Welcome To Butter Talk!

Hour 4 of A&G features...

• Anastasia Boden talks to A&G
• Muting on Zoom
• Woman in Sacramento killed by illegal & deportation in Britain
• Final Thoughts! 

Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong
and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
The police chief in San Jose, California, acknowledges that one
of his officers accessed the city's flock data, then handed
off information about a vehicle's location to his cousin, who's
a suspect in a domestic violence case.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Legal analyst Stephen Clark.

Speaker 3 (00:36):
Because the officer technically had authorization to go into the database,
even though he misused it, he did not commit a crime.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
The police chief has fired the officer, but Clark says
he can't charge him criminally.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
They're going to have to tighten this law up. Jim Ryan,
ABC News. No way!

Speaker 3 (00:54):
Somebody accessed the flock data just for personal reasons?

Speaker 1 (00:57):
I am shocked to the core. I agree with the chief.
I'm in favor of law enforcement and not soft on
crime policies like you. Up the penalties, increase the oversight,
but these cameras are a valuable resource to prevent and
solve crimes. I'm Joe Getty. He's soft on crime.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
Anyway, to discuss this perhaps... Pro-personal freedom. Pro the government
not keeping track of where I go.

Speaker 1 (01:24):
How about freedom from crime? That's important. Boy, I can
argue disingenuously if I want to. Can you make a
living at that? I think you can.

Speaker 3 (01:32):
You can make a really good living at that.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
It's called being an attorney or an influencer or a
politician or whatever. Or a talk show host. Or a
talk show host. Yeah, that never occurred to me. Anyway,
speaking of attorneys, here's one who's fighting for good, not evil.
And that's Anastasia Bowden, Senior Attorney for Equality and Opportunity
at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Also host of the very
popular In Dissent podcast. Anastasia, how are you? Doing great.

Speaker 3 (01:54):
Glad to be here.

Speaker 4 (01:55):
Do you know.

Speaker 3 (01:56):
Attorneys that seem to be fighting for evil?

Speaker 5 (02:00):
Yeah, the ones I sue. Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3 (02:06):
So do you think they're just, like, wrong? They think
they're doing the right thing, but they're ignorant in your mind?
Or do you think they're just flat-out, like, grifters, immoral,
they don't care, some of them?

Speaker 5 (02:21):
It varies, but I do find that in a lot
of cases, it's kind of the banality of evil. Like
we sued in Wisconsin over a butter tasting law where
in order to sell butter there, you had to have
it graded by a professional government taste tester.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Of course.

Speaker 5 (02:35):
Of course, it just makes sense to protect the public
from nasty butter.

Speaker 1 (02:40):
You'll get my butter when you pry it out of
my cold dead mouth.

Speaker 5 (02:44):
Well, and people were hoarding butter because they were so
afraid that certain butter makers were going to go out
of business.

Speaker 3 (02:51):
So anyway.

Speaker 5 (02:52):
So we took the butter bureaucrat to deposition and asked
him these questions. And it's like he had never thought
about it before.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
It never crossed his.

Speaker 5 (03:02):
Mind that maybe this could all be a racket built
around the biggest butter makers in the country who devise
the taste standards around their butter tastes, which not everyone
wants Land O'Lakes. No offense, Land O'Lakes, but some people
like Kerrygold. Kerrygold actually doesn't taste like Land O'Lakes.

Speaker 6 (03:19):
Anyway.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
It's delicious.

Speaker 7 (03:20):
It's a great butter.

Speaker 1 (03:21):
Well called, honestly.

Speaker 3 (03:22):
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
Good call.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Good call.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
They don't think about these things.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
So the guy was slippery, you're saying.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
Wow, that's terrible. So, yeah, the banality of evil, that
is such a good point. How would you.

Speaker 3 (03:36):
Possibly think the government ought to be in charge of
deciding whether this butter is good enough or not?

Speaker 7 (03:42):
That's hilarious.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
It knows best. It knows best. Boy, I love butter.
It is so good. Welcome to Butter Talk.

Speaker 3 (03:52):
I didn't eat it back when they had the Indian
on there, but I will eat it now.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
Now that it's no longer racist. Yeah, great. Same with
me and Aunt Jemima. So, I'm so glad you wanted
to talk about the so-called prediction markets, like Kalshi and
what's the other big one?

