I'm Against Armed Robbery

Summary

Armstrong & Getty On Demand: "I'm Against Armed Robbery"

Release Date: February 10, 2026
Podcast Host: iHeartPodcasts
Hosts: Jack Armstrong & Joe Getty

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Armstrong & Getty dives into California’s ongoing government fraud scandals, the systemic lack of accountability, and the corrosive effects of political and bureaucratic corruption. Along the way, the hosts discuss the culture of government waste, political media bias, and the way large-scale fraud becomes normalized both in politics and society. The latter part of the show hits topics such as body positivity in medical practice, sensational journalism, and media condescension toward "average Americans." The tone is irreverent, sardonic, and frequently self-deprecating.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Systemic Fraud and Government Waste in California

• Intro (00:16–02:58): The show opens by referencing massive fraud in California’s unemployment system ($32.6B in fraud, $24B “missing” from homelessness efforts, 1.2M fake community college applications). The hosts introduce clips from recent congressional hearings and journalism, including Rep. Kevin Kiley and California Post reporter Joe Pollack.

• Quote:

  “The governor has presided over fraud really as a business model in California.”
  — Joe Pollack (02:08)

• The hosts lambast the rewarding of government failures with promotions (Julie Su moving up after the unemployment fraud scandal), framing this as a result of intentional systemic incentives:

  “You fail up.” (02:58)

• Analysis: Jack and Joe suggest state audits are ignored, fraud is institutionalized, and the media generally fails to hold officials to account unless the outlet is explicitly non-progressive. They applaud the establishment of the "California Post" as a potential check on government power.

2. Progressive Voters vs. Activists and "The Scam as Old as Politics"

• Segment (03:01–06:11): Discussion shifts to why voters seemingly tolerate waste and fraud:

  "The activists... they're criminals. Their supporters are soft heads who fall for the false moral argument."
  — Joe Getty (04:58)

• Jack wishes that progressive voters cared as much about wasted money as new taxes:

  “Progressives should be leading the charge to... All of that money could be spent on what? Pick your cause: schools, vaccines, whatever you’re into.”
  — Jack Armstrong (04:44)

• Institutional charity is discussed: inflated budgets have not led to improved state services—a direct reference to homelessness ($24 billion spent “with very little impact”), schools, and infrastructure (05:09–06:11).

• Memorable Moment (Ocean's 11 Analogy):

  “There are days I… actually feel like I’m watching Ocean’s Eleven… I’m against armed robbery, of course I am… but you kind of enjoy it on that level… it’s a super clever scheme… The selling of the progressive tax code as a moral imperative… to narrow the tax base so that you can never be elected out… That is a brilliant maneuver. That is George Clooney robbing the casino. Smart. It’s evil… but clever.”
  — Joe Getty (10:36)

3. Voter Apathy & The Getty-McArdle Principle

• Segment (07:42–09:31):
  A cited Megan McArdle column notes that fraud scandals rarely bring consequences. Joe coins “the Getty McArdle principle” to explain that voters don’t emotionally connect the dots between taxes taken and money wasted. The tax base is intentionally narrowed so most voters aren't outraged or affected:

  “You get that the government wastes money... but for some reason, they don’t connect those two power lines together and have the right, the obvious emotional reaction to that.”
  — Joe Getty (08:34)

4. Ethical Decline & "What's Stopping Them from Stealing?"

• Segment (09:42–12:24):
  They contend that past generations had enough ethical gatekeepers to keep government theft in check; with ethics decayed, fraud only grows. The culture of personal responsibility and aversion to accepting “charity” or entitlement has disappeared:

  “If you lose enough ethics around government, there’s nothing stopping them from stealing.”
  — Jack Armstrong (10:16)

5. Brief News Diversions

• Segment (12:31–16:16):
  • Updates on the “Guthrie case” (potential criminal investigation), handled with characteristic joking, skepticism toward media speculation, and banter about sensational rumors.
  • Quick digressions: Jeffrey Epstein emails mentioning Bill Gates’ alleged personal concerns, which Jack uses to impart a “live an honest life” moral.

6. Media Sensationalism and Culture Critiques

• Super Bowl Recap (17:24–18:18):

  • Their comedic summary: weird commercials (“AI Jesus and Mike Tyson telling you to eat apples”) and cultural decline signified by a switch from beer/pop ads to AI-themed products.

