Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 27: "Weapons of Mass Distraction," is now available!

Podcast: "I Feel Snitty"

Episode 27: Weapons of Mass Distraction

Premiere Date: 1/20/20

Length: 8:01 (1,248 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/weapons-of-mass-distraction-1579538444/

Transcript:

Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 27, entitled, “Weapons of Mass Distraction.” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

Over the past week or two, Donald Trump has put forth painstaking effort into wagging the dog, as he’s continually attempted to divert attention away from his now infamous Ukraine phone call with Voldymyr Zelensky and the impeachment which resulted from it by nearly starting a war with Iran. Here’s a brief rundown of how he went about this:

- First he ordered a strike on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, killing him in the process.

- In an effort to defend his action, he claimed Soleimani was planning an “imminent” attack on US troops.

- He later changed the correct term of “imminent” to “eminent,” because he’s brilliant like that.

- As Trump is known to do, his story kept changing, as he later claimed Soleimani had planned on attacking multiple US embassies.

- Cabinet members contradicted Trump’s declarations and even each other at times.

- It then got reported that Trump okayed the killing of Soleimani 7 months prior to the attack.

- When asked about this bit of news, Trump said the potential strike not being imminent was of no relevance.

 - All the while news was breaking about a growing pile of evidence stacking up against Trump in the Ukraine scandal.

Sadly, this strategy seems to work more times than not, as the mainstream media, which Trump claims to loathe, allows him to get away with it. I swear, if he were in the midst of shooting someone on 5th Avenue and then tweeted, “My stomach is not doing so well. I ate a taco bowl not at Trump Tower. Bad move. I need some Pepto,” the media would then be talking about his current digestive issues and running polls on whether taco bowls were better at Trump Tower Grille or Mexican restaurants.

Now imagine if this were just about anyone else, someone like you or me. How long would the media, the public, and especially law enforcement let us get away with it? Well, let’s find out for ourselves, shall we, courtesy of my all too scientific three-part short story series, called, How Much Shit Could We Get Away With If We Weren’t President Trump?

Part 1 of the series will be taking place in a family’s home, where a son tries to convince his mother everything is a-ok.

Mom: “What do you think Vice Principal Naggy will say when she calls? She sounded pretty upset when she left me that voice message!”

Son: “Nothing bad, mommy. Don’t worry. Remember what you told me a long time ago? I’m a perfect little angel.”

Mom: “Finally, there’s the phone. You better hope you’re right!”

Son: “Wait, mommy, don’t answer it! Here, look! Look what I’m doing!”

Mom: “What do you think you’re doing?!? Stop it! Stop it, mister! Stop throwing eggs on the kitchen floor!”

Son: “But, look! Look over here!”

Mom: “Cut it out! Those things are not easy to clean up! Stop it! I need to answer this!”

Son: “No, here, look now!”

Mom: “What are you doing now? Nooooo! Did you just pour orange juice all over the floor! What is wrong with you?!? Great, now I missed the call. Thanks a lot.”

Son: “You’re welcome, mommy. Oh, and it’s not orange juice; it’s origin juice.”

Mom: “Honey, no, it’s orange juice.”

Son: “Oh, okay. Potato, tomato, I guess.”

Mom: “Are you going to clean this up?”

Son: “Why? It’s Obama’s fault.”

Mom: “That’s it! You’re grounded until the Browns win a Super Bowl!”

In part 2, I will be engaging in a dialogue between a police officer and an individual guilty of DWB, or Driving While Black.

Cop: “Do you know how fast you were going?”

DWB: “55”

Cop: “Do you know what the speed limit is?”

DWB: “Well, it’s a school parking lot, so I’m guessing less than that.”

Cop: “License and registration”

DWB: “Are you sure, officer? Isn’t there something else I can give you? Right here it says I’m an organ donor. I’d like to stick an organ of mine inside of you right now, if you know what I mean.”

Cop: “Out of the car! You’re under arrest!”

DWB: “For what?!? Hold on a sec. Let me have one more puff from this crack-pipe of

mine.”

Cop: “What?!? Out of the car now!”

DWB: “Okay, but before I do that, please know this rocket launcher attached to my hip is not loaded.”

Cop: “You have the right to remain silent. Any organ you use to penetrate me can be held against you in a court of law. I mean…”

DWB: “I’d like to hold my organ against you.”

Cop: “Stop it! You know what I mean!”

DWB: “As do you, big boy!”

Cop: “Spread ‘em!”

DWB: “I was hoping you’d say that…”

In the third and final installment of this series, I will now be portraying former President Barack Obama and a Fox News reporter in the event Obama were to have acted and reacted in the same manner Trump has during this Iran scandal.

FNR: “Why did you strike Russia, which killed Vladimir Putin yesterday?”

BO: “Because he’s a bad man who was about to do some very bad things.”

FNR: “Says who?”

BO: “I have my sources. They’re the best sources, believe me.”

FNR: “So he was going to attack the United States and this was imminent?”

BO: “You could say that.”

FNR: “I did say that. Now I’m asking you.”

BO: “Asking me what?”

FNR: “Would you say that?”

BO: “Say what? That? That. Are you happy?”

FNR: “No. Nevermind. We’re just getting a report that the alleged Putin attack was not imminent. Is that true?”

BO: “That depends on your definition of the term. It’s like former President Clinton once said, ‘What is ‘imminent’?’”

FNR: “I don’t believe he said that.”

BO: “Well, that’s like your opinion.”

FNR: “Not exactly. Okay, we just received another report, suggesting that you wrote you wanted to attack Putin in a 3rd-grade diary. How is that imminent?”

BO: “Well, that’s besides the point. Vladimir Putin once called me O’Bummer and I didn’t much care for it.”

FNR: “…and that was enough to kill him?”

BO: “It endangered national security, so yes.”

FNR: “How did it endanger national security? Didn’t killing the Russian president endanger our national security more than him calling you O’Bummer?”

BO: “No, you see, this country is nothing without me. I am this country. I am more than this country. Some people say country over party, but if I’m being completely honest, it’s me over everybody and everything else.”

FNR: “We’re getting another report that you secretly like Nickelback. Is this true?”

BO: “Eh, let’s go back to talking about me illegally striking Russia…”

I’m now going to close the show with my Poll of the Week. The poll this week asks the question, “What will Donald Trump be doing while watching, but pretending not to watch the Democratic debate?” It received 211 votes and here are the results:

1) Continually yell, “Fake big words!” (65%)
2) Look and point at shiny objects (16%)
3) Plan “eminent” strike on “Nambia” (10%)
4) Play tic-tac-toe with himself and lose (9%)

Thanks to everyone who voted.

That’s it for today’s episode. I’ll see you again next week. Until then, check me out on PodBean, Twitter, Amazon, and Blogpsot. This has been I Feel Snitty with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"