Speaker 3 (04:10):
Polymarkets.

Speaker 1 (04:11):
Polymark, that's right. Are they federally regulated financial exchanges? Are
they just unlicensed sports books subject to state gambling laws?
What are they?

Speaker 5 (04:25):
Yeah, well, it's really interesting because the federal government and
the states are fighting over who gets to regulate, right?
And typically, I think people, especially people who are pro
individual liberty, they prefer more local regulation. Because the assumption
is that the closer to the people that the regulators are,
the more responsive they are going to.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
Be to local needs.

Speaker 5 (04:46):
But here, it's actually the states, I think, who really
wanna clamp down on these prediction markets, which they consider
sports betting. And it's actually the federal government that would
take a far lighter touch. And so it just goes
to show you can't prefer one type of regulation to another.
They're all bad, and you just have to see who's
doing the best thing at the.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Time, right?

Speaker 5 (05:05):
But yeah, for people who don't know what this is,
it used to be that you could just bet on elections,
even the weather. Is there gonna be an earthquake? What's
the weather tomorrow? Movie box office numbers.

Speaker 1 (05:14):
People are betting on the weather. Yeah. They're betting on everything.
Will Donald Trump use the word hamburger in his speech?

Speaker 5 (05:24):
Well, how many times will he say Sleepy Joe? That
was a real polymarket bet. But now they allow sports betting.
In fact, polymarket, so this case has been appealed to
the Supreme Court.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
And I think it's polymarket.

Speaker 5 (05:36):
One of them is allowing users to bet on whether
the Supreme Court is going to take the case. So
you can bet on anything.

Speaker 3 (05:47):
Obviously, one of the real concerns is that people who
have the ability to influence the outcomes will start betting
on these things and influence the outcomes, like the bet
on the whole military thing. If somebody's got the ability
to pull the plug on an attack on Iran after
placing a bet that we won't attack Iran in the
next 24 hours, you don't want that.

Speaker 5 (06:09):
That's right, and there's already been a few instances of
this actually happening. George Santos was permanently banned because he
bet on whether he'd attend the State of the Union.

Speaker 3 (06:18):
Yeah, we didn't talk about the most recent George Santos.
He's a never-ending fountain of entertainment.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
That guy. Go ahead.

Speaker 5 (06:28):
I was going to say there was a White House
teleprompter operator who also bet on what Trump was going
to say in his speech. So you do get these instances,
but there's no reason to think one regulator is going
to be better than the next at.

Speaker 1 (06:41):
Fixing these things.

Speaker 5 (06:42):
We would prefer self-policing. And in fact, these two markets
have taken steps to prevent this. They banned George Santos permanently.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
So there you go. Yeah, a loss certainly to the
sense of humor of America. These markets are just enormous.
I mean, the amount of money flying around is breathtaking.
You know, I know where you stand on this topic, but...
I think there was a belief in Western society for
a very long time that there's some temptations that human

(07:14):
beings can't really resist. And like open gambling is one
of them. And if we permit it, it's going to
unravel civilization. You're going to have families starving and people
losing their money. And then they've got to go on
the public dole. And hard drugs is another example of it.
Do you have any sympathy for that point of view?

Speaker 5 (07:36):
I've always, I've long said I've had a renewed interest
lately in the idea that if we want a freer society,
that libertarians in particular need to be more serious about
promoting virtue. Because you can't have freedom without virtue because
it's going to lead to a hellscape that no one's
going to want to live to and you're going to
get more government regulation. But that's if you just allow

(07:58):
people to engage in all of these things that probably
are a detriment to society. We need to think about,
I think drugs should be legal, but that doesn't mean
I wanna take drugs or think that other people should.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
My take on that, and that's when it gets really complicated,
is that's fine if you don't have a welfare state.
If somebody has to suffer all the repercussions of their
actions by being broke because they gamble too much, fine.
But that's not the way our system works, and it's
not going to anytime soon. If you run out of money,
I pay for your food and health care and housing
for the rest of your life.

