones, will have negligible effects
on global temperatures, says the report, which is just self evident.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
Clearly true.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Again US climate policy as China and India. If it
were only those two, that would settle the argument. Continue
to do the same things. We can't have any effect
or negligible thing.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
But if you US don't ten dollars to carbon offsets
when you buy your next Southwest airfare ticket, knock yourself out.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
So, getting back to quoting miss Strassel, this is the honest,
modest assessment of the state of climate science today, which
explains the climate activist fury since it is at odds
with the controlled story of mass extinction and end of glaciers.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
And deafly heat.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Waves that the consensus gatekeepers obsessively enforce. Complete control over
that scientific narrative has been essential to their ability to
manipulate debate, and, under Joe Biden's presidency, gear the entire
government to fighting the threat, which means handing out trillions
of dollars to cronies. That's so anyway, you know, there's
(23:43):
one of us. Seems very very good.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
But how many times have there men predictions of ten
years from now, twelve years from now, I'll I'll be over,
there's no turning back. And then we get twelve years
further down the line and things are about the same
as they were before. All the polar bear bears will
be dead and the rest of it. You have stolen
my dreams childhood with your empty words sold people like you.
Joe stole that young girl's dreams.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
Yeah. Yeah, So this horrible, horrible new approach is jump
back into the science challenge the notion of consensus. Uh
you know, remember some of the forgotten factors in the debate,
like cost, competing priorities, what it would do to the economy, poverty,
(24:25):
in general, health outcomes, and in general, assure insure Americans
have the whole picture. You shall in an ironic note,
you should be back in school. She should be back
in school. She should be back the hell up.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
I shouldn't be up here. It's all wrong.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Well, because you're a child, and you have no idea
what you're talking about, and you're autistic, and you got
swept up in an emotional idea that the world is
going to perish in a fiery something or other, and
it's just wrong.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Sweete oh you okay.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And in a little bit of irony. As I was
scrolling through the Wall Street Journal's mobile site, the next
story after the editorial section, and Kim Strassel was the
last editorial, just visually on the site. The next story
is from the Science and Environment desk. Climate skeptics are
tapped by Trump administration to justify regulatory rollback. Report challenges
(25:24):
decades of scientific findings to undermine EPA authority by a
couple of utterly mainstream lefty journalists, repeating all the very
canards that Kim and the report had, very calmly and
rationally said, Hey, we can't just lean on these cliches.
(25:45):
Look at these facts and these facts and this balance
of this interest versus this interest. Can we have an
intelligent discussion. But the next story in the journal it
was a bunch of emotional lefty limpress dudes talking about
the brutal, brutal Trump administration rolling back the very regulations
that will save mankind.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Hilarious. I think my calves are getting bigger. Really been
working on my calves because I have seen you mean
your lower leg, not your young cows. Uh, yes, the
space between my ankle and my knee. Yes, katies.
Speaker 4 (26:24):
Did you buy the rubber ones on Amazon?
Speaker 2 (26:27):
No, I haven't gotten implants. I am. I've been exercising
my calves.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
Oh no, they got hard. They got little slip ons.
You can you know we're doing Yeah? Oh yeah, it's ridiculous.
You've been doing calf phrases.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
The slip ons though, to wear like inside of pants.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
They have full body slip ons that will make you
look absolutely yoked.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
But you'd have to be wearing clothes over them, right,
or you would look like you're wearing plastic.
Speaker 5 (26:51):
Uh yeah, yeah, but if.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
So, I'm wearing pants that are tight enough around the
calves that you can see my bulging calf fake half muscles? Yeah, wow,
you have.
Speaker 6 (27:03):
None?
Speaker 1 (27:04):
What's the term that you fancy people use non incidental.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
No, you have.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
Significant, right, you have significant mental slash emotional problems if
you do that.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
If you wear plastic, bigger calves underneath your tight pants,
hoping someone the motives.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Yeah, it's kind of like.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
A girl taking off her eyelashes in her makeup and
having fake you know.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
What, Wait a second, Katie's got a point here. Wait wait, wait,
so a lot you know what's or fake? I'm out please.
If you're wearing the big padded bra, that makes it
like thirty to fifty percent more than what is real.
What's the difference between that and having bigger cabs.
Speaker 5 (27:42):
Yeah, and you take your eyelashes off and you're wearing
a wig, there is no difference.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
They're both fraud. I'm the consistent one here at Joe
Joe is above us all but one of them is
obviously very very common, and I realized one of them
is a common uh uh, sex adjacent part that gets
people's attention. It's a little weirder to do it for
(28:08):
something like calves. But how about eyelashes? I like, what
was it? You know, fake eyelashes? Why it's fake ale eyelashes? Okay,
but A fake calf is not you have it.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
You have a solid point, Jack, I do.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
I think it's weird, like if I found out a
good friend of mine was a you know, we're staying
at a hotel room. We get up in the morning. Hold
on a second, I gotta put on my fake calves
before we get dressed and go out. I think, what
I don't? I get it.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
I get it, You're fine, don't worry.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Hey, you do you?
Speaker 4 (28:35):
Jack? You know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Hey, you look fantastic. Get into the BMW. I borrowed
from my friends, so you would think I have more money.
