All Episodes
Previous Next
July 31, 2018 - Get Off My Lawn - Gavin McInnes
39:38
Ep 163 | Lawfare | Get Off My Lawn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, hello.
Check, check, check.
Are we recording?
Yes, that was the Thompson Twins with their big hit, Las, Las, Las, Yeah, Papa Nana, La's, Las.
I hate that song.
I hate the Thompson Twins.
I hate 80s pop music.
God, it sucked.
Was that cocaine?
Is that why music was so bad?
Because people were just, yeah, that's that, let's send it out, man.
It's really good.
That's a really good song.
And now that we're hungover in the year 2018, we can look back and go, you were high and that sucked.
And you looked ridiculous.
Look at them.
Look at the Thompson twins.
Today we have a very special episode.
Lawfaire, going to court.
Should we sue?
I notice there's this litigious culture, and I've always avoided it as a Canadian and a Brit.
We tend not to want to sue people.
And I've always said free speech should reign supreme.
But the Nazi thing is getting tedious constantly.
White supremacists, white nationalists, blah, blah.
Not just me, the entire right-wing movement.
Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Tommy Robinson, racist, racist, racist.
If you have a problem with Muslims, then you're racist, even though Islam is not a race.
If you have a problem with immigration, you're racist, even though immigrants are not a race.
If you have a problem with the left, then you're racist.
And they're suing us.
They're constantly threatening us.
We're constantly having to hire lawyers to rebuke claims.
And Ezra Levant gets it worse than anyone.
And I'm convinced it's Soros-related.
But maybe it's time to fight back.
Maybe we should engage in law first.
So I'm going to talk to two lawyers today.
I'm going to talk to Ron Coleman.
He was the guy who successfully freed the Slants from their trademark noose, where they were told they couldn't call themselves the Slants because that's racist.
They can't trademark that name.
And I'm also going to talk to Mark Randaza.
He's a controversial, somewhat left-wing lawyer who tends to defend these free speech cases.
And you see him on Infowars a lot.
Clink and you'll miss her.
This is the front page of the post.
I usually call the show after the front page of the post, but I'm going to call this one Law Fair because it's a special app dedicated to frivolous cases.
And should we or should we not sue?
But I thought this was funny.
She's supposed to serve weekends.
This is what Dinesh D'Souza had to do.
Serve weekends at Rikers.
But so she'd sign up and then just sort of not get on the bus.
And it worked for a while.
Kind of cool, right?
That's an idiocracy.
Remember idiocracy?
The way he escapes from prison is there's a lineup to go in the prison and a lineup to go out.
And he just skips the lineup to go in and goes to the lineup to go out.
And they go, where are your papers?
And he goes, what?
I just did my jail term.
And they went, oh, okay.
And they let him out of prison.
We have hit peak idiocracy in America.
I also want to talk.
This is not related to the show at all, but I need to get this in here.
You have to see this video.
It's Faith Goldie talking about the terror attack in Toronto.
Now, let me just give you the narrative.
All right?
Mentally ill man shoots some people.
Oh, that's sad.
Nothing to do with Islam.
That's the narrative.
Here's the truth.
Jihadist, shot up, Christian location.
Injured 13, managed to kill two beautiful little girls.
All right?
And this was the tip of the iceberg.
Him and his brother had a complete arsenal, and they weren't just planning to kill people with guns, of which they had dozens and dozens, but they were planning to kill them with chemical warfare.
On September 20th, 2017, Durham Regional Police executed a search warrant at Ansari's address, where the shooter's brother had been living, after firefighters noticed a suspicious substance in the basement and alerted police.
Police say that they discovered 33 guns and 42 kilograms of what was later identified as the very deadly drug, carfentanol.
Now, this is where the story gets really interesting.
You see, carfentanol isn't your usual street drug.
Carfentanol is 100 times stronger than its lethal cousin, fentanyl, making it 5,000 times stronger than heroin.
Developed way back in the 1970s as a tranquilizer for large animals like elephants and bears, the synthetic opioid has been studied as a potential chemical weapon by countries, including the U.S., China, and Israel.
Now, according to Alberta's chief medical officer, Dr. Karen Grimsrudd, an amount as small as a grain of sand can kill you.