Speaker 1 (08:32):
And anybody who's lived in a blue sector, whether in
the U.S. or Europe, for instance— knows that the permissiveness
on drugs also turns into somehow a permissiveness on everything else.
If you're a drug addict, you can camp in the park.
You can poop on the sidewalk. Your unlicensed pit bull
can be running around, whatever. And stuff I would do

(08:55):
would get me arrested or fined. But they're like, hey,
what are you going to do? The guy's got no
fixed address. We're not going to even bother. So I
don't know.

Speaker 6 (09:02):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (09:03):
Did you hear me gasp?

Speaker 5 (09:03):
Do we have to fight about pit bulls now?

Speaker 1 (09:05):
I love a pit bull. I'll fight you on pitfalls.
But anyway.

Speaker 3 (09:11):
Yeah, we don't have to. I mean, you don't have
to solve all that. You're a legal mind. You don't
need to solve all of culture's problems. But didn't they
try the experiment of legalizing drugs in Oregon? Didn't work
out so well?

Speaker 1 (09:23):
Well, I don't know about that, but they did.

Speaker 5 (09:25):
I always point to, as a good libertarian, the legalization
in Portugal, which apparently did not lead to... you know,
much more increase in usage because even though it was legal,
people didn't want to do it. So I don't know that,
you know, the prohibition, the legal ban is really doing
any work there. In a lot of ways, it's just
having a lot of negative externalities itself.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
Although if you've lost your virtue, that's the only way
to prevent chaos. So somebody needs to look deep into
the American soul and figure out if there's any virtue
left and we'll just, we'll go from there. Anastasia Bowden,
senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation is on the line.

Speaker 3 (09:58):
We were wondering earlier if AI kills us all, can
we sue Anthropic?

Speaker 5 (10:05):
Well, our AI overlords will have to set up an
AI in the event that the world burns down.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
Now, Sue, I don't know.

Speaker 5 (10:14):
We won't be around to do it, will we?

Speaker 3 (10:16):
That's exactly the conundrum.

Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you think product liability laws and
standards that exist now are enough? Well, god dang it.
It was an interesting question, Anastasia, but I can't control
my brain. And it went right to, well, never mind that, Joe. China. China.
China doesn't care. I was just going to ask, are

(10:40):
standard product liability laws and regulations good enough to constrain
AI firms from, say, I don't know, killing 50 million people?
or do we need more regulation there? But then I
think of China and I just give up and I
go to the bottom, frankly.

Speaker 5 (10:56):
This is the argument I heard that if there's going
to be something catastrophic, it's very likely that before then
there will be some sort of blip, something bad, something
big time bad, but not catastrophic world ending. And it's
going to be that little event that which will sort
of be corrective. Because even China, let's say, okay, it
can't get sued, but it's not good for business. It

(11:18):
doesn't want to be in the business of, nobody's going
to support it. There's going to be a ton of
backlash if it does something horrible, even if it's just
a little blip. So I have heard the optimism is
that the blip, as bad as the blip is going
to be, is going to prevent some sort of future.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
That makes sense to me. And that's one of the
most optimistic things I've heard in the last like four
days about the whole AI thing that, you know, because
Its first thing is not going to be to kill
us all or destroy the Internet. But it could do
some serious damage to a major company or city or whatever.
And then they get their pants sued off for that.
All of a sudden, people are going to be a

(11:53):
lot more careful about their AIs.

Speaker 1 (11:57):
I try to be optimistic.

Speaker 3 (11:58):
Yeah, good for you.

Speaker 1 (11:59):
Can we do enough to constrain China? I don't know.

Speaker 3 (12:03):
If there ends up being a state where they do
have a government butter taster... You got to put in
a word for me. I would love that job. You
can't get fired. Probably comes with a pension and health
care the rest of your life. And I taste butter
all day long and say, too salty, too creamy. Make
it creamier, whatever I say.

Speaker 5 (12:19):
It's actually a pleasing scale. Highly pleasing or moderately pleasing.

Speaker 1 (12:24):
So that's what you get to ordain. It's the same
scale my wife uses on me.

Speaker 3 (12:27):
That was moderately pleasing.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
What are you going to do? Anastasia, as my friend Scott,
who's a gifted attorney himself, puts it, Joe, I believe
bread exists to convey butter to my mouth. There you go.
He also is a butter enthusiast. Anastasia Bowden of the
Pacific Legal Foundation, thanks for the time. Always great to talk.

