#262: The Boner Clock

August 8, 2015

262

Adam opens the show talking to Drew about his experience sharing his car warehouse with his apathetic father and his father’s sense of wonderment at all that is going on between the automotive shop and the car museum. They then turn to the phones and talk to a listener who is trying to overcome the grief of his new wife’s passing. They also speak to a listener who wanted to make fun of Drew in honor of his new car before examining the boner clock. Superfan Sidebar >>

Producers: Chris Laxamana and Gary Smith

  • Nice show.

  • John Burrows

    So, a woman calls into the show and makes this ridiculous claim about how the Democrats in California legislature want to outlaw terms such as “boss” and “supervisor”, etc. in the workplace, with the full backing of the ACLU. Do either of these intelligent men think that story sounds a little fishy and question whether or not it’s actually true? No, they simply accept at face value a random caller’s absurd assertion. Adam, of course, was predisposed to believe it because he hates liberalism. Hates it so much he regularly misrepresents it, or takes an extreme fringe liberal viewpoint and characterizes it as mainstream liberalism. Drew, even if he didn’t believe it, wouldn’t dare push back on it because he has the spine of a jellyfish.

    I often enjoy Adam’s views on the problems of daily life, and that’s why I sometimes listen to the show. Where he gets in over his head and often has his head up his ass is when he delves into politics. In Adam’s world, any political problem is so easy to fix simply by mocking liberalism and doing the opposite of whatever a liberal would do. He boasts about being such a super-logical person, but that logical thinking is often abandoned because of his blind hatred for liberalism. He and his good buddy Dennis Prager (red flag right there).

    Take his statement that the lefties think that if you change the terminology from “rape victim” to “rape survivor” that then there will be no more rapes. What a fucking moronic statement. No one believes that. NO ONE. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON. And does Drew say, “Aw come on, Adam, that’s not true and you know it.” Of course not. Just sits there and lets Adam say the most outlandish things – many of them outright false – without so much as a peep.

    Also, Adam criticized Obama’s campaign statement about wanting to transform America, as if no Republican running for president has ever made a similar statement, if not far worse. Pure dishonest hypocrisy from Adam. Republicans just run around talking about wanting to “take back the country.”

    Here, you stupid jackasses, is the SATIRICAL article which your idiot caller took as gospel truth and passed on to you and you never thought to question it’s veracity. Though it’s not a news show, it’s outrageous that you let this ridiculous piece of misinformation be disseminated – WITHOUT QUESTION – on your show.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2015/08/02/new-california-law–no-bosses-n2032476/page/full

    • Mauser

      Typical liberal. Always with the hate. I like hearing Adams views on politics, even if I disagree with them. He is funny. Liberals are so accustomed to being offended, no one can make jokes without offending them.

      • John Burrows

        It wasn’t presented as a joke. It was presented as fact, which neither Adam nor Drew had enough common sense to question. Nor would you, apparently. The often-heard cry from conservatives about the lack of common sense these days goes out the window when they see a chance to skewer an evil liberal.

        The article you link to isn’t about “liberals”, but about two philosophers (which apparently you equate with being liberals) who are thinking about things in a different way, as philosophers do. Are you really so threatened by a couple of philosophers in Australia?

        And did you happen to read this part?:

        ‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in
        fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions
        between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these
        [desired] familial relationship goods.’

        Or this part?:

        “if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s
        not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be
        too big a hit at the core of family life.’

        If this is your best example of “liberalism gone amok”, then you’re going to have to resort to making stuff up and calling it in on the show and presenting it as fact. Don’t worry, neither Adam nor Drew will question you.

        • Mauser

          Oh I did read those parts. It doesn’t matter though. The man that sits in his ivory tower that thinks about what he is and is not going to allow people to do is a liberal.

          • John Burrows

            Good lord. The philosopher wasn’t thinking about was he was “going to allow people to do.”

            But I’m glad you read the parts that contradicted your original premise. Better luck next time.

