Speaker 1: Michael.
Speaker 2: I had a friend who witnessed the nineteen ninety two
Speaker 2: Rodney King Grace riots first hand, and it meant it
Speaker 2: was like war. So I think because of that saying,
Speaker 2: really that Trump is being proactive and he's doing the
Speaker 2: right thing.
Speaker 3: Oh, I agree, because if you allowed to get out
Speaker 3: of hand, it will turn into nineteen ninety two. I
Speaker 3: was there about four days after the riots ended, and
Speaker 3: it was it was, It was unbelievable. It really was
Speaker 3: widespread and destructive. South central LA was just a hell hole.
Speaker 3: But south central LA is kind of a hell hole. Anyway,
Speaker 3: last night, watching the Weather Reporter, as I normally, do
Speaker 3: you know Dave Fraser, don't you guys have Dave Fraser
Speaker 3: over on Mandy Show occasionally.
Speaker 4: Every Wednesday, Wednesday Colorado's most accurate weather forecast, And so
Speaker 4: that's why I watched KDVR, and of course I subscribe
Speaker 4: to Corey's Weather Report from up in Greeley.
Speaker 3: But they're both predicting that by this weekend it could
Speaker 3: be ninety degrees Czechs calendar, Oh it's June, And in fact,
Speaker 3: Fraser said last night on his weather report, yeah, I
Speaker 3: think it's Saturday. Your Sundays we're supposed to be in
Speaker 3: the nineties that normally we're a little late because usually
Speaker 3: we have ninety degree weather before.
Speaker 1: So it's summertime, right, So cue the hysteria.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying Fraser's doing that, but you know that
Speaker 3: Everybody's going to start talking about how hot it is,
Speaker 3: Oh my god, because just like clockwork, the media is
Speaker 3: going to try to gear us up, to convince us
Speaker 3: that rising urban temperatures are a direct consequence of climate change,
Speaker 3: and of course the greenhouse gases, you know, like the
Speaker 3: carbon dioxide that you know, Ay Rodgers, and they're spewing
Speaker 3: out as he sits back there in bitches and moans
Speaker 3: about me. We already have ominous headlines from The Guardian,
Speaker 3: the San Francisco Chronicle and others that will flood your
Speaker 3: feeds on whatever social media or new sites you use,
Speaker 3: warning of these heat fuel catastrophes, and nobody are asked
Speaker 3: a simple question, where do we measure these temperatures and
Speaker 3: what else, if anything, could be causing heat, particularly in
Speaker 3: the summertime. You know, when we well we've moved into
Speaker 3: the hot season. Yes, it's gonna get hot. Well, here's
Speaker 3: a spoiler alert. It's not your internal combustion engine. It's
Speaker 3: not your suv. Oh you know, I hadn't thought about this.
Speaker 3: It could be the burning vehicles in Los Angeles. That
Speaker 3: could be what's causing a heat. In fact, that's probably
Speaker 3: why Dave Fraser has forecasted that by this weekend we'll
Speaker 3: have ninety degree temperatures because all those burning vehicles in LA,
Speaker 3: all of that heat's going to be picked up by
Speaker 3: you know, a Pacific front. They will sweep down California,
Speaker 3: it'll move, you know, up down through Arizona, pick up
Speaker 3: some heat there and then move up here. So the
Speaker 3: additional heat from the burning cars are going to cause
Speaker 3: us to have a heat wave. I'm not trying to
Speaker 3: be funny. I'm trying to point out that's how stupid
Speaker 3: this whole thing is. Well, The Guardian recently warned that
Speaker 3: the United States faces quote another summer of extreme heat,
Speaker 3: but in a feed of mental gymnastics, they managed to
Speaker 3: link summertime temperatures with are you ready Trump era tax cuts?
Speaker 3: Because you see, tax policy is a thermostat. Write that down.
Speaker 3: Tax policy is a thermostat. I know you maybe be
Speaker 3: you might be a little bewildered right now, but That's
Speaker 3: why I'm here to help you become unbewildered. In fact,
Speaker 3: let me just read you the headline from the Guardian.