You have to watch Faith's video.
It's amazing.
And she keeps an interrogative.
I'm not.
These guys were terrorists, and they were going to try to kill hundreds and hundreds of Canadians, Christians, infidels in the name of jihad, which is why ISIS took credit for it.
And what's really amazing about all of this is that the Prime Minister of Canada's reaction is to go surfing and to go on dates with gays.
I'm not even kidding.
Anyway, is it time to give up on the authorities and take the law into our own hands and engage in law affair?
I don't know.
Let's talk to some lawmen.
Let's start with old Ronnie.
Ron, are you there, sir?
I am.
Mr. Coleman, I'd like to consult you with all matters theistic and legal, and today I have some legal conundrums.
Good.
I'm dressed for legal.
Yeah, you don't have your Yamakon.
in case you swerve out of your life.
This Nazi allegation is getting ridiculous.
I get called a white nationalist every second day.
Actually, every day.
And I just want to sue them all because it's really damaging.
It affects, you know, your whole career.
It affects your family, your friends.
It's like being called a pedophile.
What can one do when they get called a Nazi?
Man up.
There's no recourse to the law.
Defamation law is essentially dead in this country.
There are some Nazi states where there is some remaining vestige of defamation law, but in those being called the Nazi would not be actionable.
Well, the allegation has got to the point where it means jerk.
It means person I disagree with.
So therefore, it's become non-defamatory.
it's just a rhetoric and that the courts especially in in new york and in the you know the non predominantly non-nazi uh areas where i practice um uh they they look at the context and they say if you're you know i mean let If it's on Twitter, it ain't defamation.
Because on Twitter, everyone's either a Nazi or an a-haul who calls people Nazis.
There's really not a lot of in-between.
Yeah, but if someone accuses, if someone wants to sue you for a tweet, for example, getting a lawyer to rebuke their allegation, you're looking at about four grand, five grand.
So if they want you to pay them five grand, it's about the same either way, whether you defend yourself or pay them off.
That's you're saying to defend a lawsuit, to defend against a lawsuit that was brought against you for a tweet.
Yes, is inevitably going to cost you three, four, five bills.
So why not just pay off the jerk who sued you?
Well, first of all, because guys like me don't make a living that way.
Actually, no, the plaintiff's lawyers do, because probably most of those guys are working on some kind of contingency.
They'll get a cut.
Yeah, it's got to the point now where defamation is rare.
But with most of this legal jargon, when it comes down to defending yourself and libel and everything, it's just become cheaper to settle.
I guess my big picture point here is that the law has left us behind.
I don't know if that's good or bad.
I think the more interesting question is which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Did the law leave us behind because it became, we're in an environment now where words are so meaningless and therefore it became so impossible to attach legal, you know, legal significance to rhetoric?
Or is it the fact that because the law of defamation became so weak over the last generation, that that's why words have become so weak?
I can't answer that question.
Probably Ben Shapiroker.
Really?
No, he's really smart.
But is he smart at law stuff?
Oh, yeah.
I mean, he doesn't do it every day as I do, but I didn't get into Harvard Law School, and he did.
Hmm.
Maybe I will call him right after this.
I'm sure he'll be picking up the phone really fast.
He will.
What are you saying?
Are you implying I'm not cool enough to get Ben Shapiro on the line like that?
I think he only talks for money.
Oh, I can get him.
He's on Crowder every other day.
More importantly, what if there was an article in the New York Times that called you a white nationalist?
You, Ron Coleman.
It called you a white nationalist, a white supremacist.
It said you were a Holocaust denier.
All of this stuff.
Would you ignore it?
No, I mean, I have a pretty decent platform, and I have friends like you and others whose platforms are many times the size of mine.
So I would just hit the internet and go to town.
I certainly wouldn't bother with a lawsuit.
That would just be a ridiculous waste of time.
Oh, really?
That's fascinating.
If you were to pursue it legally, would it be a defamation case?
I suppose, I mean, you know, I try not to bring lawsuits that are stupid, if I can avoid it.
Although many often feel stupid after when they're done.
I try not to walk into the door marked stupid.
But here I am, right?
What else could it be?
Defamation, right?