• Body Positivity vs. Medical Reality (18:21–26:33):

  • The hosts discuss “body positivity,” referencing New York Times reporting that doctors are reluctant to directly mention obesity for fear of alienating patients—especially in light of COVID comorbidities:

  “If you got your knees and your ankles hurt all the time and you’re £450, say, have you tried losing weight? Because I think your weight is the main reason your knees hurt.”
  — Jack Armstrong (22:03)

  They also criticize public reluctance to discuss obesity as a COVID risk factor:

  “During COVID the relationship between COVID deaths and being overweight was crazy but got like no attention because of it being offensive or whatever.”
  — Jack Armstrong (25:49)

7. Mocking Elitist Journalism: "Gay Nazi Truck Reviews"

• Segment (27:00–34:31):
  The hosts mock a Wall Street Journal Pulitzer-winning car reviewer who likens pickup truck aficionados to Nazis obsessed with flamboyant style:

  “Jack Armstrong, do you or do you not drive a Ford F250 Super Duty truck?”
  — Joe Getty (29:15)
  “I do.”
  — Jack Armstrong (29:16)

  The critic’s prose is described as ludicrous and condescending; Joe and Jack lampoon his attempt to psychoanalyze blue-collar truck owners and signal his own disdain for them.

• Pulitzer/Nobel Rant: The hosts decry the politicization of prestigious journalism awards, suggesting prize committees are ideologically compromised.

• Quote:

  “He has to have many, many paragraphs to get around to insulting people who would drive a truck. That’s his truck review.”
  — Jack Armstrong (31:59)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Government Waste:

  “There is no punishment for fraud… and you simply get promoted. You fail up.”
  — Joe Pollack (02:08)

• On Activists vs. Progressives:

  "The activists… they're criminals. Their supporters are soft heads who fall for the false moral argument."
  — Joe Getty (04:58)

• On Voter Disengagement:

  “People cannot picture and feel they took a bunch of my money out of my check and threw it away.”
  — Joe Getty (08:34)

• On Scandals:

  “These scandals don't have the appropriate penalty at the end... which is very depressing.”
  — Jack Armstrong (07:42)

• On Media Elitism:

  "Your job is to write about cars… Comparing people you don’t like to Nazis is another classic case."
  — (Paraphrasing Andrew Stiles, 31:32)

• Humor/Absurdity:

  “I think you're having trouble understanding it because you're a gay Nazi. And I have proof from the Wall Street Journal's auto review column.”
  — Joe Getty (24:46)

• Moral lesson:

  “If you live your life a certain way, do the right thing, it’s so much easier... you’re not lying, you’re not cheating... imagine the stress…”
  — Jack Armstrong (15:28)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:16–02:58 – California fraud scandals, political corruption, introduction of media clips.
• 03:01–06:11 – Progressive politics, activists vs. voters, government waste.
• 07:42–10:15 – Voter apathy, “Getty McArdle Principle”.
• 10:36 – Ocean’s 11 analogy for fraud in politics.
• 12:31–16:16 – Guthrie news update; Epstein/Gates rumor and moral takeaway.
• 17:24–18:18 – Super Bowl/ads pop culture commentary.
• 18:21–26:33 – Detailed breakdown on body positivity, medical reluctance to discuss obesity.
• 27:00–34:31 – Wall Street Journal “gay Nazi truck review” mockery; further press critique and humor.

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

The episode paints a bleak but darkly comic portrait of state-level mismanagement, the insidious comfort with waste and fraud in politics, and the unwillingness of both voters and media to confront uncomfortable truths. Armstrong & Getty punctuate their criticism with humor, cultural references, and a healthy dose of self-awareness.

Whether discussing billion-dollar scandals, cultural fads, or journalistic pretensions, their approach is equal parts skeptical and satirical—perfect for listeners who want an unvarnished, occasionally outrageous take on the news of the day.

Transcript

[A]

This is an iHeart podcast, guaranteed human.

[B]

Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio.

[A]

Studio at the George Washington Broadcast Center.

[B]

Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.

[A]

Armstrong and Getty.

[B]

And now here's Armstrong and Getty. Yeah, I have a particular interest in California being from that state. And we know that there's been a lot of fraud. There was $32.6 billion that's been confirmed in unemployment insurance fraud. There's 1.2 million fraudulent community college applications. Have you gotten any sense or have you seen any signs there that sort of are similar to what aroused your suspicions in Minnesota?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And fraud in California might be worse.

[A]

Than the fraud in Minnesota.

[B]

What makes you say that? Well, $24 billion went missing for homelessness.

[A]

They've been trying to build this train for years. Yet there's hardly anything to prove for that. Fires who that.

