October 25, 2024 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- The Menendez brothers are eligible for parole
- Jack kills all joy
- Climate change can't convince 50% of the country to pay $1 a month
- Cello playing robots.
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, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong, and Jetty, I know he Armstrong and Yetty.
That's right.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Halloween and the election are almost here. So whether it's
trigger treaters or campaign workers, when that doorbell rings, you
hit the lights and pretend you're not home.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
That's what we do. I love Halloween before the election.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
First you egg someone's house, and then you figure out
which candidate would make those eggs cheaper.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
But it should be fun Halloween.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
There's a chance you could see someone dresses the Menendez brothers,
and then there's a chance you could.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Actually see the actual Menando's brother.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Really could happen. Yeah, we're about to talk about that.
I don't I don't like the cynical view of a Halloween.
I love kids coming to my house. I'm not going
to turn off the lights and hide. Absolutely not freaking
love it. And I unfortunately I'm in a cul de
sac sort of thing now where I just don't I
don't think any kids are gonna come my direction, which
is disappointing.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
Yeah, we accidentally moved from a hood where like people
were trucked in to go door to door, which ended
up being a bit much, honestly, But then move to
a hood where nobody does, and it was sad and depressing.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yeah, neither one of my kids.
Speaker 4 (01:28):
My oldest is going to run around with his friends
and do some stuff, but he's going on fifteen, and
then my going on thirteen year old is thinking he's
too old for it too. It's disappointing for me. Those
were good times, man, when I got some neighbors right now,
they got the little kids like probably probably like six
and four or something like that, and they're so excited
(01:51):
about getting dressed up. One of them's going to be
the Mandalorian and the girl's going to be a princess,
And just I loved that.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
If it were not such a short chapter in your life,
it would not be so precious.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
True, if it went on for decades, you'd think, oh
my god, it's Halloween again.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
Exactly exactly. That's the bargain we strike with the universe.
I'm Joe Getty or something like that. Meanwhile, the Menenda's
brothers who shot gunned their parents, they see they were
past the whole charming uh trigger trading age and they
murdered their parents. So so here's it is a shame,
it doesn't last longer.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
You're right. Here's the CBS Evening News.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Yes, last year we were trigger treating in ghost costumes.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
This year they're shot gunning us. Oh the kids grow
up so fast. Last year, it seems like yesterday you
were Spider Man. Now there's a gun in my face.
Here's the CBS News laying out the story.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Some prosecutors in the DA's office oppose any release, adamant
that this was a crime about money and not abuse.
Family members have been mostly united, and at least one
family member is against their release. The brother's attorney says
they could be home as early as Thanksgiving. The legal
experts we've spoken with say that's unlikely. So whiteesnaxt. The
(03:03):
case will be handed over to a judge who will
hold a hearing in about four weeks time.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
So I haven't watched any of the men Ninda's brother's stuff.
Somebody is to Katie, you've talked about it, but somebody
told me the other day they watched it. And this
is somebody that like worked in has worked in a
various jobs where I mean, they're not they're exposed to,
you know, rough stuff sometimes, and they said they wish
(03:28):
they hadn't Like, they heard things they're never going to
be able to forget that they wish they hadn't heard.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Was it that bad, Katie? Some of the descriptions of.
Speaker 6 (03:36):
Yes, I am similar to that where I've I've been
around crime and all this stuff and heard horrible stories
growing up, and I had to turn it off a
couple of times. So they enjoyed that on a Friday,
very very descriptive to the abuse.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Yeah, it's mostly about how, if it's real, what they
claim their dad was doing to them as kids is
the sort of thing that you'll wish you hadn't heard.
So I'm not God, I'm not gonna watch it. But
I thought we were talking about the utter brutality of
the slayings. No, no funny you for everyone. No, everything
I've heard is the it's the abuse they claim, the descriptions,
(04:15):
the very detailed descriptions of what dad was making them
do throughout their childhoods, and if it's true, you know,
part of the reason I imagine they go so far. The
goal clearly of these these shows is to make you,
you know, either feel like they ought to get out
or or or a way to justify why they would
kill their parents.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Seems like yeah, yeah, and.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
So has the mood turned that much. That is the
reason that the DA came out. Yes, Dan thinks they
served their debts of society. I suppose we should hear
from him.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
What number is that? Twenty eight?
Speaker 7 (04:54):
We're going to recommend to the court that the life
without the possibility for all be removed and they would
be sentenced for murder, which because there are two murders involved,
that will be fifty years to life. However, because of
their age under the law, since they were under twenty
six years of age at the time that the scrimes occurred,
(05:17):
they will be eligible for parole.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
You needed.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
That's the most discussed cone. Yeah, that's the most distracting
voice ever.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Uh oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
His uh George Soros sponsored Marxist trying to tear the
system down, releasing criminals into the streets, empty the prisons
is annoying, but his voice is more annoying.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
It's so distracting. I have trouble focusing. He could be tense.
This is important information you need to save your life,
and all.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
I'd be thinking is same as Piggy just say, miss
Piggy ones, you've got part of the voice, the Kermit part,
but you've got to get the weirdly eastern European parts
as well. I released criminals onto the streets because I
am a Marxist anyway.
Speaker 5 (06:01):
So what he made reference to there was one of
many fine lovely turned criminals loose California laws. If you're
under twenty six, when you commit a heinous crime, you're
eligible for youthful parole, also known as the Hey gang
bangers and cartels, be sure to have your younger members do.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
The murders law. Oh good one. Yeah, anyway, so.
Speaker 5 (06:25):
These guys would be eligible for a youthful parole under
California law immediately. The hearing on the matter could be
held in thirty to forty five days. LA Superior Court
judge will ultimately decide whether the brothers will be resent Well.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
I'm looking at ABC right now and they've got up there.
They're talking to some of the family members and it
says new hope for the Mennendez brothers. Well, that wording
implies that they are somehow wrongly being held or it's
a tragedy. Right, you wouldn't put new hope. I wouldn't
word it that way unless I was pro them getting out.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Oh yeah, that maybe, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
I'd say new hope for anybody who has new hope,
whether they're guilty or not. But I despise George Giscon
and everything he had he stands for. I think he
and his philosophy are one of the greatest threats to
the United States Neo Marxism.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
But what he said is correct.
Speaker 5 (07:14):
He said I'll never excuse murder, and these brutal, premeditated murders,
they are appropriately sentenced. At the time when they were tried,
they got life without the possibility of parole. I just
think that given the current state of the law, and
given our assessment of their behavior in prison, they deserve
the opportunity to be reevaluated and perhaps reintegrated into the community.
The way sexual abuse, sexual torture, etc. Of victims is
(07:38):
considered in sentencing has changed a great deal in the
last thirty years.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
So he's not wrong.
Speaker 5 (07:47):
Some of the changes in the law and practice you
might agree with, you might disagree with, but he's not wrong.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Well, I think I'm fine with the direction it's gone there.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
But the question is whether they are actually abused like
this or they made it up. Having researched it would
appear to come up with a great horrific story to
justify killing their parents so they could go driving around
and convertible and go to the mall.
Speaker 5 (08:07):
With new found unearned riches. Yeah, and there's a great
deal of evidence that, Yeah, their defense was entirely premeditated.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Yeah, which is a heck of a thing as opposed
to organic.
Speaker 5 (08:22):
Real On the other hand, I've got to admit I
really don't feel like relitigating the entire case and all
the evidence.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
I'll let the LA Superior Court handle it.
Speaker 7 (08:31):
Well.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
It's getting a tremendous amount of attention though, so I
think a lot of people are relitigating the whole thing.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Premeditated is the wrong way to look at it, because
you could be premeditated and still justified in my mind,
of course. You know, in fact, it probably be a
smart thing to do to plan it out rather than
do it in a fit of rage where you might
be unsuccessful or kill yourself.
