The Adam and Dr. Drew Show - What Happens in Vegas Still Happened (The Adam and Dr. Drew Show Classics)

Episode Date: July 29, 2023

Adam and Drew open the show with Drew talking about the Netflix show 'Friends From College'. The conversation then turns to a conversation about impulse control referencing some of Adam's experiences in Las Vegas. They also review a recent interaction between Senator Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci and give their analysis about what the interaction informs about both men involved. They then turn to the phones and speak to a caller who has an employee that is using a fentanyl pump that he's curious about. Adam relays a conversation he had with a friend about their experiences on a dating app and how the political landscape reveals itself even in that realm.

Welcome back to the Adam and Dr. Drew Show Classics. First up for today, episode 634, released July 28th, 2017, titled Honda Rebel Guy. Dr. Drew talks to Adam about a show he watched on Netflix and how uncomfortable the character's actions made him feel, which prompts Adam to express gratitude he wasn't afflicted with the innate desire for harmful behavior. Do you watch the, the, uh, do you watch Netflix very much? No. Well, I watched that, uh, Friends from College Netflix thing and I just, oh, I did not like it.

Did not like it. Great cast. Did not like the thing. I was just curious if you had seen that. You see that? No? Anybody? No.

I didn't. Amazing cast. A crazy cast. I think I'll probably get a second season just because I want to milk that cast. But the writing was so bad. So unsatisfying. I've just never seen anything like it.

And my wife liked it. I could not understand why. But this, I don't know, this series was about this, just these horrible people that are engaged in cheating on each other constantly. And I get that confused thing we were talking about a few days ago with that psychologist, which these people are treating, this one couple, well, there's two couples, and a wife

and a husband from these two couples are having this longstanding affair. And they're behaving in ways that I just like, how can people do that? I get confused when people can carry on like that and then lie and lie and lie to their spouses. I just get confused. To me, it's like, how can you live with yourself like that? I get more upset about what it must feel like to be the guy that's lying and how you live like that than being the object of the lying. Well, I'm going to take a moment and do something I'm not very often.

Talk about yourself? That's a rare moment. How'd you guess that? So shocking. So rare. You just pulled that right off the net. I was thinking, what could he do that's rare that I'd really enjoy? No.

No? I'm going to be grateful. What? That's right. Now I'm confused. Yeah. I told you. That's right.

Now I'm confused. Yeah, I told you. I'm going to be grateful, and you should be grateful too, because I don't cheat. I'm not living a second life, a secret life that's closed off to my kids and family and whatever. Can you imagine living like that? It's confusing to me. Look, I don't know that people want to live like that. It's a byproduct of an action that they can't control. It's like people don't want to... I must drink that in. Drink it in. Nobody wants that. It's

what you get when you do that. Yeah. I think if you gave them the choice of not having that and I got to still behave this way, they would do it. It's a lot like drugs and alcohol. They don't want it to ruin the family or ruin the work. They want to get drunk. But this is a byproduct of that. But first off, not lactose intolerant. Don't have any wheat allergies or any allergies or any stomach problems or any issues or constipation or allergies of any kind.

Back to you again. Back to me. Nothing. But I don't have that impulse to gamble. You know, I went to Vegas for three days, two and a half days the other week. two and a half days the other week. At some point, because of circumstances beyond my control, I ended up in my hotel room at 5.30 in the evening, and I never left.

I was in a huge suite. It kind of was. It was a huge suite at 5.30 in the evening on Friday. Walked in, went to bed at 9.30. There was a part of me that went like, maybe you should walk downstairs and play some 21. And I went, nah. No desire to do cocaine or speed or cheat or gamble or steal.

We just don't know how to live, man. Maybe that's what it is. We're waiting to die. Probably. So I don't have any of these compulsions. So we should be grateful that we don't have that. What if you were attracted to young boys even more? That I am? Yeah, well, it's manageable now is what I'm saying.

What if it became unmanageable? What if your attraction to young it became unmanageable? What if your attraction to young males became unmanageable? No, you would become Jared from Subway. It's a time bomb. It's going to go off. It's not about if,

it's about when. You get X amount of people behind you that come to adulthood, they talk to therapists, like it's going to happen. Or Bill Cosby. Cosby, different. But let's say Jared. Just what I'm saying is

he had a strong impulse to have sexual encounters with comatose women. No, no, no. But here's the difference. No, no, no? Well, here's the no. I say yes, yes, yes. Okay, it's always yes to you. No, but tell me what is that? Well, but there's a difference. I

try to make a distinction between a sick person and a bad person. And sometimes both. And sometimes a sick person behaving like a bad person. And sometimes bad people get sick, and I think it's kind of both. You're right. There's a lot of overlap there. But I try to be sympathetic to sick people and feel bad for them even when they do bad things

but but but a well person and that's what this series was about this college of friends with college friends because these are some of them were kind of sick but but they were like mostly kind of pretty much well doing horrible things to each other and i that then i'm like huh well confused because they're they're sick and there's like not normal. So you're saying Cosby's a bad person. That seems bad to me, that stuff he was doing. Yeah, that seems bad. Right.

