We’ve got a raucous show for you guys today!

While we didn’t plan on having a debate, that’s basically where we ended up.

Last week, one of the major trending news stories was the new Netflix movie Cuties, which rather graphically depicts the grooming and sexualization of 11-year-old girls. Even IMDb admitted the movies contained scenes that are lawfully defined as pedophilia — though that content warning has predictably been deleted.

Elsewhere, Burger King released a “Love Conquers All” ad depicting their mascot in a, uh, rather enthusiastic same-sex kiss with Ronald McDonald.

It seems like just yesterday (it was 2008) when Mr. Progressive himself, Barack Obama, stated on the record that he believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

How did we go from that to Netflix advertising soft-core child porn and fast food restaurants depicting their mascots making out?

Is this just happenstance, or does history reveal an identifiable trend?

It got a little heated toward the end; but don’t worry, we’re all good. 🙂

We’d love to know where you guys fall on the debate.

You can email us at [email protected], or tweet us at @jason_stapleton and @itweetstuffhere, and let us know.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  • What’s your favorite investing sites? – I use news aggregators to find good articles to read:, – I use the GATA and SGTreport RSS feeds for higher volume blasting. – I listen to all of the interviews I can: kwn, usawatchdog, liberty&finance, tekoa desilva when he was active, etc. – I have a good collection of blogs via my news aggregator (I use feedly now and previously google reader) but I find it easy to fall out of the habit of reading them. After I’ve read a blog for a while, I’ve usually internalized their worldview and then start to find their stuff predictable, and then my reading falls off. What about you?  

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Streamed radio online has been a growing phenomenon. With the advent of smart speakers and 4G and 5G network connections, new opportunities for radio online have opened up. With the use of streaming technology, it’s now possible to hear radio online from anywhere in the world. It’s no secret that younger generations are more than eager to access information instantly. In order to meet this demand, companies are investing in tools and applications that allow access to a range of radio stations. The best part is that these stations are free to listen to. In fact, more than half of the world is now accessing information online. In addition, many radio stations have developed apps that allow listeners to listen to the latest shows, news and more while on the go.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • It looks like as of this morning that there is no longer a way to add news articles. The submit button takes you to the entertainment “Create” page. There does not seem to be any other option than images, film, or music, which clearly does not cover most news stories. Am I missing something?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • I think this is one of the best essays for a libertarian who writes articles to reread on a regular basis. What say you?

    Jump to Discussion Post 47 replies
  • As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply