Ep. 1092 - How Prince Harry Became A Broken Shell Of A Man
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Prince Harry continues to seek privacy by spilling his guts in front of every camera he can find. He has become a sad, broken, whiney shell of a man, thanks in large part to the awful woman he married. Many lessons to be learned from this. We'll discuss today. Also, Kevin McCarthy finally wins the speakership after 15 votes, but not before making a number of extremely important concessions. This was a win for the so-called "far right" Republicans. And a man is wanted for questioning after shooting and killing an armed robber in Texas. The shooting may have been arguably legally questionable, but I'll explain why I would never vote to convict if I was on the jury. In our Daily Cancellation, the young turks claims to have "demolished" me. We'll watch the video and see how they did.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to access the entire content catalog of movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Listen to Morning Wire on DailyWire+, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ascension Press - Start the Bible in a Year podcast and get the reading for free: https://ascensionpress.com/walsh
Unimed - Use code "WALSH" at checkout for additional savings on your entire purchase! https://genucel.com/walsh
Lifelock - Save up to 25% OFF your first year with LifeLock: https://lifelock.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Prince Harry continues to seek privacy by spilling his guts in front of every camera that he can find.
He's become a sad, broken, whiny shell of a man, thanks in large part to the awful woman he married.
Many lessons to be learned from that we'll discuss today.
Also, Kevin McCarthy finally wins the speakership after 15 votes, but not before making a number of extremely important concessions.
It was all a win for the so-called far-right Republicans.
And a man is wanted for questioning after shooting and killing an armed robber in Texas.
The shooting may have been arguably legally questionable, but I'll explain why I would never vote to convict if I was on the jury.
In our daily cancellation, the Young Turks claim to have demolished me.
We'll watch the video and see how they did.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wells Show.
[Music]
If you're someone who has always wanted to read and understand the Bible, but you're not sure where to start,
then check out the Bible in a Year podcast from Ascension.
The Bible in a Year podcast is currently the most popular religion podcast in the U.S.
Millions of people have listened to it, and twice it's hit the number one spot on Apple Podcasts.
In the Bible in a Year, Father Mike Schmitz reads the entire Bible in 365 daily episodes, providing helpful commentary, reflection, and prayers along the way.
What better way to start the new year?
You can find the Bible in a Year podcast with Father Mike Schmitz for free.
in your favorite podcast app or on YouTube.
Unlike any other Bible podcast, Bible in a Year follows a special reading plan
that organizes the books of the Bible in a way that helps listeners understand the story.
You can get this reading plan at ascensionpress.com/walsh.
If you wanna start reading, and more importantly, understanding the Bible this year,
go to ascensionpress.com/walsh to download the reading plan for free.
That's ascensionpress.com/walsh to download the reading plan for free.
Well, Prince Harry really wants his privacy.
He's searched everywhere for privacy.
He's gone and turned over every rock looking for it.
He's trekked through the forests and over mountains in pursuit of his privacy.
He's looked for privacy in interviews with Oprah and in podcasts and documentaries and in his just-released Netflix series.
And now he's looking for privacy by publishing an autobiographical book which will be released this week and which he promoted in a 60 Minutes interview and in an interview on IETV in Britain and in a Good Morning America interview and then in an appearance on The Late Show later this week.
He's gone in front of every camera in the world and stepped on every stage and milked every moment under every spotlight he could find all because he and his wife Just want privacy.
His upcoming book, a tell-all memoir, much like the type often written by those who desire privacy more than anything, apparently goes into great detail about all of his squabbles and beefs and feuds with his family.
Harry has become the world's foremost leader in the field of oversharing.
And this book is exactly what you'd expect from someone with those kinds of credentials.
He not only airs his family's dirty laundry, publicizing and cashing in on all of his petty resentments and familial disputes.
He also provides intimate details that even the most ardent Harry and Meghan fans, if such people could possibly exist, would not have ever solicited.
For example, he reveals that, this is what he says in his book, that he once suffered frostbite on his genitals.
Harry will not even allow his privates to remain private, and yet he just wants privacy.
The title of the book, Spare, is a reference to Harry's feelings of being the spare, the outcast in his family.
Pain and suffering is a phrase that has come up in multiple interviews about his book.
And before his book, he's talked a lot about it.
His pain and suffering.
his wife's pain and suffering, complains about it, and accuses his family of being
"complicit" in that pain and suffering.
The general response to this public vendetta that Harry has against his own family has
been to parse through his words, trying to discern what is true, what isn't, what needs
more context, etc.
Now personally, I have no idea if Harry is telling the truth or not, and I don't care.
Every family has turmoil and drama.
Every member of every family has been both wrong and right, both bully and bullied.
Families are complicated.
And if you're hearing one person's version of a dispute, you can be quite certain that the other people concerned, those being painted as villains, would have a very different take on things if you asked them and if they were willing to answer.
This is why family issues should be kept within the family.
You don't have to like every member of your extended family, but there's never a time when it's necessary or good or justified to turn your family drama into a public spectacle.
And this, by the way, is a lesson that many people in our society ought to take to heart.
Now, most of us aren't in a position where we can complain about our families in a 60-minutes interview.
Many people probably would like to do that, but there's just no interest.
Yet it is quite common to see people on a smaller scale, and yet the largest scale available to them, airing their dirty laundry and family disputes in public to people around them, on social media especially.
They provide one side of a complicated story to an audience that is not involved, that has no business being involved, and that can't do anything with the information you're giving them, or do anything about the problem to help resolve it anyway.
Which is why, you know, if you have an issue with your family, you should confront your family and your close friends in person.
Tell them how you feel.
You might even get angry.
You might yell.
I mean, these things happen in families.
That's normal.
But in public, there should be a united front.
So you, for instance, might think that your brother is an idiot.
You might tell him so to his face.
But if someone outside your family calls him an idiot, you should take offense at that and respond accordingly.
He's an idiot, but he's your idiot.
Because you're family.
This is one of the many things that Harry gets wrong.
But it's not just his family that he feels victimized by.
He says it's also the press.
The couple have been on a never-ending press tour for the past, like, two years now, doing everything in their power to attract attention from the press, and yet they are oppressed by the same press that they can't stop talking to.
During his 60 Minutes interview, he explains that the media is bigoted.
Bigoted against Meghan.
And it's not only actually the media that's bigoted, but listen to this.
What Meghan had to go through was similar, in some part, to what Kate and what Camilla went through.
Very different circumstances.
But then you add in the race element, which was what the British press jumped on straight away.
I went into this incredibly naive.
I had no idea the British press was so bigoted.
Hell, I was probably bigoted before the relationship with Meghan.