Speaker 5 (08:53):
Or whatever, although that makes it murder and not defensible. Yeah,
we're talking about I'm talking about the defense was premeditated.
We were sexually abused, therefore we had to kill them.
Was plotted out as opposed to being legit. That's what
actually happened, which is akt of an interesting thing.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
Yeah, well, how about this, Well I'll ask one question
after this.
Speaker 5 (09:15):
A word from our friends at Prize Picks, America's number
one daily fantasy sports app with over five million active
members myself included. It's just you against the numbers on
Prize Picks. All you do is pick more or less
on at least two player stat projections up to six
and watch the winnings that roll in.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
Got a whole bunch of different games of different sports
coming up this weekend, and you can pick the more
or less on a bunch of different things. If you
get as little as four correct picks, you can now
win up to one hundred times your money on Prize Picks.
And because it's a very fast, safe, secure site, easy
to use when your picks hit, you can get your
money in as quick as fifteen minutes.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
And Price Picks invented the flex play, which means you
can still cash out even if your lineup isn't perfect.
You can double your money even if one of your
picks does not hit. It's fun, it's easy. It's fantasy
sports without the year long involvement that becomes your job.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
Download the Prize Picks app today.
Speaker 5 (10:04):
Use the code Armstrong to get fifty dollars instantly when
you play five dollars. That's the code Armstrong on Prize
Picks to get fifty bucks instantly when you play five.
You don't have to win to get the fifty dollars bonus.
It's guaranteed either way. Prize Picks.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Run your game, Hey, Hans, and listen to some of
these family members on ABC that are talking right now
from the Menendez family and see if what they have
to say is interesting or not. I'm kind of curious
as to how many of them want them to get out,
and how many of them don't, and what their reasons are.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Did you hear that a member of Minudo, that famous
young boy music group, came forward and said, yeah, the
old man sexually assaulted me too in the eighties.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
Oh wow, Eh, that's interesting. I guess it would all
come down to whether or not. Well, either way, if
one of the Menendez brothers is moving into your neighborhood,
are you concerned.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Somewhat? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (11:00):
Yeah, just because they've been in prison for decades, and
you don't like sometimes small time criminals become big time
criminals in prison.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
I wouldn't be overly concerned. I don't think I would be.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
Rightly or only I don't think. I mean, seems like
such a unique circumstance either way around. I don't know
if I feel like they're, you know, acts wielding lunatics
that are going to run the streets hurting me or
my family. Yeah, it's interesting because I also don't think
they ought to get out if they did it. The
fundamental question here answers your question. Are they a couple
(11:42):
of psychopaths who happened to be brothers who saw on
opportunity to get lots of money and because they're psychopaths,
they don't care about human life, which is what the prosecution.
Speaker 5 (11:54):
Successfully claimed. Or are they child sex abuse victims who
and the worst act can ever imagine, Yeah, lost their
minds and killed their parents. Whether it's justified or not
under the law, you can understand it. If it's the
first part, yeah, I'm concerned they're in my neighborhood. If
it's the second thing, no, I'm not the least concerned.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Right, Well, if it's the way, if it's what they
describe happened, you would make anyone crazy, Yeah, anyone murderously crazy.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
So yeah, that's what the whole thing hinges on.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Just overall, this phenomenon of of NPR radio shows or
Netflix specials or whatever, digging up old crimes and you know,
trying to push them one direction or another, is all
about the podcasts man. It's yeah, the various podcasts. It's
a hot thing right now, no doubt about that.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Oh yeah, all.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
Right, there's a new But we gotta work in a
murdered ours. That's that's the only thing we don't have.
Michael kills somebody would you only we'll hunch you down
and bring it adjustice only murders in the radio station.
We'll get it going.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
There's a new poll out half of Americans think Trump's
a fascist. So okay, made me tired just saying it.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
If you missed last hour, we did a with all
Do Modusty, great feature on how the Republican gets called
a fascist or a Nazi or Hitler every single election.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
For like more than the past half century.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Yeah, it's always it's something that is bored Romney Paul
monsters like that of Paul Ryan, monstrous fascist. So please,
it's hilarious when you look back on it. Yeah, that
was our two. You could get it in podcast Warm
Armstrong and Getty on demand. Before we get to important news,
(13:45):
Katie Green, Katie, Katie the news Lady, Katie Green the
news Machine is about to have her first pumpkin spiced
anything of the fall season.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
And what is it?
Speaker 6 (13:56):
Uh, it is pumpkin spice creamer in my coffee.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
There you go, I'll fall like, Oh, that's so good.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Oh, it's so good.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Who did I hear the other day? It's a flavor bolly.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
It was in honor of former producer Sean somebody smart
who I respect used the phrase the other day. Chemicals
designed to trick your brain into believing it is a
flavor that reminds you of the season, which kind of
takes the fun out of it, because that's what it is.
(14:30):
There's no pumpkin or anything in anything.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Mostly don't kill this for me.
Speaker 6 (14:34):
I'm not listening to you.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
That's what he does, Kate.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
I'm here to put a stop to it.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
No, jack down.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
You can't have pumpkin stuff obviously that has pumpkin in it,
But a lot of your pumpkin stuff has there's a
pumpkin hasn't come within a mile.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
He roams across the countryside at night like the headless horseman,
seeking out joy, and wherever he finds it, he extinguishes it.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
That's true, is science talk.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
I don't care if a pumpkin hasn't come near this dreamer.
It tastes like pumpkin spice, and I'm happy with it.
Speaker 4 (15:04):
That that's true what Joe said about trying to stop
other people's joy.
Speaker 8 (15:09):
I know.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Also, I am really trying hard to not have my
body fall prey to chemicals designed in a corporation to
trick my brain into making me want to eat more
of it.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Big food is evil. What's that?
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Do you mean more fast food than it?
Speaker 6 (15:27):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (15:27):
Yeah, buddy, I know.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
That's why I need to fight it harder.
Speaker 4 (15:30):
Uh But well, like chips and stuff like that, anything
like that, where it's just I don't know. I should
find the sixty minute segment from years ago and and
then link it because it's so damned interesting. They figured
out how to make it have a burst of flavor
that your brain reacts to more than any other flavor
because of evolutionary reasons and then make the flavor go
(15:50):
away instantly so you get the burst, and then it
instantly goes away so that you crave more of it.
You're completely I'm completely being manipulated by these things and
it's so bad for me.
Speaker 5 (16:01):
So a bang bang at KFC, then Domino's. Yes, a
bag of chips.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
Now Joe and my brains are hanging out together because
that was the exactly where I was going to go.
I need to not do all of those. Five yeah,
I five. Well, Jack, this has been fun. Thank you
for killing my life and dreams.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
This has been fun.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
So I actually had Katie confirm this because I saw
it yesterday and I never got around to confirming whether
it was true or not. The La Times declines to
endorse Kamala Harris, okay, right about this man, and so
the interesting thing is now the editorial chief has quit
over that it's true, because I thought that might be
one of those things where it's not true and they're
jerking around. You have to confirm everything you see now,
(16:42):
absolutely everything you see.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
But it is true.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
And there's an article in the New York Times today
because this woman used to work at the New York
Times and went back to her friends and say, here's
what went down. The owner wouldn't allow them to endorse.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
They didn't.
Speaker 4 (16:57):
He didn't want to endorse anyone. It wasn't like a
pro Trump.