[B]

That's Representative Kevin Kiley talking to independent journalist Nick Shirley. Is that who's been digging into the fraud thing in Minnesota and in California? At a hearing in Congress the other day. This is interesting. The next few clips you're going to hear is Joe Pollock of the California Post, which is the New York Post's new West coast outpost, talking to Fox and fiends. But the really significant and interesting part to me is that you have a non progressive journalism outlet now established and thriving, as far as I could tell, on the west coast. And how utterly that's going to change the progressive government's ability to get away with all of their crimes and sins in California.

[A]

Absolutely. Reach out to this specific guy, Hanson. We gotta get a relationship going with the California Post. We'd be perfect for each other. It'd be a marriage made in heaven.

[B]

But here he is, Joe Pollack at the California Post, talking about what Kevin Kiley was asking about.

[C]

Well, the governor has presided over fraud really as a business model in California. This is not the first major fraud to come out during Governor Gavin Newsom's administration. During COVID the unemployment department in California was defrauded of $20 billion in federal funds, more than $30 billion overall. The money was stolen by international crime syndicates. And Julie Su, who directed that department, was promoted. She was the acting labor secretary in the Biden administration. And now she's in New York. She's the deputy mayor for economic justice. And that's the culture under Gavin Newsom. There is no punishment for fraud. The audits that come back from the state auditor are ignored by the legislature. The there's no accountability and you simply get promoted. You fail up.

[A]

Well, that's not disappointing at all.

[B]

Here's your essay question, Julie sue, who presided over that enormous theft of taxpayer dollars, gets promoted to Biden's administration and now is helping run New York, the economic justice or whatever, even as a lefty, as a progressive, if somebody had presided over that sort of waste and abuse of a government program, why would you want them?

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

There is an answer to that question.

[A]

Okay, what's the answer then?

[B]

Well, the answer is the first thing Joe Pollock said. Newsom has been running California with fraud as the business model. It's spreading out enormous amounts of money.

[A]

Yeah, I guess if you're a bunch of crooks taking money, then I get that. But if you're just an actual progressive voter, you shouldn't want this kind of waste. It doesn't help your cause.

[B]

Yeah, it's that dichotomy or the different layers that I've been talking about lately. You've got your activists, your hardcore activists who know precisely what they're doing. And then you've got the nice people who hear the moral arguments that those activists make and they think they're being sincere.

[A]

Right.

[B]

They're not.

[A]

Yeah. I wish you could get the average progressive voter, you know, if you're looking at a dollar. A dollar. To be as excited about a dollar from a wasted program as you are as excited about a dollar from a taxpayer, because you get all excited about more taxes for teachers or homeless or whatever, you think it is important you want that dollar. But I don't care about the dollar. That's not going toward anything good over here.

[B]

Right.

[A]

With the. With the completely fraudulent bullet trainer, whatever got progressives should be leading the charge to. All of that money could be spent on what? Pick your cause. Schools, vaccines, whatever you're into. Yeah. Yep.

[B]

The activists, Gavin Newsom, Julie sue, they're criminals. They are absolutely criminals. Their supporters are soft heads who fall for the false moral argument. Next clip.

[C]

Michael, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and you just have to look at how much spending there is. In California. We now spend twice what we spent a decade ago. And yet you don't see public services becoming twice as good. You don't see the results in the quality of the roads around you or the performance of the schools. So if you've got another 150, $160 billion going out the door, the question is, where is it going? Some of it is going to government programs that don't work. So there's 24 billion DOL that has been spent on homelessness with very little impact and some of it is simply being siphoned off. We have state programs that dole out money to vendors and to non government organizations that have a lot of overhead, that don't produce results and that happen to have the right political connections. We've essentially institutionalized a fraudulent process and it doesn't produce value nor does it produce any kind of return. We've had four years in a row now of budget deficits.

[B]

Did the story not long ago about a bunch, it was San Francisco, but it's, you know, just a microcosm of California. You have all these different commissions and offices and all they do is once in a great while they crank out a report for each other. But you've got 100, 800, 20, 500 people on the payroll who will always, always, always vote Democrat. That's the scam this old as politics.

[A]

Hey, California Post, let's work together. Armstrong and Getty show. We're on in the Capitol. We're on in San Francisco, we're on in la, we're on in San Diego and many, many other cities across the country. We're perfect together. We're perfect together.

[B]

Riverside, come on, we'll let you, we'll.

[A]

Let everybody know that you exist and they'll read your stuff.