          • Mauser

            #HatesFreedom

          • John Burrows

            Answering the question, “Is Mauser a wacko conservative?” Because the wacko conservative can relate almost any disagreement to a hatred of freedom, no matter how unrelated it is. Oh man, that did make me laugh, though. You’re a caricature, Mauser. It’s no wonder you don’t do too well with philosophy.

            See ya. You keep rooting out those freedom haters now, okay? They’re everywhere!

          • Mauser

            Sure, except the whole reason you are all angry, is that people have used their freedom of speech in ways that you don’t like. Cheers!

    • Paul Meister

      Yeah, how dare they not fact check the questions their callers present. Every caller should now call 3-6 months ahead and submit a packet of their complete medical history, three forms of photo ID and a history of employment and the addresses at which they have lived for the past 7 years. If their question has anything to do with anyone else, they are required to present this information for the other persons as well.

      Regarding the rape survivor vs rape victim, Drew didn’t challenge if Adam actually believes that because anyone with half a brain can tell that he doesn’t mean it literally. Even if you’ve never listened to Adam before it’s super obvious that he’s talking about how liberals don’t care about actual reality but about how society can adjust reality to affect how it makes people feel. I mean it’s obvious if you’re not looking for the chance to jump on him for being offensive.

      • John Burrows

        Your first paragraph there is beyond idiotic and embarrassing. You really know how to go off the deep end, don’t you? What is needed of the hosts is the ability to use common sense on what was obviously a bullshit story. Obvious unless one of the hosts is predisposed to believe it and the other host is spineless. Now the story will be spread even more because people will say, “Did you hear what the liberals in California want to do? I heard it on the Adam and Drew show…” They have access to the internet. A simple, quick search would have revealed this bogus story and then they wouldn’t be complicit in passing it along. Drew might actually care about that. Adam probably doesn’t.

        Obama’s statement was over-inflated campaign rhetoric, yes. Like he’s the only one who has ever done that or ever will. But for the record, here’s the statement in context. Oh, the horror.

        “Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five
        days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that’s taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

        “In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and
        irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of
        folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor.”

        • John Burrows

          Oh, and if people who have been through a rape want to call themselves “survivors” instead of “victims”, how about we just let them have that? Also, how about we not falsely claim that they think that change will put an end to rape? The first is decency, the second is not lying.

          • Paul Meister

            I hope you realize everyone with more than two brain cells to rub together is laughing at how stupid you are right now. You literally just made Adams point and then called him a liar, which shows not only do you agree with him, you are too stupid and/or blinded by hatred to realize it. Congratulations on being dumb.

          • John Burrows

            Yeah, Adam thinks it’s silly to call them “survivors” instead of “victims” and I don’t think it’s silly. So I can see how you and your two brain cells think I agree with him.

            When Adam stated that the people who changed the terminology thought that would end rape, that was a lie. Plain and simple, a lie. If Drew had any backbone and pushed back a little on that statement, then Adam might have agreed it was overstatement. Maybe. But Adam’s disdain for any thoughts that aren’t in agreement with his black and white views on practically any subject might have negated that small possibility.

          • Paul Meister

            #toodumbtolive

          • John Burrows

            You’ve reduced your thinking to a hashtag. Okay, then. Now I can stop wasting any more time on you. Say whatever you want. I won’t be reading it.

          • Mauser

            Hey John, You need to listen Episode 264, to http://www.adamanddrdrewshow.com/264/ , you will blow your stack, more delving into politics.

          • Paul Meister

            lol, thanks for reinforcing my point.

        • Paul Meister

          Your first paragraph is completely devoid of a point. Because your already heard about something, you think they should know it as well and start accusing their callers of being liars. OK there’s the first clue that you’re an unreasonable prick.
          As for Obama, you didn’t address anything I said so I guess you realize you’re wrong. Quoting Obama may impress your liberal friends but since it didn’t actually are my argument I am thoroughly disappointed.