I mean, some kind of, but, you know, in New York and New Jersey, we're pretty much the sphere of my activity.
I mean, like a guy who's on Twitter and who's associated with the conservatives is understood to be a Nazi.
I mean, there are people who have put me on white nationalist lists.
And, you know, I had just, it's meaningless.
It's just, it's nonsense.
I mean, in fact, at this point, if you haven't been called a Nazi, there's something seriously wrong with you.
Seriously.
How could it not be?
I mean, if you're in favor of borders, the existence of borders, the axiom of national sovereignty, you're racist.
Racist and Nazi are now synonyms.
If you are pro-Trump, I mean, then you are presumed to adopt all his supposedly Nazi, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, it's escapable.
And you can slice and dice policy by policy.
I've been called Nazi many, many times, and I'm a really bad Nazi.
Yeah, you are.
Well, you know what I've been doing is sending the editor letters from a lawyer, and that means their lawyers have to go through it, through it, And parse out what's manageable.
Then they go back, they change the article.
And the big picture that I appreciate about that is: A, I've cost them money legally because their lawyers had to do something.
B, I've shown the editor that this particular writer is an amateur, and when he writes articles, usually she, when she writes articles, you have to go through her stuff and fix all her mistakes.
And C, you get the record changed, and they inevitably buckle.
They change the headline like that.
It's not like they ever want to, they have a hill to stand on.
They never fight back.
It's bizarre.
For you, it makes perfect sense because you're getting that all the time.
I mean, for me, it's just, you know, I think actually my Nazi era, my Nazi period is probably in the rearview mirror.
2017 was a very big year for me and the Bund, you know, but since then, you know, since Twitter basically separated the silos, and I tend to not encounter, you know, that kind of people unless I'm trolling, which, you know, everyone likes a little bit of fun.
I really don't, it's not something that comes up too often.
You know, I really mostly have to worry about the fact that so many of my family members think I'm a Nazi.
That's a long period.
Periods are usually only 28 days.
And just to clear everything up with the folks at home, you defended a band of Asians they wanted to be called the Slants.
Yeah.
And you won that case.
They were able to keep that offensive name.
They were always allowed to keep the offensive name.
The only question was whether they were allowed to register it as a trademark, the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Oh, yes.
They could call themselves whatever they wanted.
This was one of the few times in the last several years where the ACLU has gotten one right.
They were very helpful to us.
They have a pretty absolutist position with respect to free speech, unless it involves religion.
Luckily, religion wasn't implicated in this case, but they came out on our side.
And that probably made a big difference in terms of the left wing of the court.
I think we got Justice Ginsburg's vote by virtue of her longtime association with the ACLU, as well as the other left-wing justices.
And I will tell you that in light of what happened at the end of this term, with Justice Kennedy sort of, you know, kind of coming out as a closet conservative for just the last handful of decisions, I'm not sure we're going to see a unanimous Supreme Court opinion on a free speech issue for a very long time.
I think we're going back to a world where we always had Thurgood Marshall and Justice Brennan routinely being against whatever the conservative majority was for.
And I think that's probably where we're going on this court now.
Kennedy did have the ability, I think, to create consensus.
And I think our case was really a high watermark.
But it had no effect whatsoever on anyone's thinking or understanding about hate speech.
Zero.
Well, it affected mine.
So I'm dumb.
What are you saying?
Is this good or bad for the First Amendment, this new development, this lack of consensus?
Well, you know, the First Amendment doesn't need consensus.
I mean, as long as our constitutional government continues to exist, the First Amendment is there protecting our free expression.
So what I think is tremendous is that the Supreme Court has stood by itself, at least on the free speech side.
I mean, when you look at the religion decisions, it is troubling.
I think it's going to be better with the new justices that have been appointed by President Trump.
But in general, the idea that words have so little meaning and they become so devoid.
I mean, we're talking about an entire cultural crackup here.
It's not a matter of constitutional laws.
It's a matter of civil discourses and the very fabric of communication.
I don't know how it's going to be rebuilt.
I don't know what it's going to take for us to be able to talk to each other with respect again.
You know, there was a guy a week ago who said, hey, you know, speaking of Ben Shapiro, some actor who I never heard about and watched TV, who said, if you want to at least hear once conservative who's worth listening to, listen to Ben Shapiro.