You think you were bigoted before the relationship with Meghan?
I don't know.
Put it this way.
I didn't see what I now see.
You don't know if you were bigoted?
How could you not know if you were bigoted or not?
Now, this is mostly empty virtue signaling, of course.
Here, Harry is doing the work, and doing the work means baselessly accusing everyone, including yourself, of bigotry.
But that's not to say that he's being entirely insincere.
It's clear that the man has been genuinely brainwashed into the religion of wokeism, and in that religion, bigotry is the original sin, but not shared by all people, shared only by members of the white race.
This is the original sin of white people, and people who are not white have no sins at all.
It is a hazy, undefinable sort of evil shared by every member of the white race.
Harry doesn't remember any specific occasion of being bigoted.
He never harbored any racial animosity towards non-white people.
And yet, even though this by definition means that he was not racially bigoted, he still cannot declare himself to have not been bigoted.
Because the actual belief of the woke white person is that he himself cannot speak to his own racism or lack thereof.
He is not an expert in his own thoughts and feelings.
It's up to a member of the racial victim class to determine whether he is racist or not from one moment to the next.
He cannot speak to his own motivations and intentions, but they can.
And now that Harry is married to a member of that racial victim class, she can attest to his non-bigotry now.
But before her, she was not there to absolve him.
And that's the way he sees it.
And finally, speaking of Meghan, this is maybe the most important, or at least most useful point for most of us.
Let her be a warning to men everywhere, because although Harry is no victim, no martyr, much as he wishes to be, he is still a pitiful and pathetic figure, a broken shell of a man.
He's still rich and famous, but he's no longer respected.
And that's the worst thing.
The worst thing a man can lose is respect.
A man can live and be happy without much money, without many things, but the loss of respect is what truly devastates and in many cases can prove fatal.
And Harry has become a man who is no longer respectable, in large part because he married a woman who does not respect him.
This is the influence that a woman can have over a man.
Her feelings about him often become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think it was G.K.
Chesterton who noted the positive end of this kind of relationship, explaining how the lesson of Beauty and the Beast is that a man must be loved in order to become lovable.
Beauty lifts up the beast, her love helping him to become the man he was meant to be.
But a bad woman can have the opposite effect, turning a prince back into a beast.
In this case, a whiny, petulant baby beast, but a beast all the same.
My wife has helped me to become a better man because she loves and respects me.
And when you love and respect something, you want it to be the best version of itself.
But then there are the Meghan Markles of the world who will break a man instead of building him up, bringing out his worst aspects while smothering all that was good in him.
This is the nightmare scenario that has chased many men away from marriage, as we've discussed over the last few days.
But the good news is that it's pretty easy to spot the Meghan Markles.
So easy that most of us had the actual Meghan Markle figured out after listening to her speak for like 45 seconds.
Either Harry didn't see it because he allowed himself to be blinded by her good looks, or wouldn't be the first man to fall into that trap, or he did see it and decided to move forward anyway, perhaps partially motivated by his simmering resentment for his family.
Whatever the case.
There's a very basic checklist that a man should refer to when dating a woman, and the woman should have a similar mental checklist in mind when dating the man.
The first and biggest question, and the one that a discerning man should be able to answer rather easily, is, does she respect you?
You should be able to figure that out pretty quickly.
An important skill for a man to learn is to be able to identify when he's not being respected.
Also, does she cheer you on?
Does she root for your success and happiness?
Or is she more focused on her own?
Does she desire for you to have a close relationship with your family?
Or does she want to isolate you from everyone you know and love?
Does she talk about herself all the time?
Or does she spend more time asking questions about you?
Is she sincere?
Is she kind?
Or does she only appear to be kind in public, but then you see her rolling her eyes behind the scenes?
Does she have empathy?
These are the questions to ask yourself when discerning marriage.
Now, it's possible that a very gifted phony may be able to deceive you on many or even all of these points, but most phonies are not that gifted.
Meghan Markle certainly isn't, which is why I was able to answer all of these questions about her about five minutes after discovering that she existed.
Okay, I didn't even know she existed.
Five minutes later, I knew everything I needed to know about her.
Harry should have been able to answer them, but if he did, he ignored the answers.
And now he is paying the price.
Now let's get to our headlines.
(upbeat music)
Experts are highlighting new identity theft threats to watch out for in 2023.
Some tactics include scams targeting specific ethnic groups and those with limited English proficiency.
Payment app scams will likely continue to increase as their popularity increases.
That's why it's so important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives every day.
Your personal information gets exposed so often that it's dangerously easy for a cybercriminal to steal your identity.
But protecting your identity can be easy with LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock detects and alerts you to potential identity threats you may not spot on your own, like loans taken out in your name.
If you do become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated US-based restoration specialist will work to fix it for you.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but it's easy to help protect yourself with LifeLock.
Identity theft protection starts here.
Join now and save up to 25% off your first year at lifelock.com slash Walsh.
That's a lifelock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
Headline from the Daily Wire.
Here are the concessions House Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave to Republican holdouts to win their support.
Article says, after days of negotiations and 15 roll call votes, California Representative Kevin McCarthy became House Speaker early Saturday morning after reportedly giving major concessions to a group of Republican holdouts, increasing the influence of some of the chamber's most conservative members.
McCarthy's concessions include changes to how the House is run, placing members of the House Freedom Caucus on key committees, and the creation of a committee to conduct a major investigation into the FBI, which for my money is the most important concession that they
were able to exact or gain.
Florida representative Matt Gaetz said, "I feel the American people won. I feel that the House
of Representatives will be a healthier institution. Many of these things have been resisted by Kevin
McCarthy as early as Monday."
Now we have an exquisite rules package.
While some critics accused the holdouts of grandstanding, in the end, McCarthy reportedly gave in to much of the demands of the bloc.
According to the Freedom Caucus chairman, Representative Scott Perry, the juice was worth the squeeze.
Perry, alongside other members of the opposition, posted lists of concessions they had gained from McCarthy to earn their vote.
These included getting a vote on a border security plan, a budget that doesn't allow the debt ceiling to increase, an end to all COVID mandates and funding, a term limit vote, single subject bills, and allowing at least 72 hours given for members to read the bills.
Another key provision is allowing for any member to introduce a motion to vacate the chair, meaning that members can demand a vote to remove the Speaker from the position if he doesn't live up to his end of the bargain.
Another concession that was discussed throughout the week was creating an open amendment process to bills, making it easier for lawmakers to change bills during debate.
Members of the Freedom Caucus will also reportedly be placed on the Rules Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
The Committee is crucial to how the House runs and how funding is doled out.
The House will vote on the rules package on Monday, setting up another potential fight among Republicans.