And if I can show you this faked up W
two and the rest of it, and now let's look
at your fake breasts and your ass, it's fraud.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
It's also to your boutique.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
All right. I understand the lane you're working. I don't
have a boutique. I have a commune. I understand the
lane Joe is working there. But it is weird what
we count as perfectly okay. You can have a completely
you know, you're gray headed, but you're blonde, and that's
perfectly acceptable. And I find that perfectly acceptable.
Speaker 4 (29:11):
I have fake nails every day.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Fake nails or the wearing a bra that completely change
them off your knees. But also Katie for the wind
suggests a completely different body shape than what you actually have.
But with calves, we think it's ridiculous. It's odd where
we draw the lines on that stuff. But anyway, I
(29:35):
am trying to do it the old fashioned way with
calf raises and exercise stuff like that, and I feel
like I've been taking pictures, and so I got my
before and after pictures, and I'm trying to compare and
see if I've got any growth going.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
Yes, that is awesome.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Sorry, go ahead, but compare before and after pictures. Yeah,
do measurements. I could do that. Pictures are better.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
Anybody who is trying to lose weight or find some
like change in their body before and after pictures.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
It's the way to go.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Well, you're you're an expert. Your your credibility comes from
you lost how much weight from your peak?
Speaker 4 (30:06):
Seventy five?
Speaker 5 (30:07):
I was two pounds, but every every month I took
a picture because I was looking the mirror and I
couldn't see it. But my friend who also did the
same thing, said, take a picture every month and look
at the pictures.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Don't look at yourself in the mirror.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
It is highly motivating. I've been doing that for the
rest of my body since I started lifting weights. And yeah,
seeing wow, I didn't feel like i'd done much, But
look at that picture in that picture. But now I'm
working on the caves and I get a whole phone
full of calf pictures, which if I get in a
car wreck and then somebody gets into my phone's gonna
look pretty odd, like what the hell some sort of
serial killer? That was something I don't know? Whatever? Yeah, yeah, no, kidding,
(30:42):
Kaflar enough. So it's the end of a quarter calendar wise,
and a bunch of economic numbers came out today and
they're mostly good, but some of them not. And we'll
take a look at that among other things on the way.
Stay here strong Yet.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
A woman was banned from flying Spirit Airlines this week
after she was asked in to plane due to disruptive
behavior and allegedly resisted arrest by quote, kicking and flailing
her arms in an attempt to not be handcuffed. Spirit
then apologized to passengers and promise to find a new
pilot as soon as possible.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
So last night Trump announced I think sixty eight new
tariffs of varieties of levels. That's a lot, and said
this about Canada. They have to pay a fair right.
It's all. It's very simple. They've been treating our country
very badly for years.
Speaker 8 (31:38):
And look, we like Canada, I love Canada, I have
so many friends in Canada.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
But they've been very poorly led. They've been very very
poorly led. And all we want is fairness for our country.
So a lot of talk of fairness. Then there was
anger earlier in the day that they were going to
recognize Palestine as a state. And then at the end
of the day when he hit him with the thirty
five percent tariff that starts today, he had to use
(32:05):
the excuse of fentanyl because that's the only way it
fits into the whole Emergency Act thing. But so you
got that weirdness there. So did that the sixty eight
new tariffs cause the stock market to drop this morning?
Or is it because of the labor market news that
came out The labor market was worse than previously thought,
so low number for the most recent month, and then
(32:27):
they downgraded the previous two months. So the US created
about one hundred and six thousand jobs in the past
three months. That's the weakest pace of growth since the
onset of the twenty twenty pandemic. Who knows, economies are complicated,
What all's involved in that seasonal tariffs? Who freaking knows,
(32:49):
But there is that number. It's true that when this
tariff talk started, there was a lot of prediction of
horror and recession and all kinds of different things. And
remember people were talking ninety percent chance of recession and
different things. So here we are after a quarter about
that recession is the segment they did on Fox this morning,
(33:11):
And we're talking S and P five hundred companies, So
we don't anger Joe, who does not like talk of
the Dow Jones Industrial.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Average all put down my ball that I was wielding.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
But companies in the S and P five hundred sixty
three percent, I'll go with the bigger number, which is better.
Eighty one percent beat earnings per share estimates, eighty one
percent beat their estimates for the quarter, seventy nine percent
beat revenue estimates, and that is not talk of recession. Now,
(33:45):
you made the point earlier which has got to be
made that if you are quoting people's dire predictions from
liberation Day. That doesn't really make sense because he backed
off a liberation liberation day pretty quickly. A lot of
big tariffs are in today or going to next week,
but so we haven't seen the result of the tariffs
(34:06):
yet exactly.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
And Trump would probably hear those employment numbers and say, well, yeah,
it's going to initially be a period of rough seas
until the tariffs are set up and everybody's used to them,
and we bring back American manufacturing and then you'll see
real job growth. Now, I don't happen to think he's
right on that, and I don't think the courts are
going to let this tariff thing go through, honestly, and
(34:27):
I don't think they should, which probably makes me unpopular
in Magaland. But it's not a crazy argument. I mean,
if he's right about everything, there will be a period
of disruption.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
So that's enough of that. Anybody watched the number one
TV show in America last night. I don't know what
the ratings were for the first preseason game of the NFL,
but that is the number one TV show in America
of the NFL, and they broke out some new technology
for the first time that they're going to have this season.