There's a smart guy for you.
And he got killed.
Killed.
There's no room for discourse anymore.
I mean, you know, I've had to block people or mute people because they are in my world, but they're intolerable.
The things that they think it's okay to say to me personally over policy distinctions is, you know, you just, look, the best thing to do is to keep your social media lives separate from your personal life and your work life.
And don't let anyone know that you're like, you know, Gavin McGinnis.
I mean, forget it.
Forget it.
All right, Ron.
Well, thanks for coming on the show.
I appreciate that advice.
I'm the only person in the world who can't take it.
Well, shave that beard.
Don't look that guy in your avatar, your Skype avatar.
I won't bake your cake, buddy.
Thanks, Ron.
It's been an incredible simulation of reality.
I like you more than a friend.
Cheers.
Stolen from Japan.
He's a funny man, isn't he, Ron?
Let's talk to a funnier man, Mark.
Mark, are you there?
I'm here.
How you doing?
Great.
Sometimes I feel like committing law affair.
All right.
I feel like Soros does it.
I think my theory is that George Soros terrorizes Ezra Levant with frivolous lawsuits and pays someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to bother him.
I think I get it occasionally, Charles C. Johnson, Cernovich, Pisobic.
And I want to start playing their game.
I want to start suing them.
Is that expensive?
Yes.
Well, you know, you get what you pay for.
I can certainly find you a very modestly priced attorney, but I can't tell you the results would be what you want.
But, you know, as far as third-party funding of lawsuits for kind of side purposes, that's nothing new.
I mean, that's something that everybody freaked out about when Peter Thiel paid for the Gawker lawsuit.
And although I looked at it, my knee-jerk reaction is always in favor of the media.
But I looked at it and I said, well, this is no different than when organizations such as the ACLU or the SPLC or the ADL or the NRA will fund lawsuits that might further their political goals.
Well, that's someone I'd love to sue is the SPLC.
They constantly lie about me and my organization.
They say hate and they'll find, you know, they cherry-pick these things going through 20 years and thousands of hours of content and they cherry-pick these stories, even though you say, I'm not an anti-Semite, I'm not a racist, I'm not, blah, blah, blah.
And I just want to say, all right, you know what?
We're going to court.
I'm done with this.
I mean, didn't it work for that Muslim guy who they called a racist?
It did.
It worked for him quite well.
I don't think it hurt that he was in the UK, but where the libel laws are a lot more opened up.
But I would say that as far as the theory goes, I think the SPLC has a very serious integrity deficiency.
And yeah, they've really gotten to the point where quote-unquote hate groups or racists or white supremacists are really just anyone they might be politically opposed to.
Yeah, they don't mind anti-Semitism when it comes from Muslims.
They don't mind racism when it's anti-white.
But anyone makes an unfortunate joke and they happen to support Trump, they're looking at having their lives ruined.
And the frustrating thing is the incurious, the moms of the world, your great aunt, they still think the SPLC is the 1970s SPLC.
So when they hear Hey Group, they go, well, that must be true.
It's the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Yeah, I remember, you know, most of my friends and relatives are left-wing.
And I remember when Trump got elected, the entire feed on my Facebook page was people screaming that they were going to now donate money to the SPLC to fight the upcoming wave of racism that we were going to have to deal with.
And, you know, I tried very hard to convince them, all right, if you want to donate money to fight racism, I can give you 10 great organizations to give money to.
Yeah.
But not that scam organization.
They have on their own website.
They can see that they have $430 million in the bank.
Plus, I like that kind of poverty.
I would like to be that poverty strategy.
You look at the building itself, and they have this cement fountain that is bigger than my house, this big sort of orb, this big sphere that's spewing out water in an infinite way.
I mean, they're not very self-conscious about their wealth.
It looks like CAA, the casting company, whatever, the agents that represent all the big celebrities.
You go to CAA in Los Angeles and you feel like you're at Darth Vader's house.
And it's the same with the SPLC.
Like, you can't believe the wealth around you.
You know, there was a case recently in a bar called The Griffin in LA, and a bunch of proud boys just went there wearing MAGA hats to drink beer.
A bunch of comedians went there, attacked them, got them kicked out.