Speaker 5 (17:00):
But he wanted like a side by side pro and
con of each one's service and stances policies.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
So yeah, the owner went to the editorial board and said,
I want you to draft a factual analysis of all
the positive and negative policies of each candidate during their
tenures at the White House and how these policies affected
the nation, Which sounds like a fantastic thing to do
if you could even try to do it in kind
of a non partisan way. And with this clear and
(17:30):
non partisan information side by side, our readers could decide
who they think is worthy to be president for the
next four years. Instead of adopting this path as suggested,
the editorial board chose to remain silent. And I accept
their decision. So I guess because they didn't want to
present any positive stuff for Trump or something, or it
was too much work. I don't know why they refused
to play along with the owner.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
I loved the owner's idea, but the editorial director gals.
What she wanted to do is the more traditional thing newspapers. Uh,
And she couldn't accept that dictate from the owners, so
she quit.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
That's fine, everybody's happy, go work somewhere else. Well.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
She also said that these are very dangerous times and
we can't be doing this.
Speaker 8 (18:10):
So she clearly hitler, Let's do a poll free, Paul,
no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax
(18:30):
on social Security benefits.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Mas, listen to that proud that's in Vegas.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
So he said that there's a hoping to win Nevada,
which I guess looks pretty good in the private polling
for the Republicans.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Yeah, a lot of that stuff could never happen.
Speaker 5 (18:50):
But to you in real life, I have never run
into anyone that I recall who's in favor of taxing
social Security benefits. The reaction to that very concept is unanimous.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Wait a minute, you take this money from me, whether
I like it or not, and my money that I'm
supposed to be having old and allegedly you're gonna give
it back to me at some point so I don't
starve when I'm retired. But you're not gonna get any
decent returns on it like I could, and then you're
gonna give it to me and tax me on it
(19:27):
like it's income.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Explain that to me.
Speaker 5 (19:30):
Please not to mention the paperwork involved, you know what?
Or why don't you just take out the amount you're
gonna tax or whatever. It's just it is such a
fuster clock. Pardon me, it's frustrating anyway. Democracy doesn't work.
Monarchy Now, I thought this was a really good insight.
Bjorn Lomberg happened to write a piece that I came across.
(19:52):
But and this is somehow kind of passed by me.
One typically divisive topic has gone pretty much unmentioned in
the last couple of months of the campaign, and that's
climate change.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Why you're wrong.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
The UN is out just in the last few minutes
saying the world is now in a climate crunch time.
Greenhouse gases have hit unprecedented levels now in climate crunch time.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
The video appeals come from the front office, right, the
coaches can't ask for an appeal during climate crunch time?
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Or how does that work? What does that mean? UN
needs to shut up? Anyway.
Speaker 5 (20:30):
The fact that Trump isn't on it is no surprise
to anybody. But the old Kamala isn't even mentioning it
is notable and it's revealing, well, is it.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Because it doesn't motivate people. They've just determined that doesn't
really get people to the polls.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
I think that's it.
Speaker 5 (20:46):
And it's the classic example of the topic that's the
cause celeb among the elite media and university types and
the loud lefties, but nobody really cares about it.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
I mean in terms of the bulk of the electorate.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
No, it's but they always jam it into a debate
or a town hall. It's always got to include climate change,
even though nobody freaking cares.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
Yes, So Kamala's mentioned climate just once. She mentioned it
just once in her acceptance speech, and it really didn't
come up in.
Speaker 4 (21:15):
Her debate with Trump. She used her time to champion
domestic gas production.
Speaker 5 (21:18):
Make it quote very clear she won't ban fracking, although
that is utterly dishonest, as the editorial board of The
Wall Street Journal makes clear. She touts her support of
the Inflation Reduction Act, the bizarrely hilariously named Inflation Reduction Act,
(21:40):
as proof that she supports fracking. Of course, that was
one of the greatest squanderings of money. Well, it's probably
the greatest squandering of money in the history of humanity.
It's almost entirely a Green New Deal Act had nothing
to do with reducing inflation. And the only reason some
expansion of fracking was in there is because Joe Manchin
said he wouldn't vote for it unless it was in there.
(22:01):
And then the Biden administration found a way to cheat
their way around that, so they didn't really give any
more fracking leases out above the bear bear bear minimum
of the letter of the law, so they could get
their money squandering windmill farms going so oh, and that
reminds me there was I wanted to scroll down to
(22:22):
some statistics poll results. Pardon me, I know your poll
and you want to vomit. But the number of people
is that I'm sorry, I've got too much information in
front of me. I'm sorry, Jack, say something clever and all.
Compare with those statistics, which I promise will knock yourself.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Oh there it is only forty seven.
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Percent of voters said they would support spending one dollar
more each month to fight climate chair.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
And oh that's not good enough, isn't Greta? They've still
in our childhood. Greta, you have stolen my dreams. Thank
your childhood.
Speaker 7 (23:04):
You have stolen my dreams.
Speaker 5 (23:09):
I know you're a passionate teenager. I agree, talking him
in his empty words. One efing dollar a month only
forty seven percent. A new Yugov survey and they do
good work, showed that less than a quarter of the
electorate supports a quote rapid transition to renewables. You know,
it's interesting, and even among Democrats it's only a third.
(23:33):
They so they can only get about a half of
the country to agree to give a dollar a month?
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Is that what you said? That is correct by climate change?
But a little less than half.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
But your government is willing to sacrifice thousands and thousands
and thousands of your own dollars in uh, you know,
gas prices or products being more expensive, or forcing it
into electric this or that. They don't have any problem
with spending lots of your money that you are not
willing to put toward climate change.
Speaker 5 (24:02):
Right and to that end, And I've got a feature
at all prepared, but I'm not sure we have time
for it. I'm just gonna hit you with the headlines
that I have all lined up to talk about the
utter deception, the fraud that is the green energy movement.
And I'm for green energy, I'm for a clean environment.
(24:22):
I'm for all this stuff. I just in the same
way that I'm for having more money in the bank.
But if a Nigerian prince emails me and tells me
I've won the lottery and all I have to do
is send them the tax money, yeah, I'm not for that.
So I'm for the goal. I'm not for the freaking
fraud anyway. You're my collection of headlines. Kamala Harris's electric
(24:43):
school bus program granted four hundred thousand dollars to a
Chinese manufacturer. Then it's top executive sent Biden Harris scores
of campaign cash and that doesn't prove anything, but it's
pretty damned suspicious. The bombing not like being bombed, but
bombing like a movie bombs. Ev is bombing worse than
(25:03):
ever after a Manhattan project's worth of taxpayer money. And
they go into the statistic for who wants to actually
wants evs in the US, in Germany, across Europe, and
it's pathetic. The only reason anybody ever talks about this
is the billions of dollars tossed down to the bonfire
(25:23):
of bad taxpayer funded subsidies.
Speaker 4 (25:26):
Man, if Tesla didn't exist, there'd be nothing going with
electric cars. And that one electric car, which barely makes
a dent elon musk, is a pariah to the climate people.
Speaker 5 (25:37):
Yeah, and I just was going over some of Tesla's
figures because their stock just went up. There's something like
thirty three percent of the revenue came from a government subsidies.
Of course this past quarter, I mean like a lot
of it. Here's another headline for you. You love this one, Oh,
you would have loved it, but at reset for some reason.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Biden Harris administration.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
Pauses Oregon offshore wind program one month after championing championing, championing,
that's one of the hardest words to say, I think
in the English language, championing indubitably. Let me take a
second hack at it if you will. I'm not the
champion of this. Biden Harris administration pauses Oregon offshore wind
(26:18):
program one month after touting it is a green energy
success story. So they made a big deal about how
this is a great victory for green energy. A month
later they said, yeah, this is bleeding money and it
doesn't ORG shut it down. Shut it down one flippant
month later. I've got some big uh climate change green
(26:42):
energy people in my orbit that.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
I run into and now and then, and they always
tout various crap like this, and I never get into it,
because what's the point. But all those wind farms and
solar panels, they're hardly doing squawked, certainly in California, we
have so many of them. We have to buy energy
from other states to keep our lights on.