Speaker 3: US faces another summer of extreme heat as fears rise
Speaker 3: over Trump cuts. The subhead Brutal heat and drought expected
Speaker 3: to blanket the country from Nevada to Florida, as experts
Speaker 3: worry climate cuts will burn. Notice too, that it was
Speaker 3: from where was it from Nevada, which is always hot
Speaker 3: in the summer, down to Florida, which is hot and
Speaker 3: humid and miserable during the summer. I don't understand all
Speaker 3: you people a skeeping Colorado and going to Florida. Meanwhile,
Speaker 3: Spain's sports scorching late May forecast, which which is all
Speaker 3: over that country right now, comes with the heels of
Speaker 3: remember the energy blackouts caused by, ironically the very green
Speaker 3: policies that Spain and Portugal kept hailing as there, Oh,
Speaker 3: this salvation is gonna save us. So when the wind
Speaker 3: stopped blowing and the sun went down, the entire grid failed.
Speaker 3: But speaking of nuance, don't expect that nuance in any
Speaker 3: sort of climate reporting that you're going to start reading about.
Speaker 3: Once again, the Guardian, Spain braces for late May heat
Speaker 3: wave with forty degrees centigrade forecasts in south of country,
Speaker 3: high pressure and hot dry air from North Africa to
Speaker 3: bring temperatures five to ten degrees above normal for the
Speaker 3: time of the for this time of the year. Now,
Speaker 3: not to be outdone, let's go to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Speaker 3: This is from May twenty six. California is bracing for
Speaker 3: the first major heat stretch of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Here's how hot it's going to get.
Speaker 3: Clearly sensationalist headlines, and they omit a little crucial context.
Speaker 3: Urbanization and land use changes, not greenhouse gas concentrations are
Speaker 3: or what's really driving much of this observed warming? And
Speaker 3: I say observed warming because I'll give you a little
Speaker 3: historical data in just a minute. It's pretty common. In fact,
Speaker 3: Dave Fraser even often mentions this because our official weather
Speaker 3: reporting station is out at Denver International. Now, granted, there's
Speaker 3: a hell of a lot of concrete out at Denver International,
Speaker 3: but the temperature is usually higher in downtown Denver. Even
Speaker 3: when the Pollit Bureau is not in session and you
Speaker 3: don't have all of that that hot air blowing out,
Speaker 3: you still have well, you've got you know, all the
Speaker 3: homeless farts and the heat wave from the homeless down
Speaker 3: the streets, and you got the sixteenth Street mall, and
Speaker 3: you got all the cars and traffic you can't move
Speaker 3: anywhere because of the potholes. You have urban heat. And
Speaker 3: even Dave Fraser points out, Oh, yeah, it's hotter downtown,
Speaker 3: but that's to be expected because of oh urbanization, which
Speaker 3: obviously amplifies heat readings, because of all the extended concrete
Speaker 3: and the reduced vegetation. But I want you to take
Speaker 3: a closer look at how the headlines and all the
Speaker 3: congregants in the Church of the climate activists systematically misrepresent reality.
Speaker 3: Heat Waves were traditionally understood simply as listen closely extended
Speaker 3: pureeriods of temperatures significantly above average. That's what say, when
Speaker 3: you and I were growing up, or even when a
Speaker 3: rod was just a twinkle in his parent's eyes, which
Speaker 3: I understand why it was a twinkle. It was like frightening,
Speaker 3: but nonetheless extended periods of temperatures significantly above average. But
Speaker 3: the definitions change again, going back to my point about
Speaker 3: pay attention to the language, pay attention to how they
Speaker 3: try to change the definition of words, because now the
Speaker 3: definition of the heat wave has been broadened. Now it
Speaker 3: takes in factors like duration, humidity, nighttime temperatures. So if
Speaker 3: you're going to take all of that and add it in,
Speaker 3: then it's really hard to make comparisons to historical data sets. Now,
Speaker 3: heat waves are not correlated with atmospheric CO two concentrations
Speaker 3: or emissions. Instead, the expanding urban heat island effect and
Speaker 3: the growing bullseye of urbanization that increases human exposure and
Speaker 3: our perceived impacts. If you're strolling around in a park somewhere,
Speaker 3: you know, out maybe on the front range, out in
Speaker 3: the flat irons, it's not going to be nearly as
Speaker 3: hot as if you are walking around Union Station or
Speaker 3: sixteenth Street or the sixteenth Street Mall.