In the footage, by the way, there was this Puerto Rican war vet wearing a MAGA hat.
He was kicked out, fired from his job for being in that video.
And by the way, the group of Proud Boys were mostly non-white, and the ones attacking them were 100% white.
And they went there to, you know, fight racism.
Anyway, my understanding in California...
It's ironic, isn't it?
It's always the case.
Always the case.
A group of Latino and black Proud Boys get attacked by a bunch of overprivileged white boys.
Yeah.
Every time.
They're the racists.
Antifa is always more white than the people they're attacking.
I think the only black guy they have is Mika Rhodes, and he just got caught raping tons of underage girls and boys.
That's the best they can do.
But my understanding with California is they're very strict legally about political bias.
And I believe it comes down to, it comes back to communism because they were worried about communists in the 50s and 60s being persecuted.
So they made the laws very strict about not serving someone based on their political preference.
And there was even a case, actually, sorry, this is going on so long.
Look, you're even talking to other people.
It's going on so long.
Who are you talking to there?
I'm sorry.
One of my associates just came in.
My associate.
Are you just asking to come in?
Yeah, I just wanted you to shut the door.
Oh, sorry.
We'll do it live.
Okay, we'll do it live.
There was a guy in California who had a swastika pin on.
This was the precedent-setting case with this law.
And they said, you can eat at this restaurant, but take off that pin.
And he said, no.
He brought them to court.
He won because these laws are so solid in California.
So not that I'm defending Nazis, but I think we have a great case to sue the Griffin bar.
This thing isn't even doing anything.
I'm just wearing gloves there.
Took me that long.
That's how media savvy I am.
It was keeping your ears warm.
Yeah, it's 120 degrees here.
You know, I don't know if there's a claim against the Griffin because the Griffin, didn't it originally say we don't care who's in here?
You know, the only color we see is green.
Yes.
And then what happened after that?
Then the comedians showed up, took their MAGA hats, a kerfuffle ensued, and I believe the bartender told them to leave.
I mean, at that point, I don't think, yeah, it doesn't sound like a good claim to me, only because I see it as a once there's a once there's a kerfuffle, you know, you can take anti-kerfuffle actions on an expedited basis.
You know, they probably had to do that in order to avoid liability.
I'm starting to think, I'm still going to try to sue them, and it'll probably cost me $5 to $10 just to get the ball rolling, but I'm starting to think this law fair is really just for billionaires.
Well, at least millionaires, because if you look at, look, attorneys are not cheap.
Even a crappy attorney is going to cost you a couple hundred bucks an hour.
I bill significantly in excess of that.
I mean, I bill $700 an hour.
I'd rather be doing other things.
I mean, I like litigating, but I also like to go to the beach and hang out with my kids and do other fun stuff.
So that's what it costs to get me to not do that.
If you even just look at, you know, 10 hours of work, that's $7,000 off the top.
Right.
That's correct.
And you guys will answer the phone and you call that an hour.
Oh, no, we'll do a 0.1.
We bill in tenths of an hour.
Most lawyers will do that.
You pick up the phone, that's a 0.1.
That's 70 bucks.
Okay.
When would you recommend fighting?
Like, if someone calls you a Nazi or a white nationalist, that just seems, I was talking to Ron Coleman about this, and it just seems way too expensive for way little, way, way too little change.
And also, they've diluted these allegations with this white nationalist crap where it just means Trump supporter.
It's almost like you can't sue for it anymore.
Or even somebody who isn't sufficiently anti-Trump.
I mean, I don't find myself, I don't know that I'd call myself a Trump supporter.
You know, I didn't vote for the guy.
If he keeps up what he's doing, I'll probably vote for him for re-election because I'm actually quite thrilled with his Supreme Court picks.
Pretty happy with some of the other stuff he's done.
You know, he's not everything.
If I tailor-made a president, it wouldn't be him.
But, you know, what president has been?
No, yeah, exactly.
You know, even that is enough to be a white supremacist apologist in this day and age to certain people, including people that I call my friends.
You know, well, you're just emboldening and normalizing white supremacy.
God, I hate that.
But not hating the president of the United States enough.
Yeah, the SBLC said that I'm not a racist, but I'm a gateway drug to racism.