Speaker 5 (27:01):
And I was accosted the other day in not a
bad way by an engineer who was talking about the
environmental costs of evs and how in the automotive business,
for gas powered cars, you've got to do this big
environmental impact report on every model that does everything. That
(27:26):
includes everything from the extraction of the materials to make it,
and the rubber for the tires, and the gas that's
burning in the oil and absolutely everything. But for evs,
the only thing the government looks at is on the road.
It's exhaust, that's it, right. No, well, wait a minute,
what about the lithium, all the rare chemicals for the batteries.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Now we don't need to hear about that. That's fine.
Speaker 5 (27:46):
It's a complete double standard for those cars from the
federal government because they're siphoning trillions of dollars to their cronies.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Here's my view of a wind power.
Speaker 9 (27:56):
You'd be doing wind, windmills, and if it does it,
if it doesn't blow, you can forget about television for
that night, Darling, I want to watch television. I'm sorry,
the wind isn't blowing.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
I know a lot about wind, and.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
That was mocked a lot when he was I know
a lot about wind. That's hilarious, but he was mocked
for that, of course by the mainstream media. That feels
like everybody agrees with them. Way more people be like
eighty twenty agree with Trump on that.
Speaker 5 (28:33):
Yes, yes, As it turns out, yeah, only a third
of Democrats want a rapid transition to quote unquote green energy.
My final note on this topic. Dressed in a sequin
laced sleeveless top and puffy pink skirt, drag queen Pattigonia
strides around the stage in white, high heeled boots that
come up to the knees, telling the crowd that nature
(28:54):
must be a woman, and goes into some sort of
alleged comedy routine. The headline New York climate doom sayers
hope to lip sync the planet to safety with an
environmental drag show.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
It's just happened in New York. That's a way to
get everybody on board.
Speaker 5 (29:13):
In its second year at New York Climate Week, Save
Her Environmental Drag Show has become a popular attraction during
the event that includes hundreds of panels activities.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
There's way too much in all of persuading, not even
politics of preaching to the choir whoever originally came up
with that saying it's hundreds of years old, Yeah, it
probably is, you know, I'm sure there are versions of
it that are thousands of years old. There's way too
much in the persuasion business of that. I mean, because
(29:50):
if your crowd is people that want to come to
a drag show, yeah, I think the likelihood that they're
on board with your environmental stuff is quite a bit higher.
How are you going to reach people like my brothers
who have no freaking interest whatsoever in climate change and
ain't with a drag show?
Speaker 5 (30:05):
I'll tell you that, or the fifty three percent of Americans,
so if it costs them a dollar five a month
or not down with your plans.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
That reminds me.
Speaker 5 (30:16):
There's a great new piece written by and I'm not
sure how to say his first name. It's ore Uy
is it Roy or ruy Tashera and Yuvale Levin for
the American Enterprise Institute.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
It's talking about.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
The title of its politics without winners, can either party
build a majority coalition?
Speaker 2 (30:35):
And the point of their.
Speaker 5 (30:38):
Peace is that if either party could just be normal,
could not well let me, I'll put it to you
the opposite way. The only thing stopping the parties transforming
themselves from minority to majority parties is themselves. They have
quote prioritized the wishes of their most intensely devoted voters
(31:02):
who would never vote for the other party over the
priorities of winnable voters who could go either way.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
But that's a response to our primary.
Speaker 4 (31:11):
System, right and the way we raise money too, where
you motivate the small donors.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
On Twitter or whatever. Yeah, yeah, yep.
Speaker 4 (31:19):
I don't know how we can fight our way out
of this situation. There was an attack on free speech
was pretty rough the other day. A couple of them
won in Great Britain and one of the United States.
That has me somewhat concerned. Among other things we can
talk about stay.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
Here, armstrong. Oh this is going viral.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Orchestra in Sweden has added an unusual member to their group.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
The world's first joint performance by a symphony orchestra and
a robot playing cello has taken place in Sweden.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Imagine how nerdy you have to be to invent a
robots that plays the cello.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Look who has first seat now, Francis?
Speaker 2 (32:08):
So have you anybody seen this? Does it?
Speaker 4 (32:10):
A robot that actually like has arms and is drawing
a bow across the strings of a cello?
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Is that what's happening there? Does it have arms or
some sort of belt.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
Or do you know?
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Michael, I haven't seen it.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
No, okay, but I was thinking, I'm constantly concerned that
when AI can do art as well or better than humans,
if it'll what that will do? But player pianosis existed
for over a century and they play really, really well,
and it didn't like end humans playing the piano.
Speaker 5 (32:41):
Yeah, it looks like one of those auto assembly line robots,
but one of the big silvery arms is holding a bow.
Speaker 6 (32:48):
Yeah it's not like a humanoid robot.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
No, not at all.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
It doesn't look like a human. No, it's not wearing
a tuxedo lack of respect. But I'm sure they could
make I'm sure they could a rat. They could make
it look like a human if they wanted to. It's
like the robot dogs. Don't have to have a you know,
a schnaz like a dog, but they do that to
make it look more like a dog. Right, But I
(33:13):
don't think they would have an effect on music, like
my player piano. Analogy is right, isn't it. I mean,
because I've my uncle had a player piano. It was
really really cool. But it's like it didn't make it
any less amazing to hear a person play the piano.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
No, No, I guess not.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
I am recently very amazed at the number of smart
people who think we've got a free speech problem in
this country and that they and their friends are capable
of determining which free speech should be allowed and which
free speech shouldn't.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
Those quote unquote smart people are some of the most
dangerous people in America.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
Well, I've got one right here. Her name is, her
last name is Frank, I don't remember what it is.
Doesn't make any difference. She is a law professor and
one of your Ivy League schools, was at a Harvard
get together the other day where they were all concerned
about too much free speech in this country and how
the First Amendment is, you know, past its prime, what
(34:17):
with social media and the internet now. Because she was
at some conference for media studies, the Berkman Klein Center
for Media something or other at Harvard. Here's a quote
from this law professor, who I'm sure has got a
higher IQ than me. The US was built on racial patriarchy.
If you want to describe what the First Amendment is,
(34:39):
It's not about consistent or noble principles.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
It's about power.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
It's about converging with that idea of racial patriarchy. And
if you are disturbing it.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
That is a dangerous and evil person right there. And
Charles C. W.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
Cook was where I came across this, and he's a
big guy, stands up for free speech with the National Review.
But he said, the most alarming thing about this is
she really he does sincerely believe it. I've heard her
make this case at length in person, so he's heard
her lecture about it.
Speaker 5 (35:07):
Oh yeah, these people have fully fleshed out arguments that
are incredibly dangerous.
Speaker 4 (35:15):
The hang up I usually have, I feel like where
I don't think they have. The answer is, you won't
always be in power, you realize, So when Trump wins
or whoever you don't like wins, they're going to get
to choose the crew that rules on free speech. Doesn't
that worry is them?
Speaker 5 (35:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
I would never go to that argument because.
Speaker 5 (35:38):
I won't give up on the first one, which is
that freedom of speech is the most precious and necessary
liberty in a functioning society. And I don't care what
rationale is for it or against it. You will get
it when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
But it seems like a pretty good argument that one
of the reasons you have to have free speech is
you can't put anybody in charge of it's free and
what's not.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
Oh, yeah, you're absolutely correct.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
It's just like saying, no, honey, we can't kill the
neighbor because we might go to jail. Don't give me
the practical argument. The moral one is just fine.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
You on moral grounds don't think you should kill the
neighbor at all.
Speaker 5 (36:16):
Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with that woman that tar
and feathers wouldn't cure. This is a metaphor, of course,
not literally of course,
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong, and Jetty, I know he Armstrong and Yetty.