          • John Burrows

            But see, I hadn’t already heard about it. I just had the good sense to know a ridiculous story when I heard it. The caller – I assume – actually believed the stupid story and then passed it on to two intelligent men who didn’t bother to question it, for reasons I’ve already stated.

            I quoted Obama to show the full context of what he said, including what he said AFTER the comment in question. I’m sure it won’t alter your view, but it might be helpful to someone with a more reasonable mind than yours.

            And yes, every time I quote Obama, my liberal friends are always VERY impressed, naturally. Because to quote Obama, you have to get permission from The White House, so my liberals friends are always very impressed that I have that kind of clout.

          • Paul Meister

            A caller asked what they thought about an idea. The idea didn’t have to be based on reality as even the premise was hypothetical. My argument is that just because you personally doubt the reality of a hypothetical premise it doesn’t mean they can’t talk about it and should instead call their caller a lying whore. You, being retarded, obviously missed that point. That or you can’t debate against it since you seem to be avoiding it. Your premise that this is irresponsible news reporting by Adam and Drew is preposterous because this isn’t a news show. Again, something that is obvious to everyone else.

            As I pointed out in my last comment, the context doesn’t address my argument. Since you have repeated that fact, I accept your admission of defeat. Since you have proven yourself to be incredibly slow, I will repeat the fact that just because you quoted Obama it’s not going to “alter [my] view” as simply repeating words Obama has said is not a valid argument to reasonable people.

          • John Burrows

            “A caller asked what they thought about an idea.”

            An “idea” based on a false story the caller presented as truth, knowingly or unknowingly.

            “you personally doubt the reality of a hypothetical premise”

            It wasn’t a “hypothetical premise”, it simply wasn’t true, was ludicrous on it’s face, and wasn’t questioned.

            “instead call their caller a lying whore.”

            I never called her a liar, let alone a whore. It appears your misogyny is seeping through.

            “Your premise that this is irresponsible news reporting by Adam and Drew is preposterous because this isn’t a news show. ”

            It’s not my view that any talk show that isn’t a new show – even one with a medical doctor as co-host – should be good with presenting satirical stories as fact. I despise Donald Trump, but if a caller told of a story he had read about Trump being a child molester, I would hope I’d have the good sense to at least question the veracity of that story before going to on treat it as if were fact. Even if I was hosting a non-news talk show.

            “I will repeat the fact that just because you quoted Obama it’s not going to “alter [my] view” as simply repeating words Obama has said is not a valid argument to reasonable people.”

            Far too mangled a sentence to make any sense of. Obama’s statement in context – and in the context of a campaign – can be judged by people on their own. They can compare that statement to campaign statements that have been made in the past by other candidates, including Republicans. Such as Ben Carson comparing Obamacare to slavery.

          • Paul Meister

            An idea doesn’t have to be based in reality to discuss it. The caller presented it as hypothetical. As in “this may happen”. You called me a misogynist based on a single word i used jokingly. Your liberalism is showing. No wonder no one takes you guys seriously. I mean beyond your insanely horrible ideas. Once again, the hosts didn’t present the story in question at all, let alone assign any verdict as to the veracity thereof. The fact that you continue to make that claim betrays your agenda and makes you a liar. You claim it is literally the same as slandering a prominent public figure, which again just shows reasonable people that you aren’t interested in reality and are willing to go to any mental lengths to defame Adam and Drew.
            To your last point: if you honestly can’t understand that sentence, that is proof enough that you are mentally handicapped. Maybe you have a reading disorder or maybe a problem processing ideas. Either one would be a perfect explanation for your obvious inability to articulate a defensible argument. So are you stupid or a liar? I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just a liar.

      • The problem is, we are not reading a trolling jerk under the name of Burrows, we are reading a true-believing nutjob.

  • Is the new show delayed for Bob Zoey Tur’s editorial approval or somethng?