And so whether you want to call it a sickness. I wouldn't call it sick. I would call Jared unretrievably sick. Irretrievably like sick. Sick to the point of being bad. Here's my point. Bill Cosby had an impulse, a strong impulse to do this thing that was

amoral. Yes. Very strong driving impulse. Whatever it was, again, it's like gambling. I don't want to gamble. I don't really like gambling, but some people have a very strong impulse to do it. But I think he knew what he was doing.

Yeah, gamblers know what they're doing. Yeah, but they get lost in it and distorted and their thinking's all fucked up. I think Cosby just knew what he was doing. It was just what people said, man. Cosby's a great human being and a dear friend. Please stop trying to derail this. As Norm MacDonald said, he goes, I model everything in my life after Bill Cosby. I know this. And a dear friend. Please stop trying to derail this. No. As Norm MacDonald said, he goes, I model everything in my life after Bill Cosby.

I admire and love everything except his comedy. I love that joke. That's a great joke. All right. Now, that sort of being said, look, we can get into the semantics of Bill. But what I'm saying is Bill had a very strong desire and an impulse and something that would probably keep him up at night and probably have him have those feelings that people, we've all experienced those feelings,

not of rape and comatose. What I'm saying is that impulse of going, I'm going by my old girlfriend's house. She broke up with me or whatever it is. And the other party goes, don't do it. Just stay home. Stay home. Stay home.

And you go, no, no, I'm doing it. I'm doing it. I know it's wrong. I know it's impulsive. I know it can meet. I could knock on the door and the new boyfriend could answer the door. There's a lot of downside here, but I can't. I wouldn't call that sick, though.

Yeah, not sick. Yeah. No, but wrestled with things that we just don't want. But what I'm saying is in the gift suite department, I don't have any of that. In the gift suite department. I got a gift, which is no impulse. Oh, you've been granted a gift suite. I don't want to hit my kids.

Yeah, yeah. I don't even think about hitting my kids. It's confusing to think about. It's confusing to you. It's not confusing to Adrian Peterson. He has a strong impulse to do that. You can call him a bad person, but tell that to the back sack of his four-year-old. Yeah, yeah.

So whatever you want to call it, I don't have those impulses. Yeah. And you don't have those impulses. And that's a gift. Yeah. That's a big-time gift because you can ruin careers, relationships, societal standing. I mean, you can ruin everything. Okay.

If you can't control those. If you have them. If you have them. And I don't even have them. Which is nice. Sat home. I sat in a suite in Vegas at 530 in the afternoon. I didn't want to get a whore.

At least I didn't want to go down and get a whore. That time you didn't want to. I did not want to get a whore. I've never thought about a prostore. That time you didn't want to. I did not want to get a whore. I've never wanted, I never thought about a prostitute. It's sort of weird. It's kind of confusing. No, no.

It has nothing to do with the money. It has nothing to do with the morals. It just feels weird. It feels bad. Not bad. It just feels like, I don't know. I don't want to pay somebody. It feels weird.

It feels weird. Okay, that's us. i know guys that have the exact opposite opinion of you and i i don't think they have a disease i don't think they're bad guys single some are some aren't i mean oh shut up there are plenty of guys they travel they get a rub and tug you know when they're in town in whatever canadian city it doesn't make a difference to them it doesn't make a difference to them. It doesn't make a difference to anybody. But that's their impulse. That's their impulse.

That's a boundary problem. But anyway, go ahead. You're judging. I am judging. You encourage me to judge. I would argue that because it is so historically plentiful, that so many, you know, any Martin Luther King and John Kennedy. Well, why do you care?

Why do we care? John Kennedy and Martin Luther King were down for this so I would argue if those two are down for this it's pretty ubiquitous you're taking a very sexist point of view then what's the problem with the wife doing that nothing I don't well it's not nothing is wrong with it it's well first off

don't be an asshole no I'm being serious. If you're going to say it's for men, no big deal. It's got to be no big deal for women, too. It's a big deal for the relationship. John Kennedy had a very different wiring

and responded very differently to power than Jackie Kennedy did. There was a huge chasm between their chemistry, so to speak. So if Jackie did it, she can do it. But it's a much further reach for her to do it. I draw this.