Speaker 1: I think they should go back to the sixteenth Street.
Speaker 3: Mall name, except instead of spelling at m al l
Speaker 3: as someone suggested, m aul. Yeah, the sixteenth Street Mall.
Speaker 3: Heat Waves again, are not correlated with atmospheric CO two
Speaker 3: concentrations or emissions. It's a bullseye effect to across the
Speaker 3: nature of heat waves. Let's think about it historically. In
Speaker 3: nineteen thirty six, North America had a devastating heat wave.
Speaker 3: That heat wave nineteen thirty six dust Bowl, anybody, occurred
Speaker 3: at a time when atmospheric CO two was about three
Speaker 3: hundred and ten parts per million compared to today's level
Speaker 3: of about four hundred and twenty three parts per million.
Speaker 3: The nineteen thirty six temperature averages, and where it was
Speaker 3: much above normal. Oklahoma the epicenter, if you will, the
Speaker 3: dust Bowl eighty four point four degrees, Kansas eighty two
Speaker 3: point two. Ooh, Nebraska seventy seven point eight. That's a
Speaker 3: record war for Nebraska and for South Dakota seventy eight.
Speaker 3: Can't read the number of area seventy eight point eight
Speaker 3: and North Dakota seventy one point five, but it's good
Speaker 3: to Colorado. It was above normal at sixty seven point seven.
Speaker 3: Now that's those are records. So despite the addition of
Speaker 3: billions of additional tons of greenhouse gas emissions that have
Speaker 3: been emitted since the dust Bowl, that historical event clearly
Speaker 3: demonstrates that heat weighs can and do occur naturally, and
Speaker 3: they occur independently of any sort of level of modern
Speaker 3: greenhouse gas emissions. So that raises a fundamental question that
Speaker 3: I've mentioned numerous times. If heat is the real issue,
Speaker 3: how can the solutions that the Church of the Climate
Speaker 3: activists keep pushing, like solar and wind farms that demonstrably
Speaker 3: increase surface temperatures, how can they help.
Speaker 1: Studies indicate that.
Speaker 3: These green energy installations contribute significantly to localized heating, so
Speaker 3: that obviously is an exacerbate urban heat islands and create
Speaker 3: warmer conditions precisely where populations are the densest. The phenomenon
Speaker 3: known as the urban heat island effect, caused by replacing
Speaker 3: natural land services with heat retaining infrastructure, logically and significantly
Speaker 3: increases urban temperatures independent of any global climate trends. For example,
Speaker 3: when Las Vegas broke records last year, it wasn't because
Speaker 3: of greenhouse gas emissions, but because they had expand significantly
Speaker 3: Harry Reid International Airport, that's where the weather station is located.
Speaker 3: If you look at aerial photos, you'll see that the.
Speaker 1: The natural landscape.
Speaker 3: In fact, as I look at two comparable pictures before
Speaker 3: and after nineteen seventy seven and twenty twenty four, it's
Speaker 3: as if the amount of concrete has increased by at
Speaker 3: least two thirds, and then you've got oh, then you
Speaker 3: have additional heat wave. There's some resources done by Spencer
Speaker 3: Christian Braswell that quantifies the overlooked effect. That study reveals
Speaker 3: that up to sixty five percent of observed warming in
Speaker 3: urban and suburban areas is directly attributable to the urban
Speaker 3: heat island effect. So when you hear that abstract was
Speaker 3: published by the way, Roy Spencer was the lead author
Speaker 3: on it, who does great work. You got to go
Speaker 3: read that abstract because it's pretty intensive and completely debunks
Speaker 3: this idea that greenhouse gas emissions are causing these heat waves.