There's no more running out onto the field with the
chains for a close one. Did they make the first
down or not? It's all virtual. They got the yellow
(34:59):
line up there that they now say is accurate enough
that they'll be able to tell from the yellow line
and the ball spot first down or not. They won't
run out with the chains, and there a couple of
times both coaches got angry last night and thought it
wasn't correct. But that's always going to be the case,
I suppose. Yeah, I kind of like the suspense of
the measurement. I think it's show busy. I agree, and
(35:21):
it and it is showbiz. That's the why, the the
the It is not really important to see which town
can produce the best football team. It's all about selling advertisers.
And it's a TV show. And yeah, I think the
TV shows better. With the refs running out there and
they stretch the chains, it looks like he's gonna be oh,
it's an inn short. And then the ref holds up
(35:42):
his hands two inches apart the whole crowd, and now
so the whole machines will tell us what is accurate,
and the crowd won't see the yellow line except for
up on the TV screen. I guess so, yeah, I don't,
I don't.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
I agree. I like the old style. Better, probably show
it on the jump Botron.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Did the referee union decide they don't want to have
to run out on the field with the Chain's too
dangerous we could trip or something. I don't know. I
don't know.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
Boy, you've got a Blockbuster Hour four to come. If
you don't get next hour, you got to go do something.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
That's fine. Subscribe to our podcast, Armstrong and Getty on
demand
Speaker 4 (36:20):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and he Armstrong and Getty. Once you
left office, I'm just curious.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
I'm gonna get into the details and I'm gonna I
want to talk about your your.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Coming book one before we do that. I'm just curious.
Once once you left office, how long before you turned
on the news again? Months? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Months, I am you know, I'm just not into self mutilation,
and I just.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
I am.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
Yeah. Lots of cooking shows.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Oh good British bake Off and Stuff Kitchen is one
of my favorite. Amazing sure, yeah, yeah. The Kamala Harris
was always good at those kind of interviews. It was
just perfectly fine. Can she do? Will she can't? Will
she do any real interviews? The New York Times even
said yesterday when talking all this talk about her running
(01:16):
for president, her people believe she needs to do hard
interviews and that's what doomed her last time, and she's
going to do that this time around. I say, bring
it on. I want to see her have to answer
for any of those policies she never did in the past,
so right, Well, and if she does that and it
goes well, it won't, there's not a chance we'll all
go to the polls and vote. By the way, just
(01:36):
to obviously Colbert is a fawning leftist weasel, which is
a shame. But if somebody's interviewing me and made a
jokey question like that or asked joky question, and I said, yeah,
not really, and I'm watching the Golf Channel a lot,
and he said, amazing, I would think, oh my god,
(01:57):
that is so creepy. Well, we played the Clipper said
I like to watch the kitchen and he said, amazing.
Are you gonna call her Mamla next to you, weasel? Well,
there's such a hunger for someone to root for if
you're a Democrat, and I get that. Sure you want
your team to win, and there's no particular person right now,
(02:21):
And I guess that's why we played the clip earlier.
She came out to thunderous applause that lasted like a
long time, like it was Bruce Springsteen, and then the
crowd broke into a chance of USA USA to Kamala Harris. Yeah,
an embarrassing, but they haven't watched the news in Mons,
So that's something, yes, Katie.
Speaker 5 (02:42):
So I've never been to a show like that, but
I've seen in TV don't they have like applause cues
and like chant thys? Could that have been going on
in the background, just like.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
I don't know about chant chews, but you can't get
that kind of thunderous applause without That was real encion.
That was real enthusiasm, an adoration, which again I think
it's just a we hate Trump and oh my god,
we have nothing. We have had no good news. He
keeps winning, we keep losing, just to the approval ratings
are in the toilet right on that front. And I'll
(03:15):
just read a little bit of this. It's super duper long.
I should have highlighted the best parts. Maybe I'll do
that over the weekend. I read the Mark Alper newsletter
every day, and he did a faux version of the
first chapter of Kamala Harris's book. She's got a book
out and it's it's pretty funny, but it's really really long.
But I'll just hit you with a little bit of it.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
It's entitled one hundred and seven Days, which is the
count of days last year on which she said anything coherent.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Yeah, one hundred and seven days about her campaign, and
now she can go on these shows and talk about
her book, which is what you do in your earning
for president. Anyway, Here's the fake version of the book
that Mark Alpern wrote, starting with chapter one, the elevator.
There are forty three buttons. That's a bad start. There
are forty three buttons in the West Wing elevator. I
counted them three times on the morning I decided to
run on forty three gleaming plastic squares, each one of
(04:03):
them a portal to a sub basement full of secrets, regrets,
or fluorescent lights. I pressed the G for goolag what
we called the press office, when the polling dropped below
thirty nine percent. The decision to run for president wasn't
so much a decision as a medical event, a thrombosis
of ambition, a blood cut of destiny. One moment, I
was pacing in the Roosevelt room, practicing my sincerely amused
(04:23):
laugh for a TikTok q and a about mental health apps.
The next I was speaking in tongues to the ghost
of Walter Mondale. I don't know what that means. And
then this Joe had vanished, not died, not resigned, just
slipped into a pocket universe somewhere between Scranton in senility.