Texas Representative Tony Gonzalez, a moderate, has already promised to vote against the rules package.
Okay, so these are the rules that have been agreed to as proposals, but now they have to actually vote on them and get them passed through that way.
Whatever happens when they vote on the rules, this is still an enormous success and a blueprint that should be followed.
Because here we have actual conservatives who are extracting concessions from the establishment.
They were able to bend the establishment to their will by using the leverage that they had available to them.
So they couldn't do everything, right?
It was only, what was it, 20 people.
And so they didn't have enough, they didn't have the numbers to actually put somebody in place that they wanted.
But they had leverage.
They had leverage to achieve something, and they achieved it.
Because even to get... Kevin McCarthy agreed to.
This tells you what kind of guy Kevin McCarthy is.
It shouldn't have required this long standoff between the two factions to get these concessions in place.
These are all rules and proposals that should have been in place to begin with.
Tells you everything you need to know about Kevin McCarthy.
In fact, if you weren't up until this point, maybe you're not paying attention to this drama.
You don't care that much.
I understand that.
But maybe you didn't quite understand.
You didn't realize you were looking at this and saying, well, what's the big deal with Kevin McCarthy?
Why not just vote for him?
Well, this should tell you.
This is it.
The fact that they had to go through 15 votes to get this guy to agree to the things that I just listed.
Which are things that every Republican, really every member of the House of Representatives should agree to.
Things like giving members of the House time to read the bills before they're voted on.
That's a concession that Kevin McCarthy agreed to.
They had to beat this out of him.
Something as simple as, hey, maybe before we vote on the bills we should read them.
Single-issue bills, meaning, like, let's focus on one topic at a time.
Stop taking every piece of legislation as an opportunity to piggyback it and put all of your pet projects and all that kind of stuff and earmarks onto it.
Investigate the FBI's abuses of power.
That should be the most automatic thing of all.
And other similar sorts of things.
So these are all very common sense They're not even, you know, if this is what counts as conservative now, well, then that also tells you what you need to know.
And this only happened because, again, the supposed far-right, the radicals, which some people object to that label, I don't.
Like, I'm fine myself being labeled a radical.
I don't consider that to be an insult.
So if that's what you want to call them, then fine.
Whatever you call them, they were able to get these concessions by using the leverage that they had, and this is a success.
And it does, it just, the people, the conservatives who were objecting to this all week, it makes you wonder what they were really objecting to.
Like this was the worst case scenario, okay?
You could just hand Kevin McCarthy the speakership and get nothing out of him whatsoever.
So you can do that.
It's hard to see that as a win.
Or you could try to get something out of it.
You can use the leverage that you have.
You have something, right?
These members of the House, they had something that Kevin McCarthy needed, which was their vote so that he could become Speaker of the House.
So they could just give it to him for nothing.
Or try to get something in exchange for it.
Why would you give it to him for nothing?
And what's the downside?
I never understood.
What was supposed to be the downside of trying to get something out of this?
Yeah, this establishment shill is going to probably end up being Speaker of the House regardless because he has most of the votes.
That's probably what's going to end up happening.
But if you have a little bit of leverage to get something out of it, and it's not like you're getting something personally for yourself, the American people are getting something out of it.
If you have that ability, what's the downside?
What's the worst case scenario?
You had conservatives, some conservatives panicking all week.
This is an embarrassment.
This is an embarrassment.
This is actually democracy.
This is what the democratic process is supposed to be.
We want them to fight and argue amongst themselves.
I wish they fought and argued more than they did.
You know, you read the stories of what Congress was like in the early 19th century, and you have members of Congress taking pokers out of the fire and whacking each other over the head with it.
I wish that was still happening, not only because C-SPAN would be a lot more entertaining, but because that shows that they're actually fighting.
That's what they're supposed to do.
It's deliberation, and sometimes deliberations can get a little bit heated.
And if they turn violent, as far as I'm concerned, no big deal.
But this was not even violence, okay?
This wasn't that.
This was not a royal rumble.
This was a debate.
This was a process of compromise, is what it was.
So I never understood it.
What was the downside?
Never understood what the downside was supposed to be.
Okay, this is from the Daily Wire.
Armed customer shoots robber dead and returns stolen money in Houston Taqueria.
Taqueria.
How do you pronounce that?
A man shot and killed a robbery suspect.
It's a taco shop is what it is.
Can we just call it that?
It's a taco shop.
A man shot and killed a robbery suspect at a taco shop in Houston on Thursday before returning the stolen money to other patrons, according to authorities.
The incident happened around 11.30 p.m.
and was caught on surveillance video, which has been viewed online millions of times.
Witnesses told officers that a masked African-American man wearing all-black clothing, a black ski mask, and black gloves walking to the restaurant pointed what appeared to be a firearm at customers while demanding their money, according to Houston police.
While the person was walking around the restaurant taking money from patrons, one customer, sitting in a booth with another person, quickly stood up as soon as the suspect passed by, pulled out a gun, as seen in the surveillance video.
Police said the armed patron shot the suspect multiple times before collecting the stolen money, which he then returned to the others.
This individual and other patrons then left the scene, leaving the police to ask the public for help and identifying the shooter as he is wanted for questioning.
The Houston Police Department shared surveillance images of who they believe was the armed customer, described as a white or Hispanic man, as well as his 1970s or 1980s model pickup truck with no bed.
No charges have been filed, police said in a Friday press release.
And Houston Police Lieutenant R. Wilkins said the now-dead suspect was brandishing a plastic pistol, possibly an Aerosoft or possibly a little BB pistol.
No one else in the restaurant was injured, the news report noted.
Investigators encouraged the shooter and victims to contact the Houston Police Department Division at... And then there's the phone number.
I'm not actually going to give the phone number away because I don't trust the police.
I don't trust that they just want to talk.
He's not in trouble, we just want to talk.
And I'm sure eventually they'll find him and they'll have the conversation that they want to have and I very much hope that he gets a lawyer before that happens.
Now, as the Daily Wire Report notes, the video of this incident was on surveillance video that was released.
And the police originally, I think it was the police originally who released a version of the surveillance video, but they cut it off right before the shots were fired.
And there was the full unedited clip that made its way onto the internet, as it often does, which shows the entire incident.
And we're not going to show that to you here, but if you really are interested, you can see it for yourself.
If you do go And watch the full video.
What you'll see is that, yeah, the guy, he's holding up the place.
He has a gun, turns out to not be a real gun.
Nobody knows that, okay?
He's intentionally, of course, trying to make everyone believe that it's a real gun, so this is all on him.
And as he's kind of walking by this Good Samaritan, the Good Samaritan pulls out a gun, shoots him multiple times.