[B]

Last clip.

[C]

By the way, it's amazing what the state does find money to do. The news this morning is that Gavin Newsom wants to spend $90 million more dollars on Planned Parenthood, on abortions. This in a state with a deficit that's between $3 billion if you believe Newsom, or $18 billion if you believe the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office. But still we find things that we can spend money on, like gerrymandering and abortion and suing the Trump administration, but somehow we can't improve the services. That's a red flag that there must be some fraud going on in the system at a systemic level.

[B]

And it's impossible to vote the Democrats out, which is the really discouraging part. But we're not here to discourage you and so we will not dwell upon that. That's some good, solid report.

[A]

I've got much more discouragement because I want to repeat something I said the other day. This is, this is enough to make you give up. I mentioned this the other day, so I apologize if you heard it before. But it, I thought it was so good. So this woman, Megan McArdle, writes for the Washington Post, she's also with the Dispatch, made the argument that these things never go anywhere, and she went Over a whole bunch of examples over the many, many, many decades that this has happened, where huge thefts of taxpayer money and they become big stories, but nobody ever pays a price. And voters just feel the same way. I probably feel like, what are you going to do? These scandals don't have the appropriate penalty at the end. They just don't, historically, which is very depressing.

[B]

I believe that's because of the Getty McArdle principle. I'm going to put myself in front of Megan. People cannot picture and feel they took a bunch of my money out of my check and threw it away. They get that they took money out of the check. The government did, and they get that the government wastes money or hands it out to cronies, but for some reason, they don't connect those two, you know, power lines together and have the right. The obvious emotional reaction to that, which is just interesting, partly because you have narrowed the tax base intentionally as much as possible so that there are never enough taxpayers who are actually being stolen from to vote you out of office.

[A]

That's true. If. Yeah, like with federal money. If you got. Half of. People aren't paying federal income tax. They don't. You can't get them worked up about it at all.

[B]

Don't you care about how federal income taxes are being spent? No. No, I don't. I'm getting it, so I'm happy about that.

[A]

Yeah. I don't know. It's. And I. I think it's always been true probably that you couldn't connect those feelings you're talking about combined with the. It's, It's. It's too big. I can't. I can't do anything about it. There's no way I could organize. I don't have the time to, like, organize enough people in a movement to combat that. So I just. All I do is get disappointed and move on with my day. But I think there were enough ethical people over the first 250 years that it didn't get completely out of hand.

[B]

Patriots.

[A]

Yeah. I think when you lose enough ethics around government, there's nothing stopping them from stealing. And we just don't push back. It's just. It's gonna grow and grow and grow and grow and go or we're gonna find there's way. Minnesota and California are just, you know, two examples that happens all over the place.

[B]

There are days I. I'm able to step outside my disgust and anger as a taxpayer and a patriot, somebody who loves this country, and actually just. I feel like I'm Watching Ocean's Eleven or one of those caper movies where I'm against armed robbery, of course I am. Or like some bank robbery drama. I can name a couple of them that I've really enjoyed. And, you know, it's a super clever scheme. And so you. You kind of enjoy it on that level. The selling of the progressive tax code as a moral imperative. Because people who make more should not only pay more in taxes, they should pay a higher percentage in taxes because they need to pay their fair share. Selling that in order to narrow the tax base as much as possible so that you can never be affected. I'm sorry, you can never be elected out. You can never be booted out in an election because the number of people who are offended at your scheme is not enough. That is a brilliant maneuver. That is George Clooney robbing the casino. Smart. It's evil. He. It's horrible, but it's clever.

[A]

Yeah, it's depressing. I think. I think I really stumbled upon it with the. The only way this worked was there were enough ethical people that wouldn't steal, even though they could.

[B]

Well, and I just think the scammers have efficiencies in the modern era, with modern media and the Internet, and. And the acceptance. Well, one of the main factors is the acceptance of the welfare state. It wasn't very long ago, it was a handful of generations ago, that people would not take charity if they were eligible for it because it was too embarrassing.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I don't take no charity. And we've gone to the other extreme. Where's mine? Says everybody.

[A]

Yeah, I would say so. We have a bit of a breaking news thing. I don't know when you will hear this, but law enforcement is expected to release a photo of a potential suspect in the Guthrie case. Okay, we'll see what that is. Whenever that happens, that's the only thing that's happened because nothing has happened in the last 24 hours. We were just wondering if maybe this story was completely over. But they say they're going to really.

[B]

Want to hear my theory. Yeah, it's Don Lemon. Publicity hoe. Don Lemon. He's gone too far this time.