So you listen to me, and the next thing you know, you like David Duke.
Right, sure.
And then next thing you know, you're in an alley like, you know, for copies of Mind Comps.
Mark, when should someone sue?
What?
We can talk any way we want on this show.
No, I have to bleep that, but it's still funny.
When should someone sue?
Like, can you give me an example of a case you're working on or recently worked on where you thought this is worth someone spending a ton of money on?
This is a good fight.
You know, I've had, I don't usually do plaintiff side defamation cases, although I have done a number of them.
You know, I had one where a pretty well-known public figure was accused of rape.
And the blogger that wrote about it wrote about, claimed that he had raped a woman who came to her and wanted to break her story.
This was right, it's actually kind of raped before the whole Me Too thing happened.
And we found that that was certainly sufficient grounds to sue her.
We sued the source, not the blogger herself, because as a public figure, if somebody comes to a journalist and says, accuses you of that, since you're a public figure, it's harder for you to win that case.
So if that journalist has a reliable source, they're going to get away with that.
Plus, the journalist can just say, alleged, and this person told me without saying it's true, and they get the story without the litigation.
Right, but then what you do is you sue the source.
And of course, these journalists will say, well, it's an unnamed source.
I'm not giving up my source.
And they have a right to do that.
But they don't have a right to do that to defend a defamation claim.
So if I say, if I went and wrote on my blog some accusation like that against you and then said, well, I'm relying on a source for this and I'm not giving that source up.
Well, then that's too bad for me.
Then I lose.
I see.
So if I promise that source confidentiality, it's either lose the defamation case or burn the source.
Huh.
And I guarantee you, journalists cannot wait to flip on their source.
I've been dealing with these people for a while now, and they buckle like that.
One lawyer letter and they fold.
It depends on the journalist.
I mean, I know journalists, and I've helped journalists protect the confidentiality of their sources.
Not liberals, not lefties, not HuffPost, Slate, Salon, New York Times, Daily Mail, even.
You know, there have been journalists I know for the New York Times who've gone to prison rather than give up their sources.
Oh, yes, that is true.
Sorry.
You're right.
In the good old days, back when the New York Times used to do journalism.
Exactly.
Totally different universe.
How much did this guy get when he sued the source?
I can't disclose anything else about that.
Is it going to be substantial?
You're suing some lying, crazy chick who's probably, her house is probably a futon on the floor, a big pile of clean laundry, a big pile of dirty laundry.
Like, what are we going to get?
Two piles of laundry and a futon out of her?
I don't know that I could say that there was a pile of clean laundry.
Yeah, look, if you're ever suing for defamation for the money, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
I mean, yeah, there have been defamation verdicts that are just fabulous.
I mean, the Rolling Stone case is when Sabrina Erdele decided to fabricate the rape on campus story.
And that worked out quite well for the plaintiffs.
But you do have these other cases where somebody can be libel proof.
I'm sorry, judgment proof.
Yeah, if somebody's just some broke loser, there's not much you can do except get your judgment that shows that they were a lying.
Right.
So at least you can say, hey, didn't you rape someone?
No, I sued them.
Look, here's the verdict.
Yeah.
Now, if it's somebody, let's say it was you, I think the initial story Gavin McGinnis accused of insert horrible crime here would make page one.
And then when you win your defamation verdict, you know, I don't know that that'll be as tweeted about, at least by people who hate you.
It would make page 36, but at least I could scream about this ongoing court case, which it just becomes such a farce these days.
I wish you could just sue people for lying and make them change it.
But it feels like the Trump derangement syndrome has just gone absolutely off the rails.
There was just a guy, there was a black woman stabbed in Oakland by a loser transient nut.
They decided to say it was Proud Boys that did the stabbing, and they were meeting at a bar to celebrate.
And then that crazy lie rumor got so intense that they were beating up dudes wearing American flag shirts, assuming they were part of this group that stabbed the girl.
You know, it does seem strange for me, you know, and I've always been a little bit of a kind of a left-wing firebrand, I mean, for decades.
But it never occurred to me that it made a lot of sense to act in violence against somebody who's wearing an American flag shirt.
You know, or even somebody who's, you know, I think the president that I have despised more than any in my lifetime is George W. Bush.