And then the bad guy falls to the ground and the Good Samaritan walks over, is still shooting him, and then appears, this is what it appears to happen, it appears that he picks up the bad guy's gun and then shoots him one more time while he's on the ground.
That's what appears.
Now, it's pretty grainy, but that's kind of how it appears to happen.
So, there are many, as this video has been passed around, There are plenty of people online saying that this was not a good shoot, it was a bad shoot, and he should be charged with a crime for this.
And I will say that legally, okay, according to the letter of the law, I'm not a lawyer, but, and all the laws and how they treat these things are different, this is Texas we're talking about, so, but, probably, it would stand to reason, I would be, I'm sympathetic to the argument that legally, according to the letter of the law, he might have gone over the line.
Not on the first few shots, but on the last one in particular.
If it actually is true that he picked up the guy's gun and then, while he's lying there, shot him another time, certainly you would think at least that last shot may legally be over the line.
And that might be a large part of what the Houston police want to talk to him about.
But, with that said, that's letter of the law.
With that said, if I'm on the jury, and I wish that I could be, I can't because I don't live in Texas, but if I'm on the jury, there is no way in hell I vote to convict this guy.
There's no way I find him guilty.
This is not guilty all the way.
For me.
Not gonna happen.
And if it was 11 to 1, it would be 12 angry men.
That's what we would see playing out in real life.
No way I vote to send this guy to prison.
Even if it was over the line legally, still I wouldn't.
Because it is my opinion that, first of all, When you decide to grab a gun and commit a crime, a violent crime like this, you start shoving a gun in people's face, trying to take their money from them, you have forfeited your rights, as far as I'm concerned.
That's the approach that I would take on a jury.
You have forfeited your rights.
Your rights are out the window.
That's what you've decided to do.
You have effectively thrown your own life away.
You have sent the message that your life doesn't mean anything to you.
That was your decision.
And also, you know, you are, okay, you're the one with premeditation.
So you decided you were going to do this.
This guy who's now, this scumbag who's now dead, he decided he wanted to do this.
He had premeditation.
He was thinking this through.
He didn't think it through that much, apparently.
He didn't think enough about it, but he was thinking about it.
So he had, you know, he goes into this somewhat prepared for what he's about to do because he's the one doing it.
Everybody else there, they're just trying to enjoy their dinner.
They're not expecting this.
You're putting them in this position out of nowhere, in this life-or-death situation, and it's not fair to expect them to respond to it exactly correctly.
So you can, after the fact, parse through it and sift through it a Monday morning quarterback and say, well, according to the law, yeah, but nobody's sitting there with a book of—with the law book in front of them, you know, flipping through it.
What am I allowed to do here?
No, you're put in this position.
Adrenaline takes over.
It's fight or flight.
Some people are—a lot of people are flight.
This guy's fight.
And I think we need more people with the fight instinct.
And adrenaline takes over, and this is what he does.
So if one or two of the shots is over the line, who cares?
You know whose fault that is?
It's the guy who's laying dead in a bloody puddle on the ground.
That's his fault.
Maybe you should think about this.
See, we need violent criminals to think about this.
We need them to be afraid.
We need them to fear for their lives before they carry out the crime, so that maybe they won't carry it out to begin with.
So if other potential violent criminals are seeing that video and saying, wow, uh, man, you know, I walk in and just start robbing people.
There might be somebody in there who's, you know, got a gun and he's going to get hopped up on adrenaline.
And I might, I might throw my whole life away.
Like I could go into this taco shop and rob everybody and, and, you know, make off with $43 and some change.
I could do that.
But then, In pursuit of that end, I might end up dead on the floor.
I might die on the dirty floor of this taco shop in Houston at 11 o'clock at night.
That might be the end of my story.
We want them to think about that.
Now more than ever, because our cities have been overrun by violent criminals, they've been given essentially free reign to do whatever they want, people live in fear, the government has Abandon the citizens to a large extent.
And so really the only way of restoring order, any semblance of order and justice, is for citizens to start defending themselves and each other.
It's either that or people line up to be victims.
And part of the way we've ended up in this situation is that the law extends enormous grace to violent criminals.
And does everything in its power to let the violent criminal off the hook or to be as lenient as possible.
That's what the law does, the court systems do.
Okay?
They do everything in their power to be as lenient as possible to these kinds of violent criminal scumbags, like the guy that's robbing the taco shop.
Well, I think that's what we need to do for these citizens who fight back.
Be as lenient as possible.
Extend every available grace.
Even to the point of absurdity, because that's what we do in favor of the violent criminals.
And that's how our cities have turned all of them into, you know, like Mad Max.
No, I would do that for the Citizens Who Fight Back.
I would say, hey, you know.
Hopped up on adrenaline that last shot.
The video's kind of grainy.
Can't really see what's happening.
Who knows?
Hey, you know, maybe he picked up the guy's gun.
Maybe he thought that the guy had another gun.
Maybe he twitched.
Maybe the guy's laying there on the ground.
He twitched his arm.
It looked like he was reaching for another gun, so he had to do what he had to do.
Now, do I buy that excuse necessarily?
Probably not, but that is the level of benefit of doubt that I would give in a situation like this.
And let all the violent criminals know, this is the benefit of doubt.
You walk in there, you instigate something like this, all of the benefit of the doubt goes to the citizens who might kill you in response.
They get the benefit of the doubt, you get none.
We're going to throw the book at you, but for anyone who might shoot you while you're carrying out this crime, we're going to flip through that book looking for any loophole we can find to let them off the hook.
All right, this is from the Daily Wire.
Players from Raiders and Chiefs pray at midfield following the game in which teams honored Damar Hamlin.
Several players from Las Vegas Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs prayed on the field Saturday evening at the conclusion of the matchup between the two teams following Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin's medical emergency during a game earlier this week.
Fox reported that players from both teams wore athletic gear that featured statements like love for Damar and Hamlin strong as a way of showing support prior to kickoff.
The report said that the first digit of the 30-yard lines at the Allegiance Stadium were painted blue because that was the Buffalo Bills color.
And there were other examples, too, of teams praying and that sort of thing.
And I bring this up because this is one thing that people have remarked on.
And I noticed it, too, after the DeMar Hamlin incident last Sunday night, that, you know, the open religiosity that's on display.
Very often in our culture, there's a mass shooting, a tragedy, and if you so much as talk about prayer, you get attacked.
Well, your thoughts and prayers don't do anything.
In this case, that wasn't happening.
Now, it's kind of sad that in our culture, it's okay to talk about prayer and thoughts and prayers when a football player gets injured, but not when, like, 15 people are dead in a mass shooting.