They found his shoes in the rose gardens, still tied,
no footprints, just a pile of Werthers wrappers and an
(04:44):
open classified folder labeled very sensitive, no joke. The Secret
Service filed a missing person's report, and the Democratic National
Committee filed a lawsuit against reality.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
It fell to me and it goes, oh, like that,
that's beautiful. It really is read as much that as
you want. I'll read a little bit here. I had
one hundred and seven days, one hundred and seven chances
to impersonate lucidity. I learned that the line between commander
in chief and celebrity mental breakdown is thinner than a
CNN chirn. One morning I woke up convinced I was
(05:15):
Angela Bassett. Another I tried to ban time zones for equity.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Oh my god. What's notable about this? I think?
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Is Halpern happen to hear part of his podcast I
think it was yesterday? Is like studiously even handed, like
serious about being a journalist. And if you get swept
up in partisanship, you can't be a good journalist, and
so he's not.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
But even a guy.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Like him finds the idea of Kamala penning a book
about that campaign.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
I watched his podcast how Much every day. They all agree,
including the Democrat represented on there. She was a horrible, horrible,
horrible candidate. Right, give you one more thing here. In
our first week, we lost Montana, not the primary, the
state its succeeded and joined the European Union. By day ten,
my approval rating was listed on Zillo. I don't know
(06:12):
what that means either, And yet I kept going because
every time I closed my eyes, I saw her Hillary
hovering like a thundercloud with a headband. She whispered win
or die, bitch, and then she vanished in a puffet
of expired chardonnay. So that's not a good start for
(06:33):
Kamala Harrison her book in her campaign that you know,
I don't think she has no support, Well, it's it
and has the stench of the loser about her. I
think it's the most delusional attempt to be president. I
can remember lots of people run for president and you think, wow,
you think you can win. But I mean, she has
tried it. Twice and just been absolutely spanked both times. Right,
(07:00):
even when she was getting of jokes.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
I mean, there are plenty of people that lose that
aren't nearly the butt o joke.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
That she is.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
It's borderline hilarious that she thinks, let's try this one
more time.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
Well, right, so the one hundred and seven days is
so she can go around making the point is I
had a hundreds. All I had was one hundred and
seven days most people have heard. The other way to
look at is that you were giving the given the
biggest head start anybody's ever had, where you just landed
as the nominee with all the money, They're ready to go,
the whole thing in place. You didn't have to go
(07:32):
through the primaries and do all that sort of stuff,
and it turned out the way it turned out.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
I believe the word you were looking to describe her
campaign was abysmal.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
Our list from her, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
From the other day, Yeah, abysmal ah.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
But again, you know, maybe my theory of the other
Day is at least in second place, not that she's delusional,
but that she will raise enough money from those who
are delusional that she can travel around the country, eating
and drinking and living in style on somebody else's tab
for at least another couple of years. I mean, because honestly,
(08:15):
you could live a very exotic, fun life considering she
and her her husband have a fair amount of money anyway,
if she got an infusionist, say three hundred and fifty
thousand dollars in contributions, and she'll get way more than
that for her pack or her committee or whatever the
heck it is, and she'll use it to as I said,
she will, you know, weigh in on the Touch and
(08:39):
Go race and Aspen and then the very close race
in Honolulu and then one in Miami Beach and live
a great life like Al Sharpton always.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
It's possible she's doing the Al Sharpton thing where you
run for president, because it's just a pretty good lifestyle
and it raises your Q factor, you get on more shows,
all the stuff. Just like you explain. I think she's serious.
I think she thinks she got really screwed a little
more from this fake bookcase. It's kind of funny. This
is not a story of triumph. It's a story of motion, sickness,
(09:08):
of Beije hotel rooms and interns named kai of crying
on hot mics and clapping for things you hate. Oh
my god, it's a story of a woman asked to
save a country that couldn't remember her job title. This
is one hundred and seven days. Hold your applause. You'll
need both hands to cover your face. It was a Friday,
(09:29):
always is the kind of Friday where you open your
inbox and know instinctively that democracy has thrown up in
its mouth. I was Vice President of the United States,
a title I wore like an inherited sweater. Two big,
slightly itchy, tolerated for family photos. I had spent three
and a half years giving speeches that nobody watched, cutting
ribbons at ev charging stations, and explaining to foreign dignitaries
(09:49):
exactly what it was I did. The President of Guatemala
once asked me, deadpan, do you run anything. I smiled,
but now suddenly I did. Wow. Uh, nobody will read
your book, but that's not the point of putting those
books out.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Oh boy, sad, sad, but enjoyable. Couldn't be freaking hilarious.
Jack is going to be shocked by this.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
One.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
More round one, more of the Sydney Sweeney genes that way.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Really, and it's a great one.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
You thought the people yelling about it being white supremacy
and all were full of crap.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
You were wrong.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
You have no idea how full of crap they were.
I mean, it's delicious, So stay tuned for that. After
a quick cord from our friends that simply save home security.
Look an alarm that goes off after they kick in
your door while you're at work.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
That's good. I mean, that's fine. That might help some.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
But the beauty of simply safe and it's amazing with
the active guard outdoor protection, it's cameras and live monitoring
agents and AI. They detect suspicious activity around your property
if someone's learned working agents, talk to them in real time,
turn on spotlight, call the cops, proactively deterring the crime
before your door gets kicked in.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
And I know what you're probably thinking. You're thinking, well,
if this is the best home security, as so many
publications have set, I'm sure it's you know, pretty pricey.