That's right.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Halloween and the election are almost here. So whether it's
trigger treaters or campaign workers, when that doorbell rings, you
hit the lights and pretend you're not home.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
That's what we do. I love Halloween before the election.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
First you egg someone's house, and then you figure out
which candidate would make those eggs cheaper.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
But it should be fun Halloween.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
There's a chance you could see someone dresses the Menendez brothers,
and then there's a chance you could.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Actually see the actual Menando's brother.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Really could happen. Yeah, we're about to talk about that.
I don't I don't like the cynical view of a Halloween.
I love kids coming to my house. I'm not going
to turn off the lights and hide. Absolutely not freaking
love it. And I unfortunately I'm in a cul de
sac sort of thing now where I just don't I
don't think any kids are gonna come my direction, which
is disappointing.
Speaker 5 (01:15):
Yeah, we accidentally moved from a hood where like people
were trucked in to go door to door, which ended
up being a bit much, honestly, But then move to
a hood where nobody does, and it was sad and depressing.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yeah, neither one of my kids.
Speaker 4 (01:28):
My oldest is going to run around with his friends
and do some stuff, but he's going on fifteen, and
then my going on thirteen year old is thinking he's
too old for it too. It's disappointing for me. Those
were good times, man, when I got some neighbors right now,
they got the little kids like probably probably like six
and four or something like that, and they're so excited
(01:51):
about getting dressed up. One of them's going to be
the Mandalorian and the girl's going to be a princess,
And just I loved that.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
If it were not such a short chapter in your life,
it would not be so precious.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
True, if it went on for decades, you'd think, oh
my god, it's Halloween again.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
Exactly exactly. That's the bargain we strike with the universe.
I'm Joe Getty or something like that. Meanwhile, the Menenda's
brothers who shot gunned their parents, they see they were
past the whole charming uh trigger trading age and they
murdered their parents. So so here's it is a shame,
it doesn't last longer.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
You're right. Here's the CBS Evening News.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Yes, last year we were trigger treating in ghost costumes.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
This year they're shot gunning us. Oh the kids grow
up so fast. Last year, it seems like yesterday you
were Spider Man. Now there's a gun in my face.
Here's the CBS News laying out the story.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Some prosecutors in the DA's office oppose any release, adamant
that this was a crime about money and not abuse.
Family members have been mostly united, and at least one
family member is against their release. The brother's attorney says
they could be home as early as Thanksgiving. The legal
experts we've spoken with say that's unlikely. So whiteesnaxt. The
(03:03):
case will be handed over to a judge who will
hold a hearing in about four weeks time.
Speaker 4 (03:08):
So I haven't watched any of the men Ninda's brother's stuff.
Somebody is to Katie, you've talked about it, but somebody
told me the other day they watched it. And this
is somebody that like worked in has worked in a
various jobs where I mean, they're not they're exposed to,
you know, rough stuff sometimes, and they said they wish
(03:28):
they hadn't Like, they heard things they're never going to
be able to forget that they wish they hadn't heard.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Was it that bad, Katie? Some of the descriptions of.
Speaker 6 (03:36):
Yes, I am similar to that where I've I've been
around crime and all this stuff and heard horrible stories
growing up, and I had to turn it off a
couple of times. So they enjoyed that on a Friday,
very very descriptive to the abuse.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Yeah, it's mostly about how, if it's real, what they
claim their dad was doing to them as kids is
the sort of thing that you'll wish you hadn't heard.
So I'm not God, I'm not gonna watch it. But
I thought we were talking about the utter brutality of
the slayings. No, no funny you for everyone. No, everything
I've heard is the it's the abuse they claim, the descriptions,
(04:15):
the very detailed descriptions of what dad was making them
do throughout their childhoods, and if it's true, you know,
part of the reason I imagine they go so far. The
goal clearly of these these shows is to make you,
you know, either feel like they ought to get out
or or or a way to justify why they would
kill their parents.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Seems like yeah, yeah, and.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
So has the mood turned that much. That is the
reason that the DA came out. Yes, Dan thinks they
served their debts of society. I suppose we should hear
from him.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
What number is that? Twenty eight?
Speaker 7 (04:54):
We're going to recommend to the court that the life
without the possibility for all be removed and they would
be sentenced for murder, which because there are two murders involved,
that will be fifty years to life. However, because of
their age under the law, since they were under twenty
six years of age at the time that the scrimes occurred,
(05:17):
they will be eligible for parole.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
You needed.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
That's the most discussed cone. Yeah, that's the most distracting
voice ever.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Uh oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5 (05:28):
His uh George Soros sponsored Marxist trying to tear the
system down, releasing criminals into the streets, empty the prisons
is annoying, but his voice is more annoying.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
It's so distracting. I have trouble focusing. He could be tense.
This is important information you need to save your life,
and all.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
I'd be thinking is same as Piggy just say, miss
Piggy ones, you've got part of the voice, the Kermit part,
but you've got to get the weirdly eastern European parts
as well. I released criminals onto the streets because I
am a Marxist anyway.
Speaker 5 (06:01):
So what he made reference to there was one of
many fine lovely turned criminals loose California laws. If you're
under twenty six, when you commit a heinous crime, you're
eligible for youthful parole, also known as the Hey gang
bangers and cartels, be sure to have your younger members do.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
The murders law. Oh good one. Yeah, anyway, so.
Speaker 5 (06:25):
These guys would be eligible for a youthful parole under
California law immediately. The hearing on the matter could be
held in thirty to forty five days. LA Superior Court
judge will ultimately decide whether the brothers will be resent Well.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
I'm looking at ABC right now and they've got up there.
They're talking to some of the family members and it
says new hope for the Mennendez brothers. Well, that wording
implies that they are somehow wrongly being held or it's
a tragedy. Right, you wouldn't put new hope. I wouldn't
word it that way unless I was pro them getting out.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Oh yeah, that maybe, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (07:00):
I'd say new hope for anybody who has new hope,
whether they're guilty or not. But I despise George Giscon
and everything he had he stands for. I think he
and his philosophy are one of the greatest threats to
the United States Neo Marxism.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
But what he said is correct.
Speaker 5 (07:14):
He said I'll never excuse murder, and these brutal, premeditated murders,
they are appropriately sentenced. At the time when they were tried,
they got life without the possibility of parole. I just
think that given the current state of the law, and
given our assessment of their behavior in prison, they deserve
the opportunity to be reevaluated and perhaps reintegrated into the community.
The way sexual abuse, sexual torture, etc. Of victims is
(07:38):
considered in sentencing has changed a great deal in the
last thirty years.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
So he's not wrong.
Speaker 5 (07:47):
Some of the changes in the law and practice you
might agree with, you might disagree with, but he's not wrong.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Well, I think I'm fine with the direction it's gone there.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
But the question is whether they are actually abused like
this or they made it up. Having researched it would
appear to come up with a great horrific story to
justify killing their parents so they could go driving around
and convertible and go to the mall.
Speaker 5 (08:07):
With new found unearned riches. Yeah, and there's a great
deal of evidence that, Yeah, their defense was entirely premeditated.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Yeah, which is a heck of a thing as opposed
to organic.
Speaker 5 (08:22):
Real On the other hand, I've got to admit I
really don't feel like relitigating the entire case and all
the evidence.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
I'll let the LA Superior Court handle it.
Speaker 7 (08:31):
Well.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
It's getting a tremendous amount of attention though, so I
think a lot of people are relitigating the whole thing.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Premeditated is the wrong way to look at it, because
you could be premeditated and still justified in my mind,
of course. You know, in fact, it probably be a
smart thing to do to plan it out rather than
do it in a fit of rage where you might
be unsuccessful or kill yourself.
Speaker 5 (08:53):
Or whatever, although that makes it murder and not defensible. Yeah,
we're talking about I'm talking about the defense was premeditated.