Speaker 5 (12:49):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (12:49):
Bye-bye. All right. I do love butter.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
The human nature, the human species, the mind, different points
of view. The fact that there are people that that
makes sense to.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
No, no, no.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
The government should decide whether or not butter is tasty
enough to allow to be sold.

Speaker 1 (13:08):
People who think that way.

Speaker 7 (13:10):
I mean, you're so.

Speaker 3 (13:11):
Far from my thinking that we're barely the same species
in my mind.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
But.

Speaker 3 (13:17):
You know, there are people that believe that sort of thing.

Speaker 1 (13:19):
And then when Anastasia deposed them, they're like, oh, I
never really thought of that. Oh, boy.

Speaker 3 (13:25):
Oh, boy. I have jury duty today. That's one thing.
I'm highly envious of my brother and his girlfriend. Something
they're doing tonight. Moderately pleasing. I'll tell you about that also.
All coming up.

Speaker 1 (13:39):
Armstrong and Getty.

Speaker 4 (13:43):
The NFL is finally back, but this football season could
be unlike any we've seen before. Traditional sports betting is
nothing new, but now football fans are increasingly turning to
a different way of cashing in.

Speaker 1 (13:57):
Prediction markets surging in popularity.

Speaker 4 (14:00):
One analysis showing NFL trading volume on prediction markets could
more than double this season, potentially topping $ 36 billion.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (14:10):
In addition to all the regular betting. That's something. So,
you know, one of the things the NFL has going
for it as the most popular television show in America
is the season is short enough that the games matter.
I mean, people get, I get excited about opening day for, uh,
major league baseball and like, you know, NBA season starts.

(14:34):
I look at the predictions, but it's 82 to games long.
You don't need to pay attention for a long time
as an individual baseball game is meaningless. Uh, Football games
are not. They mean especially your division games. My brother,
I said I'm envious of my brother. He's going to
be at Arrowhead Stadium tonight with his girlfriend.

Speaker 1 (14:54):
Chiefs, Broncos.

Speaker 3 (14:55):
Broncos were the number one seed in the AFC last year.
And that's what the NFL does good. It's making exciting
games early. Opening game for both of those teams. Mahomes
is back. First game back after getting hurt. And... They
were the team to beat for the previous five years.
I mean, that's a heck of a fun game to

(15:15):
be at. So I'll be watching that tonight. My brother
has got really good seats.

Speaker 1 (15:20):
That'd be fun.

Speaker 3 (15:23):
I'm headed to jury duty here in a little bit,
and I'll find out if I get put on the
trial or not. There's going to seat three juries. We've
got three four-day trials that they're trying to come up
with juries for, and we're all showing up there. Today
to see if we make the cut, and I have
no idea. I've never made the cut before.

Speaker 1 (15:44):
So we're talking about, let's see, 36 plus alternates. We'll say,
for the sake of the argument, 40, 45 people. What's
the pool? How big is the pool?

Speaker 3 (15:54):
I don't know. In the room, there were 40 of us. Online,
I couldn't really tell looking up at the screen. I
told that story last week about how people just can't
handle the mute situation on Zoom calls. They just can't.

Speaker 1 (16:09):
And there were dozens and dozens of people, right?

Speaker 7 (16:12):
Oh, it was, yeah.

Speaker 3 (16:13):
Yeah, and the guy with the cop uniform, whatever he is,
and then you had another lady make an announcement, and
then the judge himself, okay, I'm going to unmute this.
Everybody mute their screen because I'm going to– I've got
you all muted now, but I'm going to unmute it.
And the second he unmuted, it was just nonstop noise.
I mean, it was hilarious. It was like a comedy

(16:33):
bit of kids crying and horns and music and people
talking and dogs barking and traffic. Mute?

Speaker 1 (16:43):
How do you not understand this?

Speaker 3 (16:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (16:48):
Those people are going to judge somebody's guilt or innocence.

Speaker 3 (16:51):
Right. I'm going to visit them here in just a
few minutes. I'm driving to court right now. I dressed up.
We'll see if anybody else wore tank tops, flip-flops, and
shorts like they did last week. We'll see. These are
your peers.