It is not. Monitoring plans start around a dollar a day.
There's a sixty day money back guarantee. If you don't
like it, no problem. There are no contracts. You're not
locked in because you're trying this thing and you're not
exactly a bold adventurer either. More than four million Americans
(11:28):
trust simply Safe already, and it's just so highly rated.
Visit simply safe dot com slash armstrong. You get fifty
percent off your new system with a professional monitoring plan
and your first month is free. That's simplysafe dot com
slash Armstrong. There's no safe like simply Safe. I can't
believe there's another round of the whole genes thing.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
All right, if she has good genes, just like the eugenesis,
just like the white and predecess.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
It's October first, so we've got quarterly numbers in.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
Remember the August first, depending on who you ask, what
did I say October?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
It's not October first, it's August first, and quarterly numbers
are in. And how did they look? How many companies?
Speaker 5 (12:07):
You know?
Speaker 2 (12:08):
I had a good quarter since there were predictions of
a recession because of the tariff thing and all that.
We can get into that later too. Stay with us Armstrong.
Speaker 6 (12:19):
Upon good genes activates a troubling historical associations for this country,
the American eugenics movement, and it's primed between like nineteen
hundred and nineteen forty weaponized the idea of good genes
just to justify white supremacism.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
That's a college professor who I think actually believes her
own bs about that genes commercial. Yeah, so a couple
of things.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Number one, here's another ESPN writer mortified by the fascist
third reiche gene and we should listen to the experts
like that lady.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
And then.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch, who was writing about this,
and he wrote some really funny stuff, but he mentioned
that Amber Rakin of The Independent tells us, well, what
we just heard. MSNBC declared Sydney Sweeney's ads there's an
unbrighted cultural shiftness toward whiteness. And just in case you
(13:15):
didn't know if that was a bad thing or a
good thing, the sub had his advertisements are always mirrors
of society, and sometimes what they reflect is ugly and startling.
Therefore whiteness is ugly and startling. Wow, he clipped ten Michael.
This is a fellow by the name of Lukewood who
was This was about eight years ago, I think when
he was a professor. He is now the president of
(13:36):
California State University Sacramento. He is the president of a university,
Go ahead and roll him.
Speaker 7 (13:43):
I would not say they're influenced by white people. They're
influenced by whiteness.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
What does that mean.
Speaker 7 (13:48):
Whiteness is an ideology, it's a culture, it's a value system.
And what we need to do is we need to
eliminate that value system.
Speaker 8 (13:56):
You want to eliminate whiteness.
Speaker 7 (13:59):
Whiteness, not white people whiteness.
Speaker 8 (14:01):
But how do you eliminate whiteness without eliminating white people?
Speaker 7 (14:05):
What I want to do is to create an environment
that is more collective, that is more value driven. And
I think that that flies an absolute oppositeness.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
A white people are evil? No, they're not evil, not
at all.
Speaker 8 (14:23):
And then if they're not evil, why would they treat
another human being to a point that a man like
you would want to eliminate whiteness?
Speaker 2 (14:33):
We are also anyway people. Yeah, the question is define
whiteness to me exactly?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Well, you know, and I could because I've read enough
woke garbage and the fight against it. It's absolutely true
that they call it whiteness because white people have a
lot of the power in Western civilization and guys neo
Marxists like Luke would and Luke, you are a neo Marxist.
You're a racist. You're a racialist, and I will spend
every ounce of my energy fight you and people like
(15:00):
you until God whisks me up to Heaven for the
cosmic ass kicking I've so richly earned. Wow, but you
are a rotten human being. But so, in just a
quick aside, can you imagine what I'd like to do
is eliminate jew nous, not Jewish people, but you know,
acting like a Jew, You know how Jews act, or
(15:22):
or even blackness. Saying black people are bad just the
way they act is really bad. Yeah, that's a very
good point. You would not get away with saying that
it's disgusting and despicable, and so is mister Wood. But anyway,
so getting back to Joonah Goldberg, who mentions the whiteness thing.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Uh, and this is what I thought was really really interesting.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
And this we don't need to quote unquote prove that
these people are full of crap, but I think this
shows the depth of how full of crap they are.
So Jodah quotes a couple of articles and Salon informs
that informs us that the u genics movement in the
US often promoted the idea of good genes to encourage
reproduction among white able bodies.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
It was part of some of their cold code words.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
We played the clip upun good genes activates troubling historical
associations for the country, blah blah blah. And interestingly enough, Jonah,
who you know, does this sort of thing for a living.
He thought, you know, I'm going to take their argument
literally and figure it out. And so they did what's
called an n gram search. It's a search for terms
(16:30):
like through everything published in the English language, certainly through history.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
And he did a search for the term good genes.
And here you go. If you search for mentions of good.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Genes blah blah blah, you'll discover that there are basically
no mentions of the term until the early nineteen seventies,
nobody said it. And it takes off like a rocket
after that. I don't want to get deep into the
weeds here, he writes. But the American eugenics move but
it started to die in the nineteen forties, and the
reckoning with its legacy began in earnest in the nineteen seventies.