We, aha, throwing this right back at you, Drew. is this we aha throwing this right back at you drew we you you hear about a family that got divorced and the dad remarried and he moved to florida and he had three more kids and you go not me i don't like that guy yeah i don't that But if you heard it so many times, you don't stop. Yeah. You hear about a mom abandoning the three kids and moving to Florida. You stop. Why? Because it's unusual and against their...

Right. So the act that you discuss is bad, but it's not equally as bad or it's more ubiquitous. And the male side in the female side. So a second ago, you were going, hey, why are you being sexist and judging? You were sexist and judging when the mom abandoned the family. Thank you. I'm just right all the time. But okay. I'm not saying in terms of

the probability of the behavior. I'm just saying, you're going to dismiss one, you've got to dismiss the other. I'm not dismissing. I'm saying if Martin Luther King and John Kennedy are down for it, then I would say there's a lot of folks fall in between those guys, and thus, it's hard

to judge. But we're grateful we're neither of those guys. We're not either of those guys. All right. And up next, we have episode 1453 released july 28th 2021 titled we're getting what they want us to get adam and dr drew review an interaction between senator ran paul and dr anthony fauci and analyze what the interaction can inform us about either man involved. We were talking about Fauci. It's kind of interesting.

People forget Rand Paul's a doctor. And it's funny because he's never referred to. Well, on the left, he's never Dr. Rand Paul. Yeah. But we do have Dr. Jill Biden. And let me just give a little.

And Dr. Martin Luther King. Let me just say about Rand Paul. He was an ophthalmologist, right? And he's my vintage. He's an eye surgeon. And when I was applying to residencies, which we were doing by the time he was, ophthalmologists took the best and the brightest back then. They took only the guys that really had the grades and wanted to do this. So to me, people go, oh, he's an eye surgeon, big deal.

No, it is a big deal because back then that was a very desirable residency. Yeah, he got into it with Fauci. I think Fauci is trying to parse out some words. Fauci is doing an interesting thing. I don't know if you heard their dust up. I heard about it. They got into it. But basically Rand Paul is saying this lab does gain a function and we funded it.

Yeah. And then Fauci saying, if we check this strain of Corona and it couldn't have been something that we funded. And then Rand Paul is saying, I'm not saying we funded this strain of Corona. I'm saying we funded the lab that is involved with the creation of these. And he's saying we and Fauci keeps kind of parsing it out where he's going. Are you saying that we funded this Corona 19? This particular virus. Right. And it's an interesting if you drill down on it. Right, and it's an interesting, if you drill down on it, see, any time somebody answers the question by changing the question, that's an interesting... To tell.

Right, it's an interesting tell, because if somebody says, were you home at this time and you weren't home at this time, you say no. But if you were or you may have been, then you say, you're saying I can never be at home? And that's how you argue. There's a version of arguing where you change the assertion, essentially. Rand Paul was not, I don't know, maybe Gary can find it or find that part. He was not saying, we did this coronavirus. He was saying, the lab worked on these and we funded the lab. And to be fair, I believe it was still one person removed,

that the National Institute on Allergy and Immunology, whatever the thing is that Fauci's ahead of, funded a guy who then got involved with that lab. I think that's how it went down. Right. I don't know for you. I have it here. I'm not positive.

I think it's this at the top, but I can't be sure. On your last trip to our committee on May 11th, you stated that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And yet, gain-of-function research was done entirely in the Wuhan Institute by Dr. Shi and was funded by the NIH. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the Wuhan Virology paper entitled Discovery of a Rich Gene Pool of Bat SARS-Related Coronaviruses. Please deliver a copy of the journal article to Dr. Fauci. In this paper, Dr. Shi credits the NIH and lists the actual number of the grant that she was given by the NIH.

In this paper, she took two bat coronavirus genes, spike genes, and combined them with a SARS-related backbone to create new viruses that are not found in nature. These lab-created viruses were then shown to replicate in humans. Experiments combined genetic information from different coronaviruses that infect animals, but not humans, to create novel artificial viruses able to infect human cells. Viruses that in nature only infect animals were manipulated in the Wuhan lab to gain the function of infecting humans. This research fits the definition of the research that the NIH said was subject to the pause in 2014 to 2017, a pause in funding on gain of function. But the NIH failed to recognize this, defines it away, and it never came under any scrutiny. Dr. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist from Rutgers, described this research in Wuhan as the Wuhan lab used NIH funding to construct novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses able to infect human cells and laboratory animals. This is high-risk research that creates new potential pandemic pathogens, potential pandemic pathogens that exist