I still think the guy crashed the car while we let him drive it and is responsible for really putting a huge crack in what America is.
Yeah, I think he's the one who broke open the borders to a large extent.
Well, he's also the one who essentially just went into the Middle East like some child with a stick on Sandcastle Day and bashed everything over and then ran away.
But it never occurred to me ever to key a car that saw a W sticker on it or to even say anything really nasty to somebody wearing a George, I'm with Bush shirt.
I would look at them and go, really, man?
I was saying that to my wife the other day.
She was talking about MAGA hats in restaurants and how I was saying, if I get attacked at a restaurant, here's what's going to go down.
I'm going to attack them.
You should run out the back, blah, blah, blah.
And she goes, oh, I hate Trump.
And I go, it's not Trump.
No one ever got kicked out of a restaurant for wearing an Obama hat.
They never got kicked out for wearing a Bill Clinton hat.
It's the left.
They are deranged and they can't accept that they lost.
Yeah, I agree.
I mean, when the campaign was going on, I mocked the Trump campaign.
I said, there's no way this guy's going to win.
And then the Clinton campaign, I said, my God, I can't believe she's going to be president.
I mean, I was in no way supportive of her either.
I voted for Gary Johnson, so don't blame me.
I threw my vote in the trash.
Thanks.
But, you know, when her entire rhetoric was, vote for me, or it's going to be the Fourth Reich.
It's going to be the Handmaid's Tale.
There's going to be complete and utter chaos, destruction, nuclear war, and people will die.
That's all fine if you win.
But then when she didn't win, now you got a problem.
Yeah.
Because now you got to get a woman to admit she was wrong.
Not happening.
In fact, what's happened is that the entire group has said politics.
Pardon me?
I mean, it's rare that it ever happens in life.
I mean, I'm sure you're married, right?
I'm sure you keep a running tally of every time your wife says, okay, I was wrong.
And it's like maybe three times in your entire marriage, two?
Yeah, that really is the number.
It is two or three times.
Right.
You know, you keep track of those.
Like, remember in 1998 when you those are the only times she's been wrong.
So she's accurate with that.
Well played.
But, you know, she's, you've really, I just get this, that, that spin doctor song in my head.
You know, Little Miss Can't Be Wrong.
How about, yeah, maybe the entire republic will not come to a crashing destruction in nuclear winter because we have a guy who said, grab him by the pussy.
Well, what's happened was, despite economic prosperity, despite black unemployment low, despite curing Kim Jong-un, despite all these successes, the left has taken Hillary's narrative as fact and said, look, it's the Fourth Reich.
Look, there's people stabbing black girls for no reason.
Isn't it horrible?
And you go, that didn't happen.
Right.
No, there's this, you know, there's supposedly this uptick in hate crimes, which I don't think that that claim is borne out by the statistics.
No, there's probably an uptick in reported hate crimes, but that includes so many hoaxes that there's no data differential.
Right.
And, you know, that's a very different thing than saying racism went away.
I mean, it didn't go away.
Racism's still here.
There's still consequences of it.
I mean, I'm very glad that I'm not black when I'm driving really fast in my car, you know, breaking the speed limit, cutting down a one-way street, because I know if I get pulled over, it's just going to be about money, and I'm not going to get the back of my head blown off.
Oh, so now we see your liberal side.
Now we see where Mark lies.
Look, statistically speaking, I'm really glad I'm not black when I get pulled over.
Yeah, well, statistically speaking, you tend to be kinder to the police and easier to deal with than when do I got to get out of the car.
I didn't do anything wrong.
Yeah, when they pull me over, I got a big smile on my face because I know, you know, I do the math.
If I drove the speed limit, you know, $700 an hour billable time, if I drive the speed limit everywhere I go, I lose this many dollars in my life.
So if I get pulled over and it's a $600 fine, well, I'm going to make that up in about three weeks of fast driving.
Yeah, it all makes sense.
Wow, you're smart.
That's why we don't have our cops kill you.
Mark, thanks for coming on the show.
We went too long.
We went overtime because you're interesting, but let's have you back again soon.
Anytime, man.
I like you more than a friend.
Get off my line.
▲
Export Selection