Speaker 1 (17:05):
These are a jury of your peers. Oh, boy. Plus,
I've got that incredibly great definition of woke and the
asylum situation in Great Britain. So much to get to.
Hang around. Armstrong and Getty.

Speaker 2 (17:20):
He started crying and she WhatsApp me and was like, oh,
he's crying, like, what should I do?

Speaker 1 (17:24):
And I was like, well, feed him.

Speaker 6 (17:25):
It didn't even occur to me because she was breastfeeding
already her seven-month-old boy.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
Right, okay.

Speaker 2 (17:30):
And it kind of just went as like a sort
of convenience thing.

Speaker 1 (17:33):
And then it was like, it was just a bit
of a nothing.

Speaker 3 (17:35):
The thing is, when you're in the breastfeeding zone, everything
slightly changes.

Speaker 1 (17:38):
You only have to hear a baby cry.

Speaker 6 (17:40):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
In the supermarket and your baby just floats.

Speaker 7 (17:43):
It's actually, yeah, sad to say. You get this, yeah.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
It felt a natural thing to do.

Speaker 7 (17:48):
It didn't feel odd.

Speaker 1 (17:50):
That's a pair of British sisters-in-law who breastfeed each other's
babies when necessary. Okay. It's fine, right?

Speaker 3 (18:00):
Yeah, I mean, I guess so. I don't really see.

Speaker 6 (18:03):
I guess it's an odd.

Speaker 3 (18:07):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
It's atypical.

Speaker 6 (18:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
But there's no harm in it.

Speaker 3 (18:12):
No.

Speaker 1 (18:13):
No, it's not like, you know, one woman's breast milk
is poison to another's. I didn't know until I was
a full-on adult what the term wet nurse meant. Yeah.
Back in the day, the rich ladies couldn't be troubled
to actually participate in motherhood, so they would hire... Women
who are lactating to feed their babies.

Speaker 6 (18:33):
I don't know. If you're close enough to tell your
sister-in-law to do it, you're close enough to do it yourself.

Speaker 3 (18:37):
Kind of, I guess.

Speaker 1 (18:38):
Well, unless you're on the phone.

Speaker 7 (18:40):
Uh-oh.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
Right? You can multitask.

Speaker 6 (18:45):
This is an odd one.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
Well, no, no, no. I'm saying your sister-in-law, in my scenario,
I assume that sister-in-law is taking care of child while
I'm running errands or something like that. Gotcha.

Speaker 3 (18:54):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
And says, hey, the baby's starving and crying. We'll feed her. Okay.

Speaker 3 (18:58):
Well, yeah, I guess.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
The spigot's going, so....

Speaker 6 (19:03):
The spigot's going.

Speaker 1 (19:05):
So that's fine. All right. Speaking of Britain, we'll get
back to Britain in a second. We said we were
going to talk about this. We didn't. And I just
want to touch on it very, very briefly. You may
have seen it's not gotten a lot of national coverage,
but a poor, poor woman in the Sacramento, California area
was stalked for months and months by this guy who
murdered her in cold blood. He was obsessed with her.

(19:27):
It's a fairly standard stalking story. She got restraining orders.
She was in touch with the cops for months. And
I think they were doing their best to help her
do the right thing. But, you know, she couldn't have
an armed guard all the time. Well, so this guy
murders her in cold blood. The cops chase him down.
He kills himself. Illegal immigrant. Caught at the border, but

(19:51):
under the orders of the Biden administration, he was turned loose.
He was employed by, I think it was DoorDash. That's
how he came in contact with this woman for the
first time. So you've got an illegal immigrant let into
the country in spite of our laws, and then A
law enforcement was aware of him for months and months
and months, and he was just allowed to having already

(20:13):
harassed and stalked this woman and gotten a restraining order.
What kind of insane country has a system where you
don't look at that and say, oh, my God, this
guy's got to go. Yeah. Just disgusting.

Speaker 6 (20:28):
Well, and the other wrinkle to this was I had,
I don't know, maybe four or five different local and
national news sources pulled up in here to try to
figure out more details about her because they were very
hush-hush about who she was when this all started. All
of those sources for the entirety of the show did
not mention once that the guy that committed this crime

(20:49):
was an illegal alien.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
Right.

Speaker 7 (20:52):
Not once.