[A]

You know, Ashley Banfield, who last week went around claiming the son in law did it. I have sources saying it was the son in law. Okay. Do you? So why do you have sources nobody else has? What an awful thing to say. Awful. Awful. We got more in the way.

[C]

Steer Armstrong and Getty.

[B]

Epstein wrote an email to.

[A]

Claiming that Bill Gates was worried that he got an STD from One of the Russian girls. And he wanted Epstein to hook him up with an antibiotic that could slip into his wife's coffee. I mean, of all the sleazy things I've ever heard.

[B]

And of all the people not to have antivirus protection. Wow.

[A]

That's in the Epstein files. So Bill Gates thought he got an std, probably gave it to his wife and was going to slip antibiotics into her coffee to try to get her over the std. He didn't want to have to tell her that she might have.

[B]

Yeah. This is a super interesting aspect of this. I was just reading about this before the show. Epstein wrote an email to himself and sent it to himself talking about all the conversations he'd had with Bill Gates, including about that. That's where that story comes from.

[A]

Why did he send an email to himself about that?

[B]

Wanted a paper trail. Wanted to remind himself, have it handy. Have the list handy.

[A]

Yeah. See, there is. There's some speculation. I was watching people discuss this, of he having been through this before, knew that a lot of these things might be dug into in an investigation and just wanted a whole bunch of stuff out there like this. I don't know exactly what. I don't quite. That's. That's too five dimensional chess for me.

[B]

To completely figure out, you know, most of his nefarious. He was a people collector. He was an unbelievable. We talked about this earlier, but he was an unbelievably skillful networker. I wonder if he also had an in case I need it, the carrot isn't working. Let's bring out the stick file on various important people.

[A]

You know, it's. This is ancient wisdom, but if you live your life a certain way, do the right thing, it's so much easier. I mean, just so much easier in so many different ways. You know, you're not lying anybody. You're not cheating. You're not, you know, you're not there. Another shoe isn't up. About ready to drop all the time. Imagine the stress of. I probably gave my wife an std. I need to figure out how to cure her of that without letting her know I was cheating and gave her an std. I mean, God, who wants to do. You're one of the richest people on planet Earth. You could have such an enjoyable life doing so many things. And I'm sure his life was dominated for days, weeks or months with this, which he brought on himself.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So crazy. I mean, he could do literally anything money can buy on planet Earth. And he got himself into that situation. Wow. Sounds very stressful.

[B]

Yeah, being like an ultra nerd type like Bill Gates was, and then having spectacular wealth, which gets you access to Russian hookers, apparently, and, you know, all sorts of women who would throw themselves at you. He was probably ill prepared to deal with that.

[A]

So Jake Tapper, at least on cnn, is still in a denim shirt down in Arizona reporting on the Savannah Guthrie's mom situation. Like that's where he's broadcast his show from. That's how big a deal they still think it is, but there's a report out that the FBI is going to release the image of a person who appears to be wearing a mask and carrying backpacker tools, hoping somebody will recognize the person that may have broken into the house and taken Nancy Guthrie. So that's a tiny bit of information today that's different than the last several days. Okay, we got more on the way coming up.

[C]

Armstrong and Gettysburg.

[A]

The Seattle Seahawks are the super bowl champions. They made short work of the New England Patriots. Quarterback Drake May became the second Drake in a row to take a beating at the Super Bowl. The Seahawks defense kept the temperature low. Most of the excitement came from the ads. It was maybe the weirdest year for super bowl commercials ever. There were like two beer commercials. The rest were for AI Jesus and Mike Tyson telling you to eat apples. Yeah, I remember. It wasn't that many years ago, man. It was all light beers and pop, various kinds, Pepsi and Coke. Now it's AI because the world's going crazy. So I came across this Internet battle between a couple of people. I don't know who they are, and it doesn't make any difference, but is all over the issue of fat positive? Is this. What do you call that? Fat positivity?

[B]

Body positivity? Yeah. Yeah. Fat acceptance.

[A]

Acceptance. That's what it is that James Lindsay has written about before. And we went through this thing, or we're still going through this thing. It's got these examples. This one person posted from covers of Cosmopolitan magazine with some very, very overweight women. Like, you know, really, you're really, really, really big. And this is healthy. And this is the new healthy or something like that. And how we got on that kick of, I think, like, we overreacted maybe. I don't know. Because nobody. Nobody wants to be that size, right?

[B]

No.