(17:05):
At the precise moment the term started taking off. If
you google for things like good genes, you'll find countless
stories about athletes, including many, many black athletes, and how
they have you guessed it, good genes. You can do
the same thing with good genes and cancer and good
genes in almost anything, and you'll find scads, piles, heaps
(17:25):
of usages that have no connection to Francis Galton, widely
seen as the founder of eugenics, along with planned parenthood
or Well Hitler. It's not a term that anybody's ever
used in that context.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
That's pretty interesting. So the premise is completely false. That
is not a term that was being used in the
early twentieth century.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
And even if it was, that would still be a
stupid argument. But their premise isn't even correct. Wow, so
again what you knew. They're full of crap. Now you
know how full of crap?
Speaker 2 (17:58):
What a dumb contra. If you missed a segment or
an hour, especially on a Friday, subscribe to the podcast
Armstrong and Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Well, this is why the radioactive wasp nest was just
found at a site where the US used to make
nuclear bombs.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Sounds scary, but don't worry.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
They're sending a dad with a whiffleball bat to take
care of it.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I send the door something, screen, door something, everyone in
where's the baby, Where's a bit radioactive wasps?
Speaker 1 (18:33):
I was into the Japanese post WW two horror movies
for a while, where it was always the same thing.
Radioactivity had caused a crab to become enormous, or a
chicken or a lizard or whatever. I don't think did
they ever do a wasp, because that would be terrifying.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
I have so much to say about the end of
World War Two, but I'm hanging on till week after
next when the whole country is talking about the eightieth
anniversary up in the bom Yeah, okay, all right, fair enough.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
So among the great things the Trump administration has done,
Donald J himself, certainly the borders, I think in a
lot of people's minds maybe number one. But rolling back
the climate cult is way towards the top, with the
help of Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright. And there's
(19:23):
a new report out. Kim Strassel in the Wall Street
Journals writing about it, and it's just so good. And look,
we're not oil company hacks here. You don't have a
oh you are wow.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
That explains the Ferrari.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
We don't have any particular you know, the dog in
the fight as they say, although dog fighting is abhorrent.
I just want to know what the truth is and
have good sound policy based on the truth.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
But the Energy Department issued a report.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Entitled and this is Sexy, A Critical Review of Impacts
of Great house Gas Emissions on the US Climate, and
the New York Times, among others, just foaming with indignation,
just try to shame it their climate skeptics who misrepresented
cherry pick as they undermine an attack the scientific consensus.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Which is a hell of a change from you know,
during the Biden years. But as Kim Wrights.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Note, what's missing from this diatribe a favorite word of
the critics, yet one they couldn't deploy here denier. The report,
written by five respected scientists, including the former chief scientific
officer in the Obama Energy Department, does not deny the
climate is changing. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, in an opening letter,
(20:44):
notes climate change is real and it deserves attention. The
report instead provides a holistic picture of the messy reality
of climate research, it's many areas of uncertainty, disputes, unknowns.
Many people never hear about this complicated debate since only
a subset of scientists with the correct views are given voice.
(21:05):
She points out that the idea of scientific consensus is
the opposite of what science is. You test, you test,
you test, you look for flaws, you look for improvements. Anyway,
here are some non controversial findings from the report based
on peer reviewed literature from recent years. And it might
surprise lefties. This is the evil Trump administration. Global warming
(21:27):
has risks, it also has benefits, including greater agricultural productivity.
We still don't know the extent to which human activity
plays a role in warming because of natural variability, data limitations,
uncertain models, and fluctuations in solar activity, so it's difficult
to say how much affect humans have had. Models predicting
(21:49):
what is to come are all over the map. US
historical data does not support claims of increased frequency or
intensity of extreme weather.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
It's just not there. It comes and goes in ways.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
I know.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
I've seen those charts, and even in like the Washington
Post of New York Times, they've been fair enough to
point out that, yeah, this wasn't worse hurricane season. I
mean it was worse than last year, but it's third
to like the fifties or whatever. And by the way,
go ahead jack your midsense, just that there's no clear
graph showing that things are getting worse with the with
(22:23):
the extreme weather.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
I was going to say, as a part time South
Carolinian with property there, I am really really into the
question of hurricanes and hurricane frequency right on the coast. Anyway,
US climate policies, even drastic ones, will have negligible effects
on global temperatures, says the report, which is just self evident.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
Clearly true.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Again US climate policy as China and India. If it
were only those two, that would settle the argument. Continue
to do the same things. We can't have any effect
or negligible thing.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
But if you US don't ten dollars to carbon offsets
when you buy your next Southwest airfare ticket, knock yourself out.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
So, getting back to quoting miss Strassel, this is the honest,
modest assessment of the state of climate science today, which
explains the climate activist fury since it is at odds
with the controlled story of mass extinction and end of glaciers.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
And deafly heat.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Waves that the consensus gatekeepers obsessively enforce. Complete control over
that scientific narrative has been essential to their ability to
manipulate debate, and, under Joe Biden's presidency, gear the entire
government to fighting the threat, which means handing out trillions
of dollars to cronies. That's so anyway, you know, there's
(23:43):
one of us. Seems very very good.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
But how many times have there men predictions of ten
years from now, twelve years from now, I'll I'll be over,
there's no turning back. And then we get twelve years
further down the line and things are about the same
as they were before. All the polar bear bears will
be dead and the rest of it. You have stolen
my dreams childhood with your empty words sold people like you.