Speaker 1 (20:54):
Yeah, newsrooms are mostly run by people of the left
and the far left. And or, because California is a
sanctuary state, how's your utopia coming along there, Gavin? This
woman's blood is on the pavement. She's dead. Yet another
murder at the hands of an illegal alien. You've got

(21:15):
to keep that quiet. You don't say that. You don't
want to prejudice anybody against this guy. It's sickening. Anyway,
I said I didn't want to dwell on it because
it's so angering and terrible. Moving along, speaking of asylum claims,
this is so unbelievable. I'm going to quote, I'd like
to give credit where it's due, the fabulous Nellie Bowles
of the Free Press on and off as we talk

(21:36):
about this. But according to a whistleblower in Great Britain,
about one in 100 asylum claims in the UK is credible.
About one in 100. The rest are phony. They just
want to get into the country. So the whistleblower says

(21:56):
many asylum seekers arrive with what are called package claims
that have suspiciously similar stories, why they should get asylum.
Iraqi Kurds, for example, often claim the same story of
having had a romantic relationship with the daughter of the
prime minister of the Kurdistan region. So many claim this,
he says, it's become a running joke among his co-workers.

(22:19):
And Nellie writes, I don't judge the princess of Kurdistan,
but I do have some logistical questions. The tons of,
you know, I mean, how many, look, the princess of
Kurdistan is a slut, let's face it. I mean, if
hundreds of guys are showing up saying, yeah, I was
in trouble for getting with this girl, she's obviously, well.
The tons of Pakistani asylum seekers, says the whistleblower, have

(22:42):
claimed they were in gay relationships. But here's the twist. Now,
this is A story that's been covered for a while.
Because they claim, hey, I'm Pakistani, I'm gay, and they
would kill me if they found out. That's right, folks.
That's what happens a lot in Muslim societies. But anyway,
they have to have documentation that they're gay. So they've all,

(23:08):
hundreds of them, I guess, have claimed they were in
a relationship with the same dude... who then provided letters
to support their claim saying, oh, yeah, yeah, we're totally
with each other. But they didn't realize everybody's using the
same resources. So they get run by the UK's asylum commissioner,
whatever they are. But because the UK swung way left

(23:29):
and had rampant illegal immigration like the Biden years for
a long time, they ignored all that crap and just
let the people in. The whistleblower said those homosexuality claims.
also featured photos from the same London gay hotspot, the
Legs 800 Club, which closed last year. It doesn't matter.

(23:50):
But of Pakistani men, quote, standing there topless in the
club with their arms around each other, taking pictures to
try and prove they are gay. But they would all
go to the same club and like pose with probably
gay dudes or not gay dudes who for $ 10 a
throw would take their shirt off and pose in a
picture with these guys to prove they're gay. Now, you

(24:16):
might think, well, you know, if somebody is going to
perhaps be killed for being gay in their home country,
that's a legitimate asylum claim. And, you know, we could
argue about that. It's an interesting point of view. To me,
the more interesting aspect is that, yes, that's the legitimate
fear in the very countries that our queers for Palestine
are defending so staunchly. But anyway, here's how it gets

(24:39):
even crazier. This is a Daily Mail headline, which Nellie
Bowles calls bizarro, and I would agree. Listen carefully now.
Shameless failed asylum seeker who raped a 14-year-old girl is
not bisexual and must leave Britain, judge rules. So, according

(25:03):
to the headline, if he were bisexual, he could stay,
but not a straight man. The Immigration Tribunal found his
evidence of bisexuality was suspect. Judge R. Abdar said in
the Immigration Tribunal's conclusion, I quote, I'm satisfied that the
appellant has failed to rebut the presumption of the appellant
posing a danger to the community. I am not satisfied

(25:28):
that the appellant is bisexual. I am not satisfied that
the appellant is bisexual. What would the testing be? If
you have to pray, as Nellie, I'm paraphrasing, but do

(25:48):
you have to put yourself like on a spectrum of
how fruity to straight you are? Do you have to
name five women you've been attracted to? Do you have
to Demonstrate proficiency in servicing both sexes? And then the

(26:08):
verdict is delivered? How does this work? You got the
British judge with the wig? They actually wear the wigs.
And the robes and all. What is he going to
ask defendants? Which cast member do you identify with most
on Queer Eye? And quoting Nellie again, I'm not satisfied

(26:31):
that the appellant is bisexual. Sounds like the judge had
a bad night with the appellant. Honestly, it sounds like
the appellant is just experimenting in college and will probably
grow out of it, which means deportation in Britain. Man,
you go down the road to leftism and you end

(26:53):
up in some bizarre places, some really, really strange places. Oh,
speaking of which, and this is encouraging news, Multnomah County, Oregon,
where my son now lives, again, having moved there. Sorry,
Steve in Eugene. He has moved from Eugene to Portland.