[A]

So, I mean, you know, you can make the argument that it's. Well, I don't know. I don't even know what to take from this, but nobody wants to be that size. So suggesting being not that size would be better. I Would, I, would, would. I think you could say that out.

[B]

Loud, but.

[A]

Maybe you can't. Maybe you can. Anyway, so this is back and forth between these people, as I was, I was mentioning, and it included this, which I thought was really something, and then they blame it on big pharma and all these different things going back and forth. But this is an article from the New York Times. Some doctors wait a while before trying to get patients to lose weight because if you bring it up, they get very angry. And this is from the article. Dr. Scott Hagan, a Seattle primary care doctor, goes further edging toward an obesity last approach that is common among doctors. If a patient comes in with obesity and obesity related conditions, he starts by treating the related conditions with drugs he knows he can work. Only later, when the patients are comfortable with him, and if the other conditions are not improved, will he discuss trying the obesity drugs. Focusing on losing weight. People with obesity added tend to have a long history of fraught relationships with doctors who blame them for their weight, despite their having spent years, even decades trying diets and exercise. Many of them, he says, will put off the first thing he tries to treat, which is obesity.

[B]

Huh.

[A]

So are doctors afraid to say, well, you're really, really overweight is what the problem is here. There's another little part of this if I can't find it. But it was, it was basically on the. Finally, now that GLPs have become so popular and so many people have lost weight with them, is it okay to say out loud and I, I don't know what to extent any of this is true, that you can say out loud these things or can't say out loud that, you know, your knees, your ankles, your joints, your back, all these different sorts of things were because of your weight and that's why you had these problems. But I never said talk to, you know, I would treat you for your knee pain, but we wouldn't talk about the fact that you're £400 is why your knees hurt all the time. Right?

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And now that the GLPs have become more popular, you can say out loud that, well, you had knee pain because you were so overweight. You think there's any truth to that?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, I do. I've never been a doctor, played doctor as a younger man, but successfully did it usually work? Didn't hurt.

[A]

So.

[B]

I, I can see especially as they describe people who've tried and tried and tried and tried to lose weight. If the doctor just at the outset gets after me, you gotta lose some weight, you gotta Lose some weight. They don't want to hear it anymore, so they turn it off so the doctor can't help them.

[A]

I don't have any idea what doctors do, but doctors certainly should say, if you got like your knees and your ankles hurt all the time and you're £450, say, have you tried losing weight? Because I think your weight is the main reason your knees hurt. And then they can say, yeah, I go to the gym five days a week and eat nothing but lettuce. Although that's probably not the, I mean, acting like that's the most common case is probably not accurate.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So what are doctors supposed to do? Treat with. Treated with drugs or maybe that's what people want? I have no idea.

[B]

I don't know. I don't know. I'm not a doctor. I'm not even sure I understand what you're asking.

[A]

I didn't know that that was happening in doctor's offices. What they, what they wrote in the New York Times. I didn't know that that was a common thing, that they're not willing to bring up obesity. Obesity last is usually the approach, is what the New York Times claim.

[B]

I'm surprised it's gone that far. Yeah, yeah, it seems obvious, but I don't know, I just, I try to keep in mind what I'm like in the mainstream of what I'm an outlier of and what I'm like just a flat weirdo about. And I've always been a realist about weight. I know exactly how overweight I am and the effects it has and what weight I'd like to be and what I've tried to do and what I've not bothered trying to do to get back to the weight. And I've lost a ton of weight gained stuff, so I'm not. It's impossible to offend me at the doctor's office saying, you know, you probably had to drop £20. I'd be like, yeah, I know. So I don't know. It's tough for me to picture, but I could see somebody. Yeah. Reacting the way they described in the New York Times. Yeah.

[A]

All I know is what I'm reading about in these articles. But if you do have situations where people have bad knees and bad ankles and the doctor knows it's because of the weight and they don't bring up the weight, that's not good doctoring, I don't think. At least. No, you gotta let people know that. It's the amount of weight your knees carry around is where Your knees hurt. Now, we can address whether or not you can lose a weight and how you're trying, whatever.

[B]

But I think what the doctors were saying in that article is if I go with that first, I've lost them. They're gone.

[A]

Yeah, it's like.

[B]

It's like a teenager. You just. If you go so hardcore, you lose the connection. It's over. That's the way I interpreted that article.

[A]

But which I've found a very annoying reality.

[B]

I think you're having trouble understanding it because you're a gay Nazi. And I have proof from the Wall Street Journal's auto review column.