Speaker 1: But here's the kicker.
Speaker 3: Many of the highest warming trends come from stations placed
Speaker 3: at airports, where the heat radiates off the asphalt in
Speaker 3: the concrete, not the atmosphere. So arguments such as Detroit
Speaker 3: is greening and losing population miss the mark entirely. They
Speaker 3: overlook what the National Weather Service does by strategically placing
Speaker 3: their weather stations and these persistent heat islands irrespecting of
Speaker 3: suburban shifts. So why move it out to Denver International Airport?
Speaker 3: Why not keep it in?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: If let's put it down in Douglas County, lots of
Speaker 3: urban space, and I mean we got lots of open
Speaker 3: space down in Douglas County to put it down there.
Speaker 3: Why not put it out, you know, in Commerce city somewhere.
Speaker 3: So all these claims that say that warming oceans and
Speaker 3: polar regions as the counter arguments, that fails when you
Speaker 3: scrutinize those two because the dynamics that are driving oceanic
Speaker 3: and polar warming differ drastically from urban heat island phenomenon.
Speaker 3: Yet all those nuances are ignored by all the major
Speaker 3: climate reports, particularly the IPCC. So that leads us to
Speaker 3: a simple question, what does the latest research truly say
Speaker 3: about the urban heat islands and why is mainstream climate
Speaker 3: science so intent on ignoring it? For example, the IPC,
Speaker 3: the Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change, they downplay the
Speaker 3: role of land use in urbanization. When they do their
Speaker 3: core assessments, they attribute only a small fraction of total
Speaker 3: ratedty forcing to land use change. Instead, what do they
Speaker 3: do They favor greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO two, They
Speaker 3: just choose to say, hell it's CO two, and they
Speaker 3: just ignore the urban heat effect. So you don't have
Speaker 3: any room in their framework for including urbanization or the
Speaker 3: heat retention effects of any infrastructure. So by doing that minimization,
Speaker 3: that makes their scientific basis completely indefensible. Now, I know
Speaker 3: that's an attack on the dogma and the religion of
Speaker 3: the church of the climate activists, but nonetheless that's what
Speaker 3: they do. They lie to you. So what did Roy
Speaker 3: Spencer and those in their study in twenty twenty five
Speaker 3: actually find. Now that paper that I referenced earlier uses
Speaker 3: population density thresholds to classify stations and then empirically derive
Speaker 3: the temperature contribution of urban heat island effects across four
Speaker 3: different population tiers. So those four are as follows. Rural
Speaker 3: stations zeroly ten persons per square kilometer accounts for about
Speaker 3: eight percent PERI. Rural stations ten to one hundred persons
Speaker 3: per square kilometer substantially more urban heat influence. Suburban urban
Speaker 3: stations more than one hundred person per square kilometer sixty
Speaker 3: five percent of observed warming from the urban heat indets
Speaker 3: across all stations, only twenty two percent of observed warming
Speaker 3: is attributable to the urban heat effect. So back to
Speaker 3: Roy Spencer's study, he says, our results suggest that some
Speaker 3: portion of the long term warning the United States surface
Speaker 3: temperature record should not be attributed to global radiative forcing.
Speaker 3: Now they don't suggest that greenhouse gases or CO two
Speaker 3: doesn't have any effect, but it does force an uncomfortable
Speaker 3: question that the congregates in the Church of the climate
Speaker 3: activists simply won't ask, which is, if climate models and
Speaker 3: public policy are based on surface temperature records that are
Speaker 3: biased by urbanization, then how much of the current dogma,
Speaker 3: the current gospel, if you will, is built on a
Speaker 3: warming signal.
Speaker 1: It's not global at all.