We were sexually abused, therefore we had to kill them.
Was plotted out as opposed to being legit. That's what
actually happened, which is akt of an interesting thing.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
Yeah, well, how about this, Well I'll ask one question
after this.
Speaker 5 (09:15):
A word from our friends at Prize Picks, America's number
one daily fantasy sports app with over five million active
members myself included. It's just you against the numbers on
Prize Picks. All you do is pick more or less
on at least two player stat projections up to six
and watch the winnings that roll in.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
Got a whole bunch of different games of different sports
coming up this weekend, and you can pick the more
or less on a bunch of different things. If you
get as little as four correct picks, you can now
win up to one hundred times your money on Prize Picks.
And because it's a very fast, safe, secure site, easy
to use when your picks hit, you can get your
money in as quick as fifteen minutes.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
And Price Picks invented the flex play, which means you
can still cash out even if your lineup isn't perfect.
You can double your money even if one of your
picks does not hit. It's fun, it's easy. It's fantasy
sports without the year long involvement that becomes your job.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
Download the Prize Picks app today.
Speaker 5 (10:04):
Use the code Armstrong to get fifty dollars instantly when
you play five dollars. That's the code Armstrong on Prize
Picks to get fifty bucks instantly when you play five.
You don't have to win to get the fifty dollars bonus.
It's guaranteed either way. Prize Picks.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Run your game, Hey, Hans, and listen to some of
these family members on ABC that are talking right now
from the Menendez family and see if what they have
to say is interesting or not. I'm kind of curious
as to how many of them want them to get out,
and how many of them don't, and what their reasons are.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Did you hear that a member of Minudo, that famous
young boy music group, came forward and said, yeah, the
old man sexually assaulted me too in the eighties.
Speaker 4 (10:43):
Oh wow, Eh, that's interesting. I guess it would all
come down to whether or not. Well, either way, if
one of the Menendez brothers is moving into your neighborhood,
are you concerned.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Somewhat? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (11:00):
Yeah, just because they've been in prison for decades, and
you don't like sometimes small time criminals become big time
criminals in prison.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
I wouldn't be overly concerned. I don't think I would be.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
Rightly or only I don't think. I mean, seems like
such a unique circumstance either way around. I don't know
if I feel like they're, you know, acts wielding lunatics
that are going to run the streets hurting me or
my family. Yeah, it's interesting because I also don't think
they ought to get out if they did it. The
fundamental question here answers your question. Are they a couple
(11:42):
of psychopaths who happened to be brothers who saw on
opportunity to get lots of money and because they're psychopaths,
they don't care about human life, which is what the prosecution.
Speaker 5 (11:54):
Successfully claimed. Or are they child sex abuse victims who
and the worst act can ever imagine, Yeah, lost their
minds and killed their parents. Whether it's justified or not
under the law, you can understand it. If it's the
first part, yeah, I'm concerned they're in my neighborhood. If
it's the second thing, no, I'm not the least concerned.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Right, Well, if it's the way, if it's what they
describe happened, you would make anyone crazy, Yeah, anyone murderously crazy.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
So yeah, that's what the whole thing hinges on.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Just overall, this phenomenon of of NPR radio shows or
Netflix specials or whatever, digging up old crimes and you know,
trying to push them one direction or another, is all
about the podcasts man. It's yeah, the various podcasts. It's
a hot thing right now, no doubt about that.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Oh yeah, all.
Speaker 5 (12:46):
Right, there's a new But we gotta work in a
murdered ours. That's that's the only thing we don't have.
Michael kills somebody would you only we'll hunch you down
and bring it adjustice only murders in the radio station.
We'll get it going.
Speaker 4 (12:58):
There's a new poll out half of Americans think Trump's
a fascist. So okay, made me tired just saying it.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
If you missed last hour, we did a with all
Do Modusty, great feature on how the Republican gets called
a fascist or a Nazi or Hitler every single election.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
For like more than the past half century.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Yeah, it's always it's something that is bored Romney Paul
monsters like that of Paul Ryan, monstrous fascist. So please,
it's hilarious when you look back on it. Yeah, that
was our two. You could get it in podcast Warm
Armstrong and Getty on demand. Before we get to important news,
(13:45):
Katie Green, Katie, Katie the news Lady, Katie Green the
news Machine is about to have her first pumpkin spiced
anything of the fall season.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
And what is it?
Speaker 6 (13:56):
Uh, it is pumpkin spice creamer in my coffee.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
There you go, I'll fall like, Oh, that's so good.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Oh, it's so good.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Who did I hear the other day? It's a flavor bolly.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
It was in honor of former producer Sean somebody smart
who I respect used the phrase the other day. Chemicals
designed to trick your brain into believing it is a
flavor that reminds you of the season, which kind of
takes the fun out of it, because that's what it is.
(14:30):
There's no pumpkin or anything in anything.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Mostly don't kill this for me.
Speaker 6 (14:34):
I'm not listening to you.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
That's what he does, Kate.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
I'm here to put a stop to it.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
No, jack down.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
You can't have pumpkin stuff obviously that has pumpkin in it,
But a lot of your pumpkin stuff has there's a
pumpkin hasn't come within a mile.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
He roams across the countryside at night like the headless horseman,
seeking out joy, and wherever he finds it, he extinguishes it.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
That's true, is science talk.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
I don't care if a pumpkin hasn't come near this dreamer.
It tastes like pumpkin spice, and I'm happy with it.
Speaker 4 (15:04):
That that's true what Joe said about trying to stop
other people's joy.
Speaker 8 (15:09):
I know.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Also, I am really trying hard to not have my
body fall prey to chemicals designed in a corporation to
trick my brain into making me want to eat more
of it.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Big food is evil. What's that?
Speaker 4 (15:25):
Do you mean more fast food than it?
Speaker 6 (15:27):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (15:27):
Yeah, buddy, I know.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
That's why I need to fight it harder.
Speaker 4 (15:30):
Uh But well, like chips and stuff like that, anything
like that, where it's just I don't know. I should
find the sixty minute segment from years ago and and
then link it because it's so damned interesting. They figured
out how to make it have a burst of flavor
that your brain reacts to more than any other flavor
because of evolutionary reasons and then make the flavor go
(15:50):
away instantly so you get the burst, and then it
instantly goes away so that you crave more of it.
You're completely I'm completely being manipulated by these things and
it's so bad for me.
Speaker 5 (16:01):
So a bang bang at KFC, then Domino's. Yes, a
bag of chips.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
Now Joe and my brains are hanging out together because
that was the exactly where I was going to go.
I need to not do all of those. Five yeah,
I five. Well, Jack, this has been fun. Thank you
for killing my life and dreams.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
This has been fun.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
So I actually had Katie confirm this because I saw
it yesterday and I never got around to confirming whether
it was true or not. The La Times declines to
endorse Kamala Harris, okay, right about this man, and so
the interesting thing is now the editorial chief has quit
over that it's true, because I thought that might be
one of those things where it's not true and they're
jerking around. You have to confirm everything you see now,
(16:42):
absolutely everything you see.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
But it is true.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
And there's an article in the New York Times today
because this woman used to work at the New York
Times and went back to her friends and say, here's
what went down. The owner wouldn't allow them to endorse.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
They didn't.
Speaker 4 (16:57):
He didn't want to endorse anyone. It wasn't like a
pro Trump.