Joe stole that young girl's dreams.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
Yeah. Yeah, So this horrible, horrible new approach is jump
back into the science challenge the notion of consensus. Uh
you know, remember some of the forgotten factors in the debate,
like cost, competing priorities, what it would do to the economy, poverty,
(24:25):
in general, health outcomes, and in general, assure insure Americans
have the whole picture. You shall in an ironic note,
you should be back in school. She should be back
in school. She should be back the hell up.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
I shouldn't be up here. It's all wrong.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Well, because you're a child, and you have no idea
what you're talking about, and you're autistic, and you got
swept up in an emotional idea that the world is
going to perish in a fiery something or other, and
it's just wrong.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Sweete oh you okay.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And in a little bit of irony. As I was
scrolling through the Wall Street Journal's mobile site, the next
story after the editorial section, and Kim Strassel was the
last editorial, just visually on the site. The next story
is from the Science and Environment desk. Climate skeptics are
tapped by Trump administration to justify regulatory rollback. Report challenges
(25:24):
decades of scientific findings to undermine EPA authority by a
couple of utterly mainstream lefty journalists, repeating all the very
canards that Kim and the report had, very calmly and
rationally said, Hey, we can't just lean on these cliches.
(25:45):
Look at these facts and these facts and this balance
of this interest versus this interest. Can we have an
intelligent discussion. But the next story in the journal it
was a bunch of emotional lefty limpress dudes talking about
the brutal, brutal Trump administration rolling back the very regulations
that will save mankind.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Hilarious. I think my calves are getting bigger. Really been
working on my calves because I have seen you mean
your lower leg, not your young cows. Uh, yes, the
space between my ankle and my knee. Yes, katies.
Speaker 4 (26:24):
Did you buy the rubber ones on Amazon?
Speaker 2 (26:27):
No, I haven't gotten implants. I am. I've been exercising
my calves.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
Oh no, they got hard. They got little slip ons.
You can you know we're doing Yeah? Oh yeah, it's ridiculous.
You've been doing calf phrases.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
The slip ons though, to wear like inside of pants.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
They have full body slip ons that will make you
look absolutely yoked.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
But you'd have to be wearing clothes over them, right,
or you would look like you're wearing plastic.
Speaker 5 (26:51):
Uh yeah, yeah, but if.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
So, I'm wearing pants that are tight enough around the
calves that you can see my bulging calf fake half muscles? Yeah, wow,
you have.
Speaker 6 (27:03):
None?
Speaker 1 (27:04):
What's the term that you fancy people use non incidental.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
No, you have.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
Significant, right, you have significant mental slash emotional problems if
you do that.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
If you wear plastic, bigger calves underneath your tight pants,
hoping someone the motives.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Yeah, it's kind of like.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
A girl taking off her eyelashes in her makeup and
having fake you know.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
What, Wait a second, Katie's got a point here. Wait wait, wait,
so a lot you know what's or fake? I'm out please.
If you're wearing the big padded bra, that makes it
like thirty to fifty percent more than what is real.
What's the difference between that and having bigger cabs.
Speaker 5 (27:42):
Yeah, and you take your eyelashes off and you're wearing
a wig, there is no difference.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
They're both fraud. I'm the consistent one here at Joe
Joe is above us all but one of them is
obviously very very common, and I realized one of them
is a common uh uh, sex adjacent part that gets
people's attention. It's a little weirder to do it for
(28:08):
something like calves. But how about eyelashes? I like, what
was it? You know, fake eyelashes? Why it's fake ale eyelashes? Okay,
but A fake calf is not you have it.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
You have a solid point, Jack, I do.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
I think it's weird, like if I found out a
good friend of mine was a you know, we're staying
at a hotel room. We get up in the morning. Hold
on a second, I gotta put on my fake calves
before we get dressed and go out. I think, what
I don't? I get it.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
I get it, You're fine, don't worry.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Hey, you do you?
Speaker 4 (28:35):
Jack? You know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Hey, you look fantastic. Get into the BMW. I borrowed
from my friends, so you would think I have more money.
And if I can show you this faked up W
two and the rest of it, and now let's look
at your fake breasts and your ass, it's fraud.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
It's also to your boutique.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
All right. I understand the lane you're working. I don't
have a boutique. I have a commune. I understand the
lane Joe is working there. But it is weird what
we count as perfectly okay. You can have a completely
you know, you're gray headed, but you're blonde, and that's
perfectly acceptable. And I find that perfectly acceptable.
Speaker 4 (29:11):
I have fake nails every day.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Fake nails or the wearing a bra that completely change
them off your knees. But also Katie for the wind
suggests a completely different body shape than what you actually have.
But with calves, we think it's ridiculous. It's odd where
we draw the lines on that stuff. But anyway, I
(29:35):
am trying to do it the old fashioned way with
calf raises and exercise stuff like that, and I feel
like I've been taking pictures, and so I got my
before and after pictures, and I'm trying to compare and
see if I've got any growth going.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
Yes, that is awesome.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Sorry, go ahead, but compare before and after pictures. Yeah,
do measurements. I could do that. Pictures are better.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
Anybody who is trying to lose weight or find some
like change in their body before and after pictures.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
It's the way to go.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Well, you're you're an expert. Your your credibility comes from
you lost how much weight from your peak?
Speaker 4 (30:06):
Seventy five?