only in the lab, not in nature. This research matches, these are Dr. Ebright's words, this research matches, indeed epitomizes, the definition of gain-of-function research done entirely in Wuhan for which there was supposed to be a federal pause. Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan? Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress. Microphone, doctor. Your microphone. Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress, and I do not retract that statement. This paper that you are referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function. Let me finish. You take an animal virus and you increase

hold on a second you can pause it for a second you know we're living in this time it's like hey i had experts look at this yeah there were 50 former fbi and uh cia, high level guys that all signed a piece of paper saying the Hunter Biden laptop is a Russian hoax. How much more experts could you get? You know what I'm saying? Wow. Like now the experts. Oh, we had someone look at this. They said no.

Yeah, we had we had the head of the WHO telling us a year ago that there's no way this thing could have escaped from life. Everyone's like, oh, the expert. I mean, the guy, the expert said, yeah, I don't know about the experts anymore. There's way too many of them. That's the problem, is that trust is broken down. Right. They're too inconsistent. They're too capricious.

Sorry, we can play it. All right. That is correct. And Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about. Okay? You get one person.

Let's read from the NIH definition of gain of function. This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmissibility among animals is gain of function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals, and they increased their transmissibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain of function? It is not. It's a dance and you're dancing around this because you're trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around the world from a pandemic. And let's let's send Dr. Fowler.

I have to. Well, now you're getting into something. If the point that you are making is that the the grant that was funded as a sub award from EcoHealth to Wuhan created SARS-CoV-2. That's where you are getting. Let me finish. We don't know. We don't know if it did come from the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab. And there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself. I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, Senator,

because if you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments that were given in the annual reports that were published in the literature, it is molecularly impossible. No one's saying those viruses caused it. It is molecularly. No one is alleging that those viruses caused the pandemic. What we're alleging is that gain-of-function research was going on in that lab, and NIH funded it. You can't get away from it.

It meets your definition, and you are obfuscating the truth. I'm not obfuscating the truth. What do you think, Drew? I'm fascinated. It's fascinating the truth. I'm not obfuscating the truth. What do you think, Drew? I'm fascinated. It's fascinating. Yeah, it's fascinating. By the way, Congress is insane. You ever hear Maisie Hirono speak?

Maisie Hirono is like the Democrat from Hawaii. She sits up there and goes, if she was on the other side of Fauci, she'd go, people died and it was bad. And as a woman, it's so bad. You got to remember now, subjectivity and objectivity have – subjectivity is a higher footing. We have some of the dumbest people on the planet in that place and then they're guys. Look, you can argue with Rand Paul all you want, but you can't say he's not effective and he doesn't know how to put together an idea. I want to know how this plays out. I'm glad they're sending it to the courts.

They can kind of sort it out a little bit. I do think Fauci will be okay when it's all done, but there's going to be some pretty serious concern about the taxpayer dollars going to China. I think that's going to be the big issue. dollars going to China. I think that's going to be the big issue. Right. And Fauci was saying we synthesized the virus and it couldn't have been that virus. Yeah. But and this is them, you know, like you said, changing the topic. Bram Paul is just saying, here's gain of function. You funded gain of function, yes or no. Didn't fund that virus was the answer. Right. But in a weird way, Rand Paul made the mistake of upping his argument to include the death of 4 billion people.

That was a mistake. I agree. Sorry, we can keep playing it. There's a few seconds left. Your post-climates expired, but I will allow the witness to finish. Let me just finish. I want everyone to understand that if you look at those viruses and that's judged by qualified virologists and evolutionary biologists, those viruses are molecularly impossible. No one's saying they are. No one's saying those viruses caused the pandemic. We're saying they are gain of function viruses because they were animal viruses that became more transmissible in human, and you funded it.

And you— You don't admit the truth. And you implying— Senator Paul, your time has expired, and I will allow witnesses who come before this committee to respond. And you are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individuals? I totally resent that. And it could have been. And if anybody is lying here, Senator,

it is you. So there you go. Fauci is one of these guys that does not have a reverse gear. It just doesn't go backward. Yeah, and Rand Paul, and this is a good for the kids that are

listening. If you're having a debate with somebody and you're having a – it could be an argument with your wife. It doesn't matter. At some point, if you go – If you overcharge the witness. Macro. Yes.

If you overcharge the witness. If you go and you wanted everyone in the house to die because you left the pilot on and the stove when we were out of town or whatever. Now they just go, oh, you think I wanted to? And how dare you accuse me? It's like, don't get big. Don't overcharge. And yet he wanted to do that for political grandstanding purposes.