Prayer should be applied in all cases, is what I'm trying to say.
The religiosity, the faith put on display, football players on the field praying, talking about their faith.
This maybe came as a surprise to people who are not football fans and are now following this one football-related story because it obviously broke through beyond just football fans.
But to those of us who are football fans, this is not a surprise at all.
Because we're fully aware that football players have always been quite religious.
In fact, before, you know, you go before the Colin Kaepernick thing, when the NFL earned for itself, you know, from, because of the actions of the, actions mainly of corporate office, but also some players on the field, it earned for itself this reputation as being woke.
Before that, you may recall, People, the complaints would be kind of the opposite.
People would often complain when you had football players at press conferences, post-game press conferences, thanking God and saying that, you know, God was on their side and all that kind of thing.
You'd have people complaining and saying, oh, God doesn't care about the outcome of your football game.
That used to be the complaint.
But I never did complain about that.
Because I think it's a wonderful thing.
It's one of the things that I like about football.
In fact, this has come out.
We talked about it last week.
This has come out in the complaints that the left and the media has about football.
We read through that one.
I think it was a Washington Post or New York Times article.
They're both the same.
But complaining that football is religious, it's patriotic, it's macho.
And yeah, it is all those things.
It's always been those things.
Now you have the NFL, you have the corporate NFL is trying to change some of those things, but football as a sport remains, you know, among other things, you know, it has a very, oftentimes, because of the players, they tend to be religious, has a kind of religious flavor to it.
All right.
Meanwhile, over on, well, another DeMar Hamlin thing, over on Fox Sports, Michael Strahan is still traumatized by The totally benign Skip Bayless tweet we talked about last week, but he's still upset about it.
Let's play this.
And you spoke about humanity.
And I think, but there were things done here by someone here at this network that were inhumane.
And we sit here and we talk about how good, and I'm sorry to take it this way, but this route, but I just felt like Sensible people and sensible human beings have a heart.
And they understand that your words and what you say really have an impact, not only on that young man's family.
And so all the attention should be on this young man, his recovery.
For sensible people like us here to say that it didn't affect anybody at this network, nobody at this network mind it, that's a lie.
Obviously didn't talk to us because it matters to us and it matters to any sensible human being that this young man's life was bigger than any football game.
This young man will hopefully be back and forget about football, but just have a life and his family has him.
That's the most important thing.
And I think that was kind of lost a little bit in all of this.
Good lord.
Well, for many religious, many football players are religious as we talked about, but then there are others, especially on the sports media side of it, who for them, their religion is, it's a religion of virtue signaling, and that's what you saw there.
Inhumane.
I mean, he's talking again about a tweet, tweeted by a sports analyst, wondering about the scheduling, you know, how the NFL is going to reschedule the game.
That's inhumane.
It's inhumane to talk about that.
And then the funny thing is that everyone insisted Because it was a question after they decided to cancel the game, which nobody objected to that.
It made sense to do.
But there was a question of like, well, what are you going to do now?
How are you going to, how are we going to handle this?
Because it's towards the end of season, playoff implications, like.
The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business.
These are things you have to think about.
It's got to be a conversation at some point.
But everyone insisted that we can't talk about it.
Do not talk about it.
For some reason, we weren't allowed to even talk about it.
And then the NFL comes up with their solution to this because they cancelled the game.
They came up with a solution.
And they came up with the dumbest solution.
This convoluted, involving coin flips and everything else.
And then people are complaining about the solution they came up with.
Well, we weren't allowed to talk about what the solution would be because of, you know, the virtue signaling happening.
From the sports commentators.
All right, one other thing.
This is from the Daily Wire.
Flying car prototypes are starting to take off.
Science fiction is one step closer to reality as several companies debut working prototypes for flying cars.
The American startup Aska showed off its A5 model at the 2023 Consumer Electronics Show.
The A5 is an electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicle roughly the size of a standard SUV that is reportedly capable of driving at 70 miles per hour on the road and flying at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour.
All I want to say about this is that the flying car thing, you know, it's the kind of thing that you think sounds really great and cool when you're a kid.
Before you're able to drive yourself and then you get a license and you get out on the roads and you realize what a terrible idea this would actually be.
Because the vast majority of people can't drive on the ground, let alone driving in the sky.
It's amazing that most Americans drive every day for decades and yet never figure out how to do it.
I mean, the roads are infested with people behind, they're driving these big chunks of metal, 70 miles per hour, and they're just sitting behind the wheel.
They have no idea what they're doing or anything.
How can you do something every day and yet not know how to do it?
But this is the case.
Just yesterday I was, you know, one example of somebody sitting at a typical experience, sitting at a stoplight.
I'm in the right-hand lane, it's a turn lane, turn only lane.
There's one car in front of me and as always that car is just sitting there at the red light He's got all, there are no cars coming the other direction.
He's sitting there at the red light, pondering the mysteries of the universe, rather than turning, which you can do, you can turn on red.
I mean, are there any states left in the United States of America where you can't turn right on red?
Does that exist anywhere?
How is it that people still aren't acquainted with this rule?
I'm pretty sure every state in the Union, if you can turn right on red, unless there's a sign saying otherwise.
So this guy isn't turning, I'm beeping at him, he still isn't going, finally we get a green, he turns, then as I'm going up to take my turn to turn, my turn to turn, it's a green now, a car that is not in the turn lane turns right, right in front of me.
So cars that are supposed to turn right aren't, cars that aren't supposed to turn right are.
And why did the guy do that?
Well, because he was not in the turn-only lane.
He realized at the last minute he wasn't in the lane.
Well, okay, read the signs and you wouldn't have this problem.
Or, if you missed, just go to the next intersection, turn right there, hook up with the path you wanted to take.
It's an extra 45 seconds.
So you can take the extra 45 seconds or risk a car accident.
This is a calculation people make.
It's like when they're about to miss the exit, so they veer across four lanes of traffic.
You could die.
Like, you might die doing that.
Or just take an extra 45 seconds, take the exit that's one, you know, take one exit up and flip around.
A couple extra minutes.
You got people in cars saying, I would rather be dead and possibly kill like 15 other people instead of taking a couple extra minutes because I missed my exit.
Anyway, my point simply is, we do not need to give these people planes.
That's all I'm trying to say.
Let's get to the comment section.
For a limited time, save over 70% off GenuCell's most popular package to take care of all your skincare needs.
Watch those fine lines, forehead wrinkles, sagging jawline, dark marks, skin redness, and even under eye bags disappear.
My talent manager, Tessa, We used to call her assistant in these things, so now it's okay.
It's been a promotion.
Uses GenuCell under-eye treatment to help get rid of the bags under her eyes, and she says it works like a charm.