Speaker 5 (30:07):
I was two pounds, but every every month I took
a picture because I was looking the mirror and I
couldn't see it. But my friend who also did the
same thing, said, take a picture every month and look
at the pictures.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Don't look at yourself in the mirror.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
It is highly motivating. I've been doing that for the
rest of my body since I started lifting weights. And yeah,
seeing wow, I didn't feel like i'd done much, But
look at that picture in that picture. But now I'm
working on the caves and I get a whole phone
full of calf pictures, which if I get in a
car wreck and then somebody gets into my phone's gonna
look pretty odd, like what the hell some sort of
serial killer? That was something I don't know? Whatever? Yeah, yeah, no, kidding,
(30:42):
Kaflar enough. So it's the end of a quarter calendar wise,
and a bunch of economic numbers came out today and
they're mostly good, but some of them not. And we'll
take a look at that among other things on the way.
Stay here strong Yet.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
A woman was banned from flying Spirit Airlines this week
after she was asked in to plane due to disruptive
behavior and allegedly resisted arrest by quote, kicking and flailing
her arms in an attempt to not be handcuffed. Spirit
then apologized to passengers and promise to find a new
pilot as soon as possible.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
So last night Trump announced I think sixty eight new
tariffs of varieties of levels. That's a lot, and said
this about Canada. They have to pay a fair right.
It's all. It's very simple. They've been treating our country
very badly for years.
Speaker 8 (31:38):
And look, we like Canada, I love Canada, I have
so many friends in Canada.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
But they've been very poorly led. They've been very very
poorly led. And all we want is fairness for our country.
So a lot of talk of fairness. Then there was
anger earlier in the day that they were going to
recognize Palestine as a state. And then at the end
of the day when he hit him with the thirty
five percent tariff that starts today, he had to use
(32:05):
the excuse of fentanyl because that's the only way it
fits into the whole Emergency Act thing. But so you
got that weirdness there. So did that the sixty eight
new tariffs cause the stock market to drop this morning?
Or is it because of the labor market news that
came out The labor market was worse than previously thought,
so low number for the most recent month, and then
(32:27):
they downgraded the previous two months. So the US created
about one hundred and six thousand jobs in the past
three months. That's the weakest pace of growth since the
onset of the twenty twenty pandemic. Who knows, economies are complicated,
What all's involved in that seasonal tariffs? Who freaking knows,
(32:49):
But there is that number. It's true that when this
tariff talk started, there was a lot of prediction of
horror and recession and all kinds of different things. And
remember people were talking ninety percent chance of recession and
different things. So here we are after a quarter about
that recession is the segment they did on Fox this morning,
(33:11):
And we're talking S and P five hundred companies, So
we don't anger Joe, who does not like talk of
the Dow Jones Industrial.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Average all put down my ball that I was wielding.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
But companies in the S and P five hundred sixty
three percent, I'll go with the bigger number, which is better.
Eighty one percent beat earnings per share estimates, eighty one
percent beat their estimates for the quarter, seventy nine percent
beat revenue estimates, and that is not talk of recession. Now,
(33:45):
you made the point earlier which has got to be
made that if you are quoting people's dire predictions from
liberation Day. That doesn't really make sense because he backed
off a liberation liberation day pretty quickly. A lot of
big tariffs are in today or going to next week,
but so we haven't seen the result of the tariffs
(34:06):
yet exactly.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
And Trump would probably hear those employment numbers and say, well, yeah,
it's going to initially be a period of rough seas
until the tariffs are set up and everybody's used to them,
and we bring back American manufacturing and then you'll see
real job growth. Now, I don't happen to think he's
right on that, and I don't think the courts are
going to let this tariff thing go through, honestly, and
(34:27):
I don't think they should, which probably makes me unpopular
in Magaland. But it's not a crazy argument. I mean,
if he's right about everything, there will be a period
of disruption.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
So that's enough of that. Anybody watched the number one
TV show in America last night. I don't know what
the ratings were for the first preseason game of the NFL,
but that is the number one TV show in America
of the NFL, and they broke out some new technology
for the first time that they're going to have this season.
There's no more running out onto the field with the
chains for a close one. Did they make the first
down or not? It's all virtual. They got the yellow
(34:59):
line up there that they now say is accurate enough
that they'll be able to tell from the yellow line
and the ball spot first down or not. They won't
run out with the chains, and there a couple of
times both coaches got angry last night and thought it
wasn't correct. But that's always going to be the case,
I suppose. Yeah, I kind of like the suspense of
the measurement. I think it's show busy. I agree, and
(35:21):
it and it is showbiz. That's the why, the the
the It is not really important to see which town
can produce the best football team. It's all about selling advertisers.
And it's a TV show. And yeah, I think the
TV shows better. With the refs running out there and
they stretch the chains, it looks like he's gonna be oh,
it's an inn short. And then the ref holds up
(35:42):
his hands two inches apart the whole crowd, and now
so the whole machines will tell us what is accurate,
and the crowd won't see the yellow line except for
up on the TV screen. I guess so, yeah, I don't,
I don't.
Speaker 1 (35:56):
I agree. I like the old style. Better, probably show
it on the jump Botron.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Did the referee union decide they don't want to have
to run out on the field with the Chain's too
dangerous we could trip or something. I don't know. I
don't know.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
Boy, you've got a Blockbuster Hour four to come. If
you don't get next hour, you got to go do something.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
That's fine. Subscribe to our podcast, Armstrong and Getty on
demand
Speaker 4 (36:20):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.