[A]

I'm not gay state.

[B]

You're not only are you gay, you're a gay Nazi. And I have proof. I think I mentioned that. I'm telling you. And it's from a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. And you know how the Nobel Prize, you know, after the. Our wet behind the ears youth passed away and we learned what the Nobel Prize is and who's on the committee and what they reward and stuff, you realize, oh, okay. It's a progressive activist group that the progressive press pretends is just the arbiters of all that is good and holy. Right? Pulitzer Prize committee. Wait till I tell you about them.

[A]

And you can do that next segment.

[B]

Right in your whole GN status.

[A]

One more thing on the weight thing that I think is relevant. The fact that we soft pedal downplayed that during COVID the relationship between COVID deaths and. And being overweight was crazy, but it got like no attention because of it being offensive or whatever.

[B]

You know what? That is great evidence that perhaps the. My realist's view of you don't want to lose them. So you got a soft pedal it up. No, it's. It's way, way crazier than that. You're right. That's a good point.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I mean, people were freaking dying, right? Well, I don't want to say they're heavy.

[A]

They could die.

[B]

Well, still, you know, fat acceptance, blah, blah, blah. That's just insane.

[A]

Yeah, that's something. Okay, we got what Joe said.

[C]

Coming up next, Armstrong and Getty.

[A]

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, as we speak, is in Congress being pressed by Democrats about his relationship with Epstein. Kind of like to hear that as he is on tape once saying, I'm never spending another moment with that guy. And then he spent, it would seem, quite a few moments with the guy after that. So.

[B]

I just, I can't get past the flip flop. And when they had power, they didn't give a crap Right?

[A]

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

[B]

Power. So now they want to know everything. And back and forth.

[A]

No doubt.

[B]

So I came across this from Andrew Stiles in the Free Beacon and was amused by it. And I went to the original source and it turns out he's right. The Wall Street Journal car review, vehicle review thing, it's written by Dan Neal, who's a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. It's one of the strangest reviews I've ever read in my life. And this is the Jack is a gay Nazi thing.

[A]

Well, you sure say that a lot. I feel like it's going to stick if you keep saying it.

[B]

Katie, do you understand why saying Jack is a gay Nazi is kind of enjoyable? Oh, 100%. I'm sorry, 100% what?

[A]

I would.

[B]

I love saying Jack is a gay Nazi. There it is. It sounds even better coming out of your mouth than it does.

[A]

See, the gay thing is not. If I were gay, I'd be. I would be openly gay. I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not gay and it's not going to help my dating prospects. The Nazi part is really difficult to deal with.

[B]

Were you or were you not approached by a white supremacist skinhead in a public library? I was to recruit you to Nazism.

[A]

I was.

[B]

I rest my case. Anyway, so as Andrew. As Andrew Stiles writes, journalists are the worst. Even those who don't cover politics are often incapable of writing normal sentences without flaunting their sneering disdain for normal Americans. For instance, you might not believe us if we told you. The Wall Street Journal's Pulitzer Prize winning auto critic recently compared Americans who enjoy large trucks with gas powered engines to Herman Guring, the Nazi commander who founded the Gestapo and whose martial flamboyance fueled persistent rumors about his sexuality. That's exactly what. What's his face did the guy. Oh, there it is. Dan Neal did the opening paragraph of his review of ford's gas powered F250 Super Duty. Must be seen to be believed. Jack Armstrong, do you or do you not drive a Ford F250 Super Duty truck?

[A]

I do.

[B]

Kitty Nazi. Anyway, so.

[A]

Wow, you're connecting the dots.

[C]

But.

[B]

And I'll get into the actual review. But as Andrew Stiles writes, the opening paragraphs have to be seen to believe. Be believed. Even then, it's absurd enough to make you wonder if an editor messed up by uploading the wrong text. Just a totally normal way to start a truck review. I'm going to read you the opening to the review. Russell Crowe's portrayal of Nazi leader Hermann Guring in the film Nuremberg is brilliant but incomplete. Little is made of Guring's outrageous personal style. The power blue Reich Marshall's uniform, the fur lined capes, the diamond encrusted badges and batons, the face makeup. Guring's sartorial choices raised suspicions among both the Allies in the Nazi high command that he was a homosexual. Keeping in mind I'm Recent Truck Review.

[A]

This is a review of an F250 Super Duty diesel.

[B]

A truck review. Correct. Anyway, he was a homosexual.

[A]

That's quite an opening for a review of an automobile.