I ask her about it every day, and she tells me, still working.
That's the conversation we have in real life.
GenuCell skincare can help you turn back the clock and look 5, 10, even 15 years younger.
It's made for both women and men, safe for all skin types, and works for all ages.
GenuCell promises immediate effects and results that will make you smile or get 100% of your money back.
Football Rob says, Matt is the only married man I've ever seen who advocates for marriage.
vitamin C serum. It's absolutely free in every most popular package. You can
hydrate your skin while restoring your natural vibrant glow.
Visit GenuCell.com/Walsh and use code Walsh at checkout. Every order is
automatically upgraded to free shipping. That's GenuCell.com/Walsh.
GenuCell.com/Walsh. Football Rob says Matt is the only married man I've ever seen
who advocates for marriage. Well then Rob you hang around some really low quality
I don't know what to tell you.
And I saw a lot of comments like this as we've been talking about this topic over the last couple days, and I've seen a lot of comments that are saying, oh, every man I know hates marriage, has a terrible marriage, complains about his marriage.
Every man I know.
Really?
Every man you know?
For me, it's almost exactly the opposite.
Everyone in my immediate family, parents, all my siblings, except the one who became a nun, the other four, all of them are in successful and happy marriages.
The vast majority of the married people that I know and who are around me are married happily.
I didn't say perfectly, but like they're in functional marriages.
Here at the Daily Wire, if you watch backstage on a typical show, me, Ben, Michael, Andrew Clave and Jeremy, all married, all advocates for marriage.
Most of us have been married, you know, for a decade or more around there.
Drew for a lot longer than that.
So my point is simply that if you're surrounded by miserable people who hate their lives and their wives and their marriages, if that's everyone you know, then that's a reflection of the people you choose to hang around.
And that's actually a big part of the problem, I think.
Just choosing to hang around people who are a drag.
They're just a drag on you.
They're dysfunctional.
They live dysfunctional lives.
They love to tell you about it.
It's like we talked about in the opening.
You know, complaining about... If you've got people around you complaining about their families, complaining about their marriages, complaining about their wives...
My wife and I have disagreements.
We've, like, in any marriage, you know, there's gonna be disagreements.
I'm never gonna tell any, I don't complain about her to anybody.
I know there's this, like, sitcom stereotype of men, like, always doing that.
It's the everybody loves Raymond.
Men are just going around complaining about the old ball and chain.
I don't do that and I actually don't know that many people who do that.
Because that's not anyone else's business.
I don't need to talk to you.
I don't need to... It's like, in general, I don't need to complain to you about my personal life, about people that I know.
Like, if I have an issue with my wife, I'll talk to her.
I'm not going to talk to you.
I don't need to vent to you.
I don't need to cry on your shoulder.
Same for anyone else who's close to me.
If I have an issue with them, I talk to them.
I don't talk to you.
I don't talk to anybody else.
That's an in-house issue.
It's not for anybody else's ears.
So if you have men in your life, not just men in your life, if every man in your life doesn't even respect that basic thing, you know, the sanctity and privacy of the family, then you need to find some better quality people.
A.S.
says, don't worry Matt, we're raising our nine boys to act like men and to not apologize for being one.
Strong, responsible, and moral men are needed to lead society.
For those who've asked, we also have four girls.
Wow.
That's incredible.
You've got me, you know.
Sometimes I like to think, ah, we've got a big family, six kids on the way.
That's impressive.
And then I hear from people like you with 13 kids, and I realize that we're just, these are rookie numbers we're putting up.
So congratulations to you for that.
Mandy Johnson says, it's really tough because all that Matt says about relationships and marriage is true.
I got married about 10 years ago, and while he's a strong conservative, he does have other personal demons.
It's been a lot more turmoil than happiness overall.
I've learned a lot about myself, though, and I'm still grateful I got married because I've learned a lot of selflessness, godliness, and patience that I never would have learned being single.
Marriage is a huge risk, especially nowadays, spiritually, financially, etc.
Not to discount whatever demons you're referring to, And some personal demons are more serious than others, that's for certain, but everybody does have them.
And that's why it's our job in a marriage to lift each other up, you know, and do it in a loving way, not a, you know, this is one of the keys for, and I'm not saying that you're not doing this, I don't know you, but this is one of the most important things for women.
If there's something, if your husband has a flaw, which every husband does, just like every wife has a flaw, It's okay to work with him on that, but you've got to do it with respect.
I think this is one thing that many women tend to miss.
Because when you lose that respect and it turns into nagging, that's when it all gets tuned out.
And then that makes you frustrated.
Because then you say, well, I'm nagging him about this all the time and he's not changing.
Yeah, it's because it's the nagging part.
We just don't listen to that.
It doesn't matter what it is.
You could be so incredibly right about whatever it is you're saying.
If that's the tone and approach, we just don't listen.
And we don't need to talk about whether that's a fair response or not.
It just is the response, and it always will be the response.
And so you've got to change, and you have to change the way you approach it.
Let's see.
Finally, Grumpy Head says, I don't know what is wrong with me, but when I heard Matt saying he would find his wife and marry her a hundred times across all universes, I couldn't hold my tears.
Damn, those words are shockingly melting me.
I came from a broken family.
My parents were separated shortly after I was born.
I'm now in my thirties and married, but trust issues is still an effing curse to me.
I had a degree in psychology.
I'm applying everything I know, trying to fix myself and trying to do any harm, not do any harm to my current relationship like I did before when I was dumb, young, selfish, B word.
I always need to be alarmed and have my self-awareness fully on when I'm feeling anxious.
I'm really trying to be a good wife and I love my husband so much.
I don't hate my parents at all.
I'm happy for them because they did the right thing for themselves.
They only find peace with each other indeed.
However, the damage from my original family can never fade away in my life.
Well, here's the good news is that you have self-awareness.
So you're aware.
If you love your husband, you're struggling, but you love your husband, you love your marriage, you're trying to preserve it, you're aware of what your own flaws are, you're trying to work on them, that puts you far ahead of the game compared to many people.
So, that's the good news.
Signed copies of my books, What Is A Woman?
and Johnny the Walrus are back in stock and available in a limited quantity over at dailywire.com.
now is not only a chance to secure the book version of my LGBT death cult melting documentary
and my best-selling LGBT magnum opus, but also pieces of sweet baby history.
You can get them before they're gone by heading over to dailywire.com/shop today.
Also if there's one thing to be learned from the release of the Twitter files, it's that
the mainstream media cannot be trusted.
You know it, we know it, and now millions more people are waking up to it.
So no surprise that Morning Wire, the Daily Wire's fastest growing news podcast, is continuing
to climb the charts with new episodes seven days a week.