Speaker 3: You see, the climate narrative that everybody wants us to
Speaker 3: use depends on conflating local with global. So until the IPCC,
Speaker 3: Noah and other ignoring urban heat influences or worse, hiding
Speaker 3: it under the rug, then why would you trust any
Speaker 3: of these headlines? Why would you trust any of the
Speaker 3: scientific integrity? In fact, I don't trust any of the
Speaker 3: scientific integrity anymore when it comes to those that simply
Speaker 3: will not admit that. Oh most and somebody pointed this
Speaker 3: out on the text line too. In fact, let me
Speaker 3: give you credit nine zero one six, right, rights, Michael.
Speaker 3: We must also see that normal heat measuring stations have
Speaker 3: been closed and replaced the station to use computer modeling.
Speaker 3: There's no temperature there's no thermometer over there stuck in
Speaker 3: the butt of the earth somewhere trying to get the temperature.
Speaker 3: It's just, Oh, a computer's going to model based on
Speaker 3: all these different factors of what the temperature I guess
Speaker 3: should be, as opposed to what the temperature is depends
Speaker 3: on your definition of is I guess speaking of environmentalists
Speaker 3: or just environmental whack a doodle stuff this whole thing about.
Speaker 3: I've got a real bugaboo about cyber trucks. And I'm
Speaker 3: not telling you the story to pick on Elon Musk.
Speaker 3: He's got enough problems of his own. But the very
Speaker 3: first time I saw a cyber truck in real life,
Speaker 3: I saw a picture and that was bad enough. But
Speaker 3: then seeing one in real life, and if you own one,
Speaker 3: well it sucks to be you, But I think you're
Speaker 3: driving a monstrosity.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: Over the weekend, The Wall Street Journal had a really
Speaker 3: good article by Becky Peterson that detailed the very predictable
Speaker 3: failure of this weirdly designed truck and how the cyber
Speaker 3: truck has come to symbolize the struggles that Tesla is
Speaker 3: having over all amid failing US EV markets. The impacts
Speaker 3: of Trump's tariffs and of course very rapidly changing federal
Speaker 3: public policy regarding the environment and all these mandates. Now,
Speaker 3: I always thought, and I know easy for me to
Speaker 3: say it in hindsight, but I really did wonder.
Speaker 1: In fact, a friend of.
Speaker 3: Mine, when the cyber truck came out, was determined to
Speaker 3: get on the list to buy one, waited forever to
Speaker 3: get one, and I kept asking him, are you sure
Speaker 3: you really want this?
Speaker 1: Now he's still.
Speaker 3: Driving it, but kind of the excitements worn off. So
Speaker 3: I kind of thought, well before they started rolling off
Speaker 3: the assembly line that they probably would be a failure
Speaker 3: because they're going to have to appeal to a really
Speaker 3: tiny segment of the population. And quite frankly, and even
Speaker 3: though my friend's not exactly the wealthiest guy in the world,
Speaker 3: they were marketed really to wealthy end of that could
Speaker 3: afford to buy these things. So you combine the cost
Speaker 3: with what I consider it to be a bizarre design
Speaker 3: that automatically limits the available market to perhaps one tenth
Speaker 3: of the country's wealthiest five percent.
Speaker 1: Well, in the Wall Street Journal article, the author is.
Speaker 3: The reporter I yuess, I should say, is really less
Speaker 3: critical of the way the thing looks. She refers to
Speaker 3: the cyber truck as an angular, stainless steel pickup which
Speaker 3: was supposed to generate buzz for Tesla by showcasing new
Speaker 3: technology and unlocking the lucrative truck market. She's so much
Speaker 3: more polite than I am. How do you think they're
Speaker 3: but ugly?
Speaker 1: Just but ugly.
Speaker 3: But here's some highlights from the report cyber Truck Challenges. Now,
Speaker 3: the reason I find this interesting is I didn't know
Speaker 3: any of this stuff, so therefore it's interesting to me.
Speaker 3: I want to make it interesting to you. And if
Speaker 3: you own a cyber truck, well, sorry, but the info
Speaker 3: I'm going to give you, some of which you probably
Speaker 3: already know from personal experience, and two you probably know
Speaker 3: if you've tried to sell it or you've experienced some
Speaker 3: of the recalls. So the Tesla cyber Truck, which is
Speaker 3: really my most ambitious electric pickup.