(27:13):
They have abandoned, under threat of federal law, their scoring
system for who gets public aid, where if you are
like a transgender woman of color, whatever that ends up being.
Transgender fake woman. No, I repeat myself. A fake woman

(27:38):
of color, you would rank ahead of a pregnant white
lady for getting public aid. Well, they've abandoned that bizarro
scorecard system under threat of federal action, so that's good.
That's good. I'm glad to hear that. It took the

(27:58):
federal government flexing its muscles, but Multnomah County has finally
done the right thing. And then, let's see, I had
one more thing I wanted to squeeze in. Oh, this is,
we talked about this last week a fair amount, but
the New York Post, in an unnecessarily erotically illustrated article,

(28:18):
talking about there are new websites that are, they're not
doing the sex doll thing, But you can custom design
your girlfriend visually and get porn of it.

Speaker 6 (28:37):
Her? It.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
Because this woman doesn't exist. And not only do you
custom design her physically, but you also design her attitudes,
her personality... her willingness to perform and describe various acts

(29:00):
of physical gratification, etc. And she will be a porn-driven,
customized chatbot who will never say no and never disagree
with you and never be a pain in the ass.

(29:22):
Human beings are going to die out before AI can
kill us. That is my prediction. Unless you join Joe's
Woodsy No Computer Cult. I hate to use the term cult.
Some people judge it. It'll be a little cult. We're
going to go into the woods. We're going to unplug.

(29:43):
We're going to touch grass and water and watch nature.
We're going to read actual books. We're going to go
online like once a month to check emails, realize it's
all garbage. No online porn. We'll probably run around naked.
I don't know. I haven't decided. It'll be a very back-to-the-earth, hippie,

(30:06):
post-tech existence. Who's in?

Speaker 7 (30:12):
I was with you until the naked part.

Speaker 1 (30:14):
Yeah, I was right there.

Speaker 6 (30:16):
Option.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
Totally.

Speaker 7 (30:18):
Totally.

Speaker 1 (30:19):
Why would we be oppressed by clothing, Katie? We're in
the woods. We're unplugged. We're living life. Actually, it's kind
of handy that I'm probably past the age of, as
Jack always points out, why do these cults always end
up with the leader gets to sex up the young women?
It's true. It's always that way. You don't have to

(30:42):
worry about that with me. Honestly, I'd rather play golf.
I just, yeah. Now, get a nice husband. I hope
the two of you are real happy. I don't need
to sex you up. Just pay your cult dudes. Show
up to the meetings on time. Don't be a pain
in the ass and you're fine. Don't worry. Nobody's going
to get exploited. All right, we're going to finish strong next.

Speaker 3 (31:07):
Inside my local Wendy's and I heard about this T-Rex burger.

Speaker 6 (31:13):
Nine patties, nine slices of cheese.

Speaker 7 (31:16):
It looked great. I had to come down here and
give this a try. So I can't wait to dig in.
Let's get started.

Speaker 1 (31:24):
Three, two, one, go.

Speaker 3 (31:31):
Six minutes, 26 seconds.

Speaker 1 (31:35):
Nine patties?

Speaker 7 (31:38):
The goal is to eat it within nine minutes.

Speaker 1 (31:40):
Yeah, yeah. No, thanks.

Speaker 6 (31:43):
This looks disgusting, to be honest with you. It's just
a brick of meat, because, you know, their patties are square,
so it just looks like a brick of meat.

Speaker 1 (31:52):
Beef brick of beef. I, uh, I've got this place
Judy and I really like to go to for breakfast
or lunch depends. Um, and I got a burger there
the other day. It was so good, but there was
too much beef. And I realized that's a weird complaint

(32:12):
cause that's the expensive part of it and all. And
I should appreciate it. But to me, there's a perfect
ratio relationship between the beef and the bun and And
the condiments and whatever other toppings are on there.