[B]

He's just getting started. So he was a homosexual? He wasn't. Apparently a later generation of sociologists might have diagnosed Guring's martial flamboyance as a form of homeovestism that is exaggerated and often impractical. Gender normative dress or behavior intended to signal elite social status.

[A]

Now, did you click on a hyperlink or is this still part of the F250 truck review?

[B]

Still part of the review.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Although the term is clinically obsolete, examples of male peacocking are as close as the nearest bejeweled Patek Philippe. Okay, I see expensive now.

[A]

I see where they're going now already.

[B]

Sterling silver Rodeo belt buckle or jumped up gold plated pickup. Indeed, there are many examples of behavior intended to signal elite social status. Blah blah blah. And then picking up again with Andrew Stiles. Your job is to write about cars. It's certainly the most relevant, not the most relevant option to sneer at people who drive pickup trucks. Comparing people you don't like to Nazis is another classic case. Most people would regard it as obnoxious preening, but such is the cost of asserting one's moral righteousness.

[A]

Yeah, and I'm assuming when you drive your Prius or Tesla or something like that, it's not not peacocking and signaling something. Yours is just a solid decision. Okay, fine, whatever.

[B]

Yeah, what'd you expect? A truck review, writes Andrew.

[A]

Yeah, that's hilarious. So he's reviewing a truck and he has to have many, many paragraphs to get around to insulting people who would drive a truck. That's his truck review.

[B]

In Neil's view, the typical F250 owner is an insecure roofing contractor, some other pampered redneck who wants to make his rivals jelly and tow his pleasure boat on weekends. And then he points out for context, the F series is the best selling vehicle lineup in the United States for nearly half a century. The sight of me hopping down from the Driver's seat has real Greg Bevino energy. He sneers, referencing for no reason whatsoever the border patrol commander who led the immigration crackdown in Minnesota. Wow. And then he claims to detect a hint of lavender in the cabin. Wink, wink. Gay.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

What final thoughts this Armstrong hunt. Getty. Yeah.

[A]

Okay, here's your host for final thoughts. Joe Getty.

[B]

Was that guring there? Hey, let's get a final thought from everybody on the crew, starting with Michelangelo in the control room. Michael, hit it. We didn't have time for this earlier, but I want to play it. Here we go.

[D]

Second down, 25:03 to go. Someone has run on the field. Some guy with a bra. And now he's not being chased. He's running down the middle.

[A]

The 40.

[D]

Arms in the air and a victory salute. He's pulling down his pants. Put up your pants, my man. Pull up those pants. He's being chased to the 30. He breaks a tackle from a security guard. The 20 down the middle, the 10, the 5. He slides at the 1 and they converge on him at the goal line. Pull up your punch pants, take off the bra and be a man.

[A]

We need more of that with our streakers.

[B]

Oh, I love that. Katie Greener, esteemed newswoman, has a final thought. Katie, hard to follow that, but all I've got is that chicken banana song has been stuck in my head since the seven o'.

[A]

Clock. There you go.

[B]

I'm not happy about it. I hate the modern world. Jack, final thought.

[A]

Yeah. I'm going to be following this social media case today. Google is going to respond to the accusations of them making an addictive product for kids. This is. I think it'll be fascinating to follow.

[B]

One more quote from this Dan Neal character in his gay Nazi truck review. They mentioned that in his recent review of the new Subaru Crosstrek sport hybrid, he praised it as having a. For anybody who's ever longed for a powertrain that reflects their values.

[A]

Oh my God. How did you a get sign doing car reviews.

[B]

Not to mention super duty truck reviews. Wow.

[A]

Armstrong and Getty wrapping up another grueling four hour workday.

[B]

So many people.

[A]

Thanks.

[B]

So little time. Go to armstrong getty.com A lot of great clicks there. The hot the hot links. Oh so fabulous. Katie's corner. You can drop us a note mailbag at armstrong and getty.com. pick up his T shirt that reflects your values. How about ruin the entire country? Gavin Newsom, 2028 or hot dogs are dogs.

[A]

We will see you tomorrow. God bless America.

[B]

Armstrong and getty they're way better at words.

[C]

Bad words.

[B]

Oh, my. Words.

[A]

Words.

[B]

It is time for us to do what we have been doing. And that time is every day feal matter fat. But it's also a bob. It's a bobcat.

[A]

Is the thing a bobcat. It's true. Thank you all and as always, everybody.

[B]

Else, I love you. Thank you all very much. Armstrong and Getty, this is an I heart podcast.

[A]

Guaranteed human.