Speaker 1: Eight recalls.
Speaker 3: Eight recalls since early twenty twenty four, different problems detaching panels,
Speaker 3: failing windshield wipers, and then just this past March, there
Speaker 3: was a major recall that affected forty six thousand cyber
Speaker 3: trucks because there was a trim panel that could detach
Speaker 3: and obviously that increased crush risks. So now every time
Speaker 3: you drive by a cyber truck, just think, any of
Speaker 3: those steel panels or whatever the hell are made out
Speaker 3: of might just come flying off. Forty six thousand of
Speaker 3: them might just come flying off. Sales have been dismal,
Speaker 3: only thirty nine thousand units sold last year. The sales
Speaker 3: goal two hundred and fifty thousand, a quarter million. They
Speaker 3: didn't even make fifty thousand, only thirty nine thousand sold.
Speaker 3: Tesla's overall sales dropped thirteen percent on the first quarter
Speaker 3: of this year, obviously reflecting I think, obviously competition and
Speaker 3: aging lineup, and I think probably to some degree, although
Speaker 3: it's not qualified either by me or the Wall Street
Speaker 3: Journal backlash against Musk's political involvement. Then there was the
Speaker 3: explosion incident. Remember the cyber truck explosion outside Trump's Las
Speaker 3: Vegas hotel back on January first, killed the driver in
Speaker 3: Now must tried to clarify that the blast was caused
Speaker 3: by fireworks or a bomb, not the vehicle itself, and
Speaker 3: he totally, he completely and totally assisted the investigators with
Speaker 3: all the data, and that earned him some praise from
Speaker 3: the authorities. But I'm not really sure we know the
Speaker 3: exact cause yet. And then there's a poor performance and
Speaker 3: Must feud with Trump. It's kind of a brand Tornado crisis,
Speaker 3: if you will, with protest.
Speaker 1: Targeting Tesla showrooms globally.
Speaker 3: Analyst Dan Ives urged Must to reduce his Trump related
Speaker 3: work in order to mitigate the damage to his country,
Speaker 3: to his country, to his company, which is exactly what
Speaker 3: Must did.
Speaker 1: And then Tesla's stock.
Speaker 3: Slumped fourteen percent last week amid the few although it
Speaker 3: has recovered slightly, but the conflict rattled the markets, impacting
Speaker 3: Tesla and SpaceX and of course strained must roll in
Speaker 3: the Trump administration. And I think Trump recognized that, Yeah,
Speaker 3: maybe it's a problem here. Let's back off the bottom line.
Speaker 3: The cyber truck has been a major design, marketing and
Speaker 3: a quality failure. It's turned out to be a a
Speaker 3: fiasco for Tesla in general that really had otherwise pretty
Speaker 3: much enjoyed adequate success and has become the unchallenged leader
Speaker 3: in the EV space in the United States. So I
Speaker 3: think it's probably worthwhile to note that Musk himself personally
Speaker 3: oversaw and approved the design of that bizarre imitation of
Speaker 3: a pickup truck. I don't know, we keep calling any
Speaker 3: pickup truck. I know a lot of ranchers and real cowboys,
Speaker 3: not urban cowboys, but like real cowboys. Not one of
Speaker 3: them owns a cyber pickup truck, so we just call
Speaker 3: it the truck and not a pickup truck, which only
Speaker 3: proves that only even geniuses have really stupid moments in
Speaker 3: their lives, as exemplified by Musk's absurd pissing contests with
Speaker 3: the President of the United States. So here's an excerpt
Speaker 3: from the story at the Wall Street Journalist. I want
Speaker 3: to share this with you. The bromance between Musk and
Speaker 3: Trump is ending in a difficult time for Tesla, which
Speaker 3: at the time of the article had a three point
Speaker 3: seven three point six seven percent increase green uppointing triangle.