Join Editor-in-Chief John Bickley with co-host Jojo Howe as they cut through the corporate agendas and manufactured outrage to bring you the facts first on all the news you need to know.
Wake up with Morning Wire on Apple on Daily Wire Plus, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
During one of these Daily Cancellation segments last week, we discussed the violent nature of football and other contact sports.
A violent nature which had come under intense scrutiny by the media after, as we talked about, Bill's defender, Damar Hamlin, nearly died on the field during a Sunday night football matchup with the Cincinnati Bengals.
Of course, as far as we know, the Hamlin incident may not have had anything to do with football violence.
Still, to this point, all we know is that he had a cardiac emergency in the middle of the game.
We have not been given any direct evidence.
That it was actually caused by a collision on the field, though it certainly could have been.
Either way, whatever the exact cause, it remains an extremely rare occurrence that anyone has to be, you know, anyone has to be taken off the field by an ambulance and brought immediately to the hospital.
That's rare.
It doesn't happen very often.
This in spite of the fact that football is indeed a violent sport, and as I argued during that segment, it should remain a violent sport.
Now, it's good to have these kinds of physical, even brutal, full-contact sports, if for no other reason than the fact that they serve as relatively healthy, relatively safe, relatively productive outlets for male aggression.
One of the great services that sports like football provide for society is that they give young, aggressive men and boys a way to harness and channel all of that energy.
This is one of the central reasons why sports exist to begin with.
The violence is not the whole point, but it is part of the point, and it's an important part.
Take it away and these young men will find other outlets for their aggression.
Outlets which, you will discover, are not nearly so safe or controlled as football.
That was my basic point.
And it was a point that proved to be very upsetting to people on the internet, especially after our marketing team at Media Matters posted another of their carefully cropped clips of my monologue to Twitter.
The full monologue, which fleshes out my point in rather precise detail, went on for, I think, 12 or 13 minutes.
But Jason Campbell at Media Matters posted the 75 seconds which he felt was the most likely to make the pitchfork mob upset, especially when isolated from the full context.
And it seems that he made the right choice because his clip garnered nearly 10 million views on Twitter and provoked lots of angry reactions.
Before we continue, I think it would be fair for me to go back and we'll show the part of that monologue that he posted and then we'll talk about it.
Here it is.
Let's consider football itself as a sport.
Despite any rule changes or updates to the equipment, it is still a fundamentally violent sport.
That's true.
And that's what it always will be.
Is that a bad thing?
No, it's not.
In fact, it is a good and healthy thing.
It is good that football is violent.
It should stay violent.
It is good to have violent sports.
Okay?
We should have violent sports.
If anything, we should have more of them.
Because a violent sport like football is, among other things, A relatively safe, relatively safe, and relatively productive outlet for male energy and aggression.
Okay, there's a reason why many of the media articles being written and freaking out about football are being written by women.
Because football is not, no matter what the NFL is trying to do, football is not for women.
There might be some women who get into it, but it's not really for women.
It's not for you, you don't understand it, you're not meant to understand it.
This is actually a man's thing.
This is why violent games have existed in every society going back to primitive times.
They are a means of channeling and harnessing male aggression.
Okay, so I did say that football is a man's sport.
Which, you know, why did I say that?
How could I possibly justify such a statement?
Well, because football was invented by men and has been played almost exclusively by men and the vast majority of its fans are men and have always been men and will always be men.
That's why I said that.
Does that mean that no woman has ever watched football or been a fan or been involved professionally at some level?
No, it just means that football was made by men.
And mostly for men.
This is a statistical and historical reality.
It isn't really up for debate, okay?
If it interferes with your girl power fantasies, that's your problem, not mine.
I don't really care.
And apparently it did interfere with lots of people's fantasies, which is why there were many tweets explaining why my statements were terrible and wrong and hurtful and sexist and so on.
This continued until the scholars over at The Young Turks got wind of the controversy and decided to devote a lengthy segment responding to and supposedly debunking my claims.
The title of this segment on YouTube declares that, quote, TYT demolishes right-wing alpha male Matt Walsh for his most recent sexist rant.
Now, this is nothing new.
I've been demolished by many a left-wing YouTuber over the years, demolished at least according to the titles they put on their videos.
But as we've seen many times in the past, these demolitions usually end up being rather anticlimactic, if I must say.
Rarely do they live up to their own hype.
Perhaps, though, this Young Turks video will be different.
Perhaps my demolition will finally come to fruition.
Let's watch and find out.
That is the infamous fascist, misogynist, and other bad-ist Matt Walsh.
Insisting that football is only for men, and we are about to prove him completely wrong.
Who could have seen that take coming?
Uh, Cenk did.
Called it perfectly just yesterday, right here on TYT.
Check out this clip.
So now it looks like the right wing is trying to frame it like, I remember when people were real men and they just didn't mind people getting killed on the field.
Now the libs wanna make this soft so there isn't as many deaths on the field.
Yeah, no, I knew they were gonna eventually celebrate the fact that the guy almost died, right?
And like, it's supposed to be a violent sport, man, yeah!
And chicks wouldn't understand nothing about it, huh?
My favorite thing about this dude is that his dumb guy voice is indistinguishable from his regular voice.
He's doing an impression of an idiot, and yet sounds just like himself.
And speaking of sounding like an idiot, he misses the point entirely, of course.
If there is a right-wing take on the DeMar Hamlin injury, it's that it's not an injury.
Cenk, is that how you pronounce it?
I honestly don't know how to pronounce his name, is trying to strawman us, but he's hilariously using the wrong strawman.
If there was a conservative position on this topic, which there isn't, okay, because it's not a political issue, but if there was, it would be that Hamlin collapsed for reasons wholly unrelated to football.
The predominant view among conservative pundits on the internet, from what I've seen, is that I'm much more plugged into that world than he is, is that this may have had something to do with the vaccine.
Whether that's wrong or right, like that's when it comes to the DeMar Hamlin thing, that's the thing that most conservatives were talking about.
Very few are using this as an occasion to defend violent sports.
I am, but I'm not the official spokesman for conservative pundits.
And none of us are, as he says, celebrating the fact that the guy almost died.
That's not happening anywhere.
So, we were promised a demolition and instead so far we've gotten a series of completely arbitrary and irrelevant straw men that bear not even a passing resemblance to any argument that anyone has ever actually made.
Not a great start, but let's continue.
This video had two parts, right?
So, there were really three parts.
One is not so bad.
He's saying, look, it's a societally acceptable way of releasing some of the violent urges that people in society and men in particular have.
That's not that wrong, right?
But when they celebrate, the second part is celebrating like, violence is a good thing.