Speaker 8 (32:25):
Right.

Speaker 1 (32:26):
And it was so beef heavy. I thought, I don't know.

Speaker 6 (32:31):
Yeah, I can understand that. Or when you get the
burger where the bun is just like half the size
of the burger.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
I hate that. That drives me nuts. That's terrible. Yeah, yeah. Oh,
here's a pro tip for you. I love avocado. And
I like stuff on burgers. But I finally realized you
got a hot hamburger. You got avocado. I'll often add bacon.
The avocado can't possibly stay on the burger. It always

(32:58):
squirts out the side of the bun 100% of the time.
Maybe it's just out the side. Plop right on the plate.
Maybe it's right in your fingers, and then you got sticky, gooey,
green fingers. Order the avocado on the side. You got
to go like a fork.

Speaker 6 (33:16):
Why did that never occur to me to order it
on the side?

Speaker 1 (33:21):
It's so good. Bacon, cheese, avocado, little onion on there.
Love it. But, no, the avocado, it's just, it yearns
to be free. It needs to escape. Yeah.

Speaker 6 (33:34):
That's like your new campaign, Free the Avocado.

Speaker 1 (33:38):
Right. Michael, how much time do we have?

Speaker 7 (33:41):
Just about time for some final thoughts, actually.

Speaker 1 (33:43):
Oh, okay. Because I was going to say this fake
AI girlfriend thing the company claims to. This is not
meant to take the place of real women. Sex, sex, sex, sex,
AI is designed as a form of entertainment and creative interaction,
not as a replacement for women or real-world relationships. Yeah, okay, sure, sure.

Speaker 7 (34:04):
Check your clock, it's time to stop. Jack and Joe,
they've got to go.

Speaker 1 (34:10):
And if they don't get canned, they'll be back tomorrow. Hey,
let's get a final thought from everybody. Here's your host, me.
Jack is off to administer harsh frontier justice in his
county of residence. Let's get a final thought from everybody
on the crew. Michelangelo, what's your final thought, sir?

Speaker 7 (34:29):
My final thought is I'm having hunger pains right now
after this last segment. I've got to get a burger, like.

Speaker 3 (34:34):
Right now.

Speaker 1 (34:35):
Yeah, I know, I know. Katie Green, do you have
a final thought for us?

Speaker 6 (34:39):
Yeah, talking about annoyances at the gym, I saw my
first influencer with the tripod set up recently.

Speaker 3 (34:46):
That's uncomfortable.

Speaker 7 (34:47):
Oh, yeah.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
Stop it. Stop it. My final thought. Oh, that's too serious.
So that starlet Hayden Panettiere passed from a drug overdose
a couple weeks ago. It was one pill that had
fentanyl in it.

Speaker 7 (35:05):
Just one.

Speaker 1 (35:05):
It was a one-pill OD, fatal. Yeah. There's no such
thing as a safe street drug anymore. Yeah, it's terrible. Terrible.
Tell your kids. Teach it. Batter it into their skulls
so they can't forget. There's no such thing as a
safe pill anymore. Crazy.

Speaker 7 (35:24):
There we go.

Speaker 1 (35:34):
Armstrong and Getty wrapping up another grueling four-hour workday. So
many people thanks. So little time. Go to armstrongandgetty.com. We
have many pleasures waiting you there, including the hot links,
which are very, very well put together today. Well done.
You can drop us a note, mailbag at armstrongandgetty.com. What's
your experience? What's your point of view on the whole
AI doomsday scenario thing? And pick up some A &

(35:56):
G swag while you're there. The Socialism Sucks and It
Never Works t-shirt. Striking a blow for America. If you
don't buy one of your bad Americans.

Speaker 3 (36:04):
See you tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (36:05):
God bless America. Armstrong and Getty. Artificial intelligence. It's so
much fun till it kills us all.

Speaker 8 (36:17):
Artificial intelligence Chinese robots going door to door forget everything
you don't need to know anything anymore artificial

Speaker 1 (36:30):
Intelligence Armstrong and Getty