Speaker 3: The electric vehicle maker lost roughly one hundred and fifty
Speaker 3: billion dollars in market value last Thursday, It's biggest drop
Speaker 3: ever after the Tesla CEO and Trump started trading insults.
Speaker 3: Sales of Tesla have slumped this year. Tariffs could disrupt
Speaker 3: a supply of key components. The sprawling Republican Tax and
Speaker 3: Spending bill would end the tax credits for ev buyers,
Speaker 3: for which I think, hallelujah. I don't want to subsidize
Speaker 3: your purchase of any ev let alone a cyber truck.
Speaker 3: But she writes, Dusk set high expectations for the cyber truck,
Speaker 3: telling investors it would be Tesla's.
Speaker 1: Best product ever.
Speaker 3: The angular stainless steel pickup was supposed to generate buzz
Speaker 3: for Tesla by showcasing new technology and unlocking the lucrative
Speaker 3: truck market. Instead, it has become synonymous with musk, polarizing
Speaker 3: in politics, exposing some owners through graffiti or middle fingers
Speaker 3: from other drivers, and its reputation has been tarnished among
Speaker 3: Tesla fans because of that space of recalls and manufacturing
Speaker 3: issues that have resulted in cycles of repair. Here's the
Speaker 3: lesson from this entire story. Business and politics shouldn't marry
Speaker 3: each other. They probably shouldn't even date bud light cyber trucks. Hmm,
Speaker 3: same coin, same side. Probably we both agree that the
Speaker 3: box car which is called the what.
Speaker 5: The cube, Yeah, the Nissan Cube Cube. That's one of them.
Speaker 5: There's a couple.
Speaker 3: Well that that that to me has got to be
Speaker 3: the that if I had to drive either a cyber
Speaker 3: truck or that cube. I drive the cyber truck. That's
Speaker 3: one but ugly car. But then you compare all of
Speaker 3: that to a nineteen sixty seven red Ford Mustang convertible.
Speaker 5: Nicest tittle car.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you there is zero comparison. Oh, I'm
Speaker 1: well aware between those two. Yeah, that's oranges, apples and oranges.
Speaker 1: So what do you.
Speaker 5: Drive right now? Also a Nissan CRV? Oh brand new?
Speaker 1: All right? Oh? Brand new? Oh yeah?
Speaker 3: Oh man, that pay race. See that's where my pay
Speaker 3: raise went. Must have gone to you.
Speaker 6: Oh I always told you're paying for it. Well I have
Speaker 6: seen the bill yet, but I'd beat more. I'd be
Speaker 6: more than happy to do that for you can help
Speaker 6: you out. Uh, let's go to the UK real quickly.
Speaker 6: And here's what extremists are defined as in the UK.
Speaker 6: They're equated with terrorists. The government's anti radicalization program has
Speaker 6: decided that worries about mass migration. That's the word from
Speaker 6: the story which is in the Daily Mail. The government's
Speaker 6: anti radicalization program.
Speaker 1: Who stopping.
Speaker 3: I didn't even thought about that. Think about that for
Speaker 3: a second. So you have an anti radicalization program. Old
Speaker 3: brainwashing propaganda has decided that worries about mass migration are
Speaker 3: terrorist ideology. Among the dangerous beliefs flagged by Prevents online
Speaker 3: training course are cultural nationalism and the idea that Western
Speaker 3: culture is under threat. So if I took everything that
Speaker 3: I've talked about so far, last week and this week
Speaker 3: and broadcast that in the United Kingdom, I would be
Speaker 3: described as a terrorist and would be subject to their
Speaker 3: brainwashing anti radicalization program because I think that mass migration,
Speaker 3: of course we call it here illegal immigration, is indeed
Speaker 3: a problem for Western civilization and for that matter, the
Speaker 3: culture of the of this very country. So just call
Speaker 3: me a terrorist from now on, and cyber trucks still suck.
Speaker 5: That's pretty much all about
Speaker 1: Gentlemen as rotten the belt.