Yeah, it's great.
No, but wait, it doesn't have to be this violent.
We talked about it a little bit yesterday.
I'll just tell you real quick.
Between 1900 and 1905, 45 different people died on the football fields because it used to be even more violent.
They would literally kill each other on the field.
And guess what happened?
The government stepped in.
It was Teddy Roosevelt when he was president and said, I'm not gonna let you kill each other on the field like this.
This is insane.
You have to make it less violent.
And you know what happened after that?
It became way more popular because people didn't wanna go see a sport and have people murder each other on the field.
And so it doesn't mean it's gonna be less popular.
It doesn't mean it's gonna be less of a sport or anything along those lines if you don't Celebrate people like Demar Hamlin almost dying on the field.
Okay, I see what's happening here.
This is the exact opposite of a demolition.
Actually, he agrees with my argument, but is trying to find a way to disagree with it.
He concedes my point about football being a healthy outlet for male aggression.
That was essentially my entire point, so if he will admit that I'm right, or in his words, not that wrong, then there's not much else to talk about.
But he keeps talking anyway, even after having long since run out of anything relevant to say, as is his custom.
He observes that Football used to be a lot more violent than it is today.
If that sounds familiar, it's probably because I made the exact same point in the very monologue he's attempting to rebut.
That's what I said.
It's the left-wing media that tried to turn DeMar Hamlin into a conversation about football's increasing violence.
Remember, a White House reporter asked the president about, you know, is football becoming too dangerous?
As I said in that segment, football is actually becoming much less dangerous.
If there was a time to have a national dialogue about the violence in football, it was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago.
Today, it's about as non-violent as it can possibly be, while still remaining something resembling the sport as it was originally designed.
The Hamlin injury, if it was a football injury, was the result of a routine football play that was by no means especially violent or brutal.
There would be no way to take that play out of the game without turning it into two-hand touch or flag football.
Which is why, once again, it makes no sense to use DeMar Hamlin as a jumping-off point for a discussion about the violence of the sport.
It has nothing to do with the violence of the sport.
It was a basic, normal tackle.
That's all it was.
It was a not-especially-violent play in a sport that has become less and less violent with each passing year.
That was my point.
A point that Cenk restates while pretending to rebut.
But now it's time for the woman on the panel to chime in, and she's the one.
Okay, this is where they're setting her up.
Okay, they're teeing her off.
But this is where the real demolition is going to happen.
She is going to set me straight.
Let's listen.
Okay, so the crux of his argument is women shouldn't have a say because men are the ones that have violent urges and you chicks don't get it.
You chicks don't get the violent urges that we have that we need to get out, which I almost can see.
I'm a cis woman and I am raising, apparently so far as I know, a cis baby.
I've been raising a cis son for two years.
And there are, like, yeah, I totally get that there are, like, male things that are ingrained in him.
I would actually almost accept that argument from this tool shed if I knew that he had no opinions on abortion, female reproductive rights, the price of tampons, maternity leave.
If he shut his stupid bearded pie hole about any of those things.
That he literally, as a man, does not understand about being a woman, then I might accept his argument.
But I know this bearded douche nozzle has so much to say about women that he knows nothing about.
So for him to turn around and be like, women, I don't even want to hear from you because you guys just don't, shut up.
Shut your stupid, dumb pie hole, you dime store Justin Theroux.
Lady, listen.
If you want to be included in the football conversation, you're not helping your case here.
You're so emotional, you can barely see straight.
Calm down, cupcake.
Take a breath.
You're being hysterical.
Can you imagine trying to watch a game and this woman comes running in?
You're trying to watch the game.
Let me tell you about my cis baby!
My God, shut up.
Now, as to your points, if anything in that rambling, stuttering pile of words can be described as a point, I would say this.
First of all, I do not now have, nor have I ever had, an opinion about the price of tampons.
I don't even know how much they cost.
I couldn't tell you.
Is it $3 a tampon?
I don't know.
30 cents?
I do have an opinion about abortion and other reproductive, quote-unquote, reproductive issues, because as a man, I am 50% involved in reproduction.
It is as much my issue as it is yours.
I was also once an unborn baby.
So, if you want reproduction to be a woman's issue, you need to figure out a way to reproduce entirely without the involvement of a male member of the species.
Until you do that, this is our issue as much as it is yours.
So, you gotta deal with that.
Actually, let me clarify that.
You have to figure out a way to reproduce without a male member of the species and also to reproduce yourself.
Because if you're reproducing and making another person, Then already it's not just your issue, because there's another person involved.
So no matter what, in reproduction, there are other people involved.
It's not just you.
Second, to clarify, I don't disregard your opinion about football.
I don't.
I disregard your opinion about everything, including football.
Not because you're a woman, but because you use the phrase, cis baby.
That automatically, I want you to understand this, that automatically invalidates everything you will ever say about anything ever.
Not that on this topic you actually have much to say in the first place.
You've yet to approach anything that might be called an argument, but still.
Everything is out the window now because you talked about your cis baby.
But anyway, you know what?
We'll listen for another minute to give you one last chance to put together some kind of argument.
Let's go.
He's just saying, women what?
Are not intelligent enough to understand football?
What do you mean they can't understand it?
It's not that complicated.
There's literally posted rules.
You can Google the rules of football and anyone with basic level of intelligence cannot.
There's literally a list of rules and go, okay, I understand.
You read the rules, you watch one game and go, I get it, I get it.
It's not magic, it's not magic.
It's not like, are men not allowed to watch football?
Gymnastics?
Or baking?
Or, like, this is the most sexist, going both ways sexist argument from the dumbest douche nozzle.
Okay, this is what tells me that not only are you unable to understand football, but apparently you also don't understand English.
I didn't say that women can't comprehend the rules of football.
I mean, you probably can't, which is why you're sitting there Googling it.
What I said, quite clearly from the context, is that women generally don't understand, don't relate to the desire to watch, much less participate in, violence as entertainment.
Males understand violence as entertainment in a way that women don't, just like my wife understands the appeal of Gilmore Girl reruns in a way that I don't.
The urge to seek outlets for that sort of physical aggression is something that males experience and relate to much more than females.
There are exceptions, but the exceptions are exceptions.
That's why we call them exceptions.
Is that clear enough for you, or are you still confused?
Do I need to speak slower?
In conclusion, the Young Turks squad here has spent 10 minutes trying to find a reason to disagree with my point, but sadly, they never found one.
All we've really learned here is that they have trouble comprehending simple English sentences.
And we've also learned that the woman at the table has a baby who we should all be praying for.
And we've learned that all three of them at the table are today cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the Members Block, you can become a member and watch the Members Block by using code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