Speaker 5 (17:00):
But he wanted like a side by side pro and
con of each one's service and stances policies.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
So yeah, the owner went to the editorial board and said,
I want you to draft a factual analysis of all
the positive and negative policies of each candidate during their
tenures at the White House and how these policies affected
the nation, Which sounds like a fantastic thing to do
if you could even try to do it in kind
of a non partisan way. And with this clear and
(17:30):
non partisan information side by side, our readers could decide
who they think is worthy to be president for the
next four years. Instead of adopting this path as suggested,
the editorial board chose to remain silent. And I accept
their decision. So I guess because they didn't want to
present any positive stuff for Trump or something, or it
was too much work. I don't know why they refused
to play along with the owner.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
I loved the owner's idea, but the editorial director gals.
What she wanted to do is the more traditional thing newspapers. Uh,
And she couldn't accept that dictate from the owners, so
she quit.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
That's fine, everybody's happy, go work somewhere else. Well.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
She also said that these are very dangerous times and
we can't be doing this.
Speaker 8 (18:10):
So she clearly hitler, Let's do a poll free, Paul,
no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax
(18:30):
on social Security benefits.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Mas, listen to that proud that's in Vegas.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
So he said that there's a hoping to win Nevada,
which I guess looks pretty good in the private polling
for the Republicans.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Yeah, a lot of that stuff could never happen.
Speaker 5 (18:50):
But to you in real life, I have never run
into anyone that I recall who's in favor of taxing
social Security benefits. The reaction to that very concept is unanimous.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Wait a minute, you take this money from me, whether
I like it or not, and my money that I'm
supposed to be having old and allegedly you're gonna give
it back to me at some point so I don't
starve when I'm retired. But you're not gonna get any
decent returns on it like I could, and then you're
gonna give it to me and tax me on it
(19:27):
like it's income.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Explain that to me.
Speaker 5 (19:30):
Please not to mention the paperwork involved, you know what?
Or why don't you just take out the amount you're
gonna tax or whatever. It's just it is such a
fuster clock. Pardon me, it's frustrating anyway. Democracy doesn't work.
Monarchy Now, I thought this was a really good insight.
Bjorn Lomberg happened to write a piece that I came across.
(19:52):
But and this is somehow kind of passed by me.
One typically divisive topic has gone pretty much unmentioned in
the last couple of months of the campaign, and that's
climate change.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Why you're wrong.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
The UN is out just in the last few minutes
saying the world is now in a climate crunch time.
Greenhouse gases have hit unprecedented levels now in climate crunch time.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
The video appeals come from the front office, right, the
coaches can't ask for an appeal during climate crunch time?
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Or how does that work? What does that mean? UN
needs to shut up? Anyway.
Speaker 5 (20:30):
The fact that Trump isn't on it is no surprise
to anybody. But the old Kamala isn't even mentioning it
is notable and it's revealing, well, is it.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Because it doesn't motivate people. They've just determined that doesn't
really get people to the polls.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
I think that's it.
Speaker 5 (20:46):
And it's the classic example of the topic that's the
cause celeb among the elite media and university types and
the loud lefties, but nobody really cares about it.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
I mean in terms of the bulk of the electorate.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
No, it's but they always jam it into a debate
or a town hall. It's always got to include climate change,
even though nobody freaking cares.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
Yes, So Kamala's mentioned climate just once. She mentioned it
just once in her acceptance speech, and it really didn't
come up in.
Speaker 4 (21:15):
Her debate with Trump. She used her time to champion
domestic gas production.
Speaker 5 (21:18):
Make it quote very clear she won't ban fracking, although
that is utterly dishonest, as the editorial board of The
Wall Street Journal makes clear. She touts her support of
the Inflation Reduction Act, the bizarrely hilariously named Inflation Reduction Act,
(21:40):
as proof that she supports fracking. Of course, that was
one of the greatest squanderings of money. Well, it's probably
the greatest squandering of money in the history of humanity.
It's almost entirely a Green New Deal Act had nothing
to do with reducing inflation. And the only reason some
expansion of fracking was in there is because Joe Manchin
said he wouldn't vote for it unless it was in there.
(22:01):
And then the Biden administration found a way to cheat
their way around that, so they didn't really give any
more fracking leases out above the bear bear bear minimum
of the letter of the law, so they could get
their money squandering windmill farms going so oh, and that
reminds me there was I wanted to scroll down to
(22:22):
some statistics poll results. Pardon me, I know your poll
and you want to vomit. But the number of people
is that I'm sorry, I've got too much information in
front of me. I'm sorry, Jack, say something clever and all.
Compare with those statistics, which I promise will knock yourself.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Oh there it is only forty seven.
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Percent of voters said they would support spending one dollar
more each month to fight climate chair.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
And oh that's not good enough, isn't Greta? They've still
in our childhood. Greta, you have stolen my dreams. Thank
your childhood.
Speaker 7 (23:04):
You have stolen my dreams.
Speaker 5 (23:09):
I know you're a passionate teenager. I agree, talking him
in his empty words. One efing dollar a month only
forty seven percent. A new Yugov survey and they do
good work, showed that less than a quarter of the
electorate supports a quote rapid transition to renewables. You know,
it's interesting, and even among Democrats it's only a third.
(23:33):
They so they can only get about a half of
the country to agree to give a dollar a month?
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Is that what you said? That is correct by climate change?
But a little less than half.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
But your government is willing to sacrifice thousands and thousands
and thousands of your own dollars in uh, you know,
gas prices or products being more expensive, or forcing it
into electric this or that. They don't have any problem
with spending lots of your money that you are not
willing to put toward climate change.
Speaker 5 (24:02):
Right and to that end, And I've got a feature
at all prepared, but I'm not sure we have time
for it. I'm just gonna hit you with the headlines
that I have all lined up to talk about the
utter deception, the fraud that is the green energy movement.
And I'm for green energy, I'm for a clean environment.
(24:22):
I'm for all this stuff. I just in the same
way that I'm for having more money in the bank.
But if a Nigerian prince emails me and tells me
I've won the lottery and all I have to do
is send them the tax money, yeah, I'm not for that.
So I'm for the goal. I'm not for the freaking
fraud anyway. You're my collection of headlines. Kamala Harris's electric
(24:43):
school bus program granted four hundred thousand dollars to a
Chinese manufacturer. Then it's top executive sent Biden Harris scores
of campaign cash and that doesn't prove anything, but it's
pretty damned suspicious. The bombing not like being bombed, but
bombing like a movie bombs. Ev is bombing worse than
(25:03):
ever after a Manhattan project's worth of taxpayer money. And
they go into the statistic for who wants to actually
wants evs in the US, in Germany, across Europe, and
it's pathetic. The only reason anybody ever talks about this
is the billions of dollars tossed down to the bonfire
(25:23):
of bad taxpayer funded subsidies.
Speaker 4 (25:26):
Man, if Tesla didn't exist, there'd be nothing going with
electric cars. And that one electric car, which barely makes
a dent elon musk, is a pariah to the climate people.
Speaker 5 (25:37):
Yeah, and I just was going over some of Tesla's
figures because their stock just went up. There's something like
thirty three percent of the revenue came from a government subsidies.
Of course this past quarter, I mean like a lot
of it. Here's another headline for you. You love this one, Oh,
you would have loved it, but at reset for some reason.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Biden Harris administration.
Speaker 5 (25:58):
Pauses Oregon offshore wind program one month after championing championing, championing,
that's one of the hardest words to say, I think
in the English language, championing indubitably. Let me take a
second hack at it if you will. I'm not the
champion of this. Biden Harris administration pauses Oregon offshore wind
(26:18):
program one month after touting it is a green energy
success story. So they made a big deal about how
this is a great victory for green energy. A month
later they said, yeah, this is bleeding money and it
doesn't ORG shut it down. Shut it down one flippant
month later. I've got some big uh climate change green
(26:42):
energy people in my orbit that.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
I run into and now and then, and they always
tout various crap like this, and I never get into it,
because what's the point. But all those wind farms and
solar panels, they're hardly doing squawked, certainly in California, we
have so many of them. We have to buy energy
from other states to keep our lights on.
Speaker 5 (27:01):
And I was accosted the other day in not a
bad way by an engineer who was talking about the
environmental costs of evs and how in the automotive business,
for gas powered cars, you've got to do this big
environmental impact report on every model that does everything. That
(27:26):
includes everything from the extraction of the materials to make it,
and the rubber for the tires, and the gas that's
burning in the oil and absolutely everything. But for evs,
the only thing the government looks at is on the road.
It's exhaust, that's it, right. No, well, wait a minute,
what about the lithium, all the rare chemicals for the batteries.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Now we don't need to hear about that. That's fine.
Speaker 5 (27:46):
It's a complete double standard for those cars from the
federal government because they're siphoning trillions of dollars to their cronies.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Here's my view of a wind power.
Speaker 9 (27:56):
You'd be doing wind, windmills, and if it does it,
if it doesn't blow, you can forget about television for
that night, Darling, I want to watch television. I'm sorry,
the wind isn't blowing.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
I know a lot about wind, and.
Speaker 4 (28:15):
That was mocked a lot when he was I know
a lot about wind. That's hilarious, but he was mocked
for that, of course by the mainstream media. That feels
like everybody agrees with them. Way more people be like
eighty twenty agree with Trump on that.
Speaker 5 (28:33):
Yes, yes, As it turns out, yeah, only a third
of Democrats want a rapid transition to quote unquote green energy.
My final note on this topic. Dressed in a sequin
laced sleeveless top and puffy pink skirt, drag queen Pattigonia
strides around the stage in white, high heeled boots that
come up to the knees, telling the crowd that nature
(28:54):
must be a woman, and goes into some sort of
alleged comedy routine. The headline New York climate doom sayers
hope to lip sync the planet to safety with an
environmental drag show.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
It's just happened in New York. That's a way to
get everybody on board.
Speaker 5 (29:13):
In its second year at New York Climate Week, Save
Her Environmental Drag Show has become a popular attraction during
the event that includes hundreds of panels activities.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
There's way too much in all of persuading, not even
politics of preaching to the choir whoever originally came up
with that saying it's hundreds of years old, Yeah, it
probably is, you know, I'm sure there are versions of
it that are thousands of years old. There's way too
much in the persuasion business of that. I mean, because
(29:50):
if your crowd is people that want to come to
a drag show, yeah, I think the likelihood that they're
on board with your environmental stuff is quite a bit higher.
How are you going to reach people like my brothers
who have no freaking interest whatsoever in climate change and
ain't with a drag show?
Speaker 5 (30:05):
I'll tell you that, or the fifty three percent of Americans,
so if it costs them a dollar five a month
or not down with your plans.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
That reminds me.
Speaker 5 (30:16):
There's a great new piece written by and I'm not
sure how to say his first name. It's ore Uy
is it Roy or ruy Tashera and Yuvale Levin for
the American Enterprise Institute.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
It's talking about.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
The title of its politics without winners, can either party
build a majority coalition?
Speaker 2 (30:35):
And the point of their.
Speaker 5 (30:38):
Peace is that if either party could just be normal,
could not well let me, I'll put it to you
the opposite way. The only thing stopping the parties transforming
themselves from minority to majority parties is themselves. They have
quote prioritized the wishes of their most intensely devoted voters
(31:02):
who would never vote for the other party over the
priorities of winnable voters who could go either way.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
But that's a response to our primary.
Speaker 4 (31:11):
System, right and the way we raise money too, where
you motivate the small donors.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
On Twitter or whatever. Yeah, yeah, yep.
Speaker 4 (31:19):
I don't know how we can fight our way out
of this situation. There was an attack on free speech
was pretty rough the other day. A couple of them
won in Great Britain and one of the United States.
That has me somewhat concerned. Among other things we can
talk about stay.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
Here, armstrong. Oh this is going viral.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Orchestra in Sweden has added an unusual member to their group.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
The world's first joint performance by a symphony orchestra and
a robot playing cello has taken place in Sweden.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Imagine how nerdy you have to be to invent a
robots that plays the cello.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Look who has first seat now, Francis?
Speaker 2 (32:08):
So have you anybody seen this? Does it?
Speaker 4 (32:10):
A robot that actually like has arms and is drawing
a bow across the strings of a cello?
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Is that what's happening there? Does it have arms or
some sort of belt.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
Or do you know?
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Michael, I haven't seen it.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
No, okay, but I was thinking, I'm constantly concerned that
when AI can do art as well or better than humans,
if it'll what that will do? But player pianosis existed
for over a century and they play really, really well,
and it didn't like end humans playing the piano.
Speaker 5 (32:41):
Yeah, it looks like one of those auto assembly line robots,
but one of the big silvery arms is holding a bow.
Speaker 6 (32:48):
Yeah it's not like a humanoid robot.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
No, not at all.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
It doesn't look like a human. No, it's not wearing
a tuxedo lack of respect. But I'm sure they could
make I'm sure they could a rat. They could make
it look like a human if they wanted to. It's
like the robot dogs. Don't have to have a you know,
a schnaz like a dog, but they do that to
make it look more like a dog. Right, But I
(33:13):
don't think they would have an effect on music, like
my player piano. Analogy is right, isn't it. I mean,
because I've my uncle had a player piano. It was
really really cool. But it's like it didn't make it
any less amazing to hear a person play the piano.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
No, No, I guess not.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
I am recently very amazed at the number of smart
people who think we've got a free speech problem in
this country and that they and their friends are capable
of determining which free speech should be allowed and which
free speech shouldn't.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
Those quote unquote smart people are some of the most
dangerous people in America.
Speaker 4 (33:55):
Well, I've got one right here. Her name is, her
last name is Frank, I don't remember what it is.
Doesn't make any difference. She is a law professor and
one of your Ivy League schools, was at a Harvard
get together the other day where they were all concerned
about too much free speech in this country and how
the First Amendment is, you know, past its prime, what
(34:17):
with social media and the internet now. Because she was
at some conference for media studies, the Berkman Klein Center
for Media something or other at Harvard. Here's a quote
from this law professor, who I'm sure has got a
higher IQ than me. The US was built on racial patriarchy.
If you want to describe what the First Amendment is,
(34:39):
It's not about consistent or noble principles.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
It's about power.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
It's about converging with that idea of racial patriarchy. And
if you are disturbing it.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
That is a dangerous and evil person right there. And
Charles C. W.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
Cook was where I came across this, and he's a
big guy, stands up for free speech with the National Review.
But he said, the most alarming thing about this is
she really he does sincerely believe it. I've heard her
make this case at length in person, so he's heard
her lecture about it.
Speaker 5 (35:07):
Oh yeah, these people have fully fleshed out arguments that
are incredibly dangerous.
Speaker 4 (35:15):
The hang up I usually have, I feel like where
I don't think they have. The answer is, you won't
always be in power, you realize, So when Trump wins
or whoever you don't like wins, they're going to get
to choose the crew that rules on free speech. Doesn't
that worry is them?
Speaker 5 (35:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
I would never go to that argument because.
Speaker 5 (35:38):
I won't give up on the first one, which is
that freedom of speech is the most precious and necessary
liberty in a functioning society. And I don't care what
rationale is for it or against it. You will get
it when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
But it seems like a pretty good argument that one
of the reasons you have to have free speech is
you can't put anybody in charge of it's free and
what's not.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
Oh, yeah, you're absolutely correct.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
It's just like saying, no, honey, we can't kill the
neighbor because we might go to jail. Don't give me
the practical argument. The moral one is just fine.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
You on moral grounds don't think you should kill the
neighbor at all.
Speaker 5 (36:16):
Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with that woman that tar
and feathers wouldn't cure. This is a metaphor, of course,
not literally of course,
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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
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.