He really didn't care about the argument now because he knew he was going to the court anyway. I don't think the court's going to hear it. I don't think they're going to take it. I don't know. But he gave Fauci something to latch on to. And Fauci saw that

opening and latched on to it. It's cool watching smart people debate. I agree. We'll be right back with more of the Adam and Dr. Drew Show Classics. Last up for today, we have episode 1048, released April 8th, 2019, titled You Have to Love My Dog. Adam launches into a conversation he had with a friend about the political landscape on dating apps and how it correlates to the way they approach a relationship.

J-30, Texas. All right, get, 30, Texas. Get it on, guys. Get it on, man. What's going on? I have an employee. I just hired him about six months ago, but I worked with him several years ago. He has a fentanyl pump that it's on his left side.

And the way he describes it to me, it pumps fentanyl to his spine. He had a back surgery years ago. And the guy's a hard worker. He busts his ass every day. But he's 49. And how long can he hold up, and what are the long-term effects of that? I'm going to put you on hold, Jay, because the line's a little shaky, but go ahead,

Dre. The answer is indefinitely. That's how those things are set up. The fentanyl is not going into its bloodstream. It's going intrathecally and locally sometimes, like in the spinal cord where the pain is. So it's not entering his bloodstream. It's entering his spinal cord essentially. That's what they think they're doing.

I'm sure some of it gets into his brain. But be that as it may, they can go for a long time. Painkiller? Yeah. They have morphine pumps. They have fentanyl pumps. What do they physically look like? Like a quarter.

Well, actually a little bigger than that. They're like a... Do you refill them? Yeah. Every... I don't know how often. And there's physically, obviously, an incision. And then it goes into the spinal cord.

The hose or the tube or the whatever. And it's all inside the skin. And the pump, would you see it visibly outside the skin? Again, maybe a little lump. But then how does one access it and refill it? I don't know how they do it. They probably inject it, and it's probably a bladder they just stick it in. But I've seen patients with these things.

I'm not a fan, but it sounds like he's having effective results with it. Why are you not a fan? Because he usually ends up with all the usual problems of addiction and revisions and still taking painkillers. I rarely see it work the way it's supposed to. But in this guy's case, it sounds like it's working. So good. Painkillers, when we sort of go back and examine this chapter in our society pain oh the humanity you sound like joan rivers

the the painkiller part where were we approaching it the wrong way We had a group of academics that made a declaration that became a philosophy, that became a religion, that the drug companies signed on to, that the drug addicts loved, and the pain patients couldn't turn away from because what they were doing perpetuated and intensified their pain. So they got stuck in a cycle of pursuing these opiates, not understanding that that's where the pain was coming from. Just answer the question right or wrong? Right. Okay. Or wrong.

Wasn't it wrong? Wrong thing to do, right? Right for you to say it, wrong thing to do. Well, so it's fundamentally flawed, right? Oh my God. And I knew it from the moment it started, but it became something that the state medical societies got behind, the Joint Commission of Hospital Accreditation, so much so that they made pain assessment the fifth vital sign. Were you aware of this? For 10 years, pain was the fifth vital sign. to pain assessment as your pulse and your blood pressure, you were dinged by the state department of health, department of mental health, multiple societies were watching that.

It was insane. Is it safe to say that if you have chronic pain, masking it with an opioid is just not going to work? If it did do that, I would consider that massively successful. It intensifies the pain. It does the opposite. It makes your brain want more. Want more and experience more pain, both. Well, yeah, experience more pain to get more. But I mean, well, considering, can we, you know, and what is pain? I mean, it's so subjective, right? And it has two components, generally speaking.

One is the somatic component, like you smash your finger with a hammer, your finger sends a message to your sensory system. It hurts. But it sends a message into the emotional system and a part of the brain called the insula cortex registered the salience of the pain. Sort of is it miserable? Is it scary? Is it life-threatening. And so that insula mechanism is what goes haywire in chronic pain. Who are – there are people that just have this incredible tolerance for pain and then there's you. So how do you reconcile that?

How does that work? Is that a wiring? It's a wiring and maybe sort of a conditioning of sorts. People learn to tolerate pain. Yeah. Interesting. All I know is I see wild fluctuation in people and their ability to cope or deal with pain. More often than not, it's the insulin mechanism that really is offline.

It's going wacky. But I don't think it's a grin. It's not a, oh, you just bite on this wooden spoon and soldier on. I don't physically experience pain in ways that things with situations that other people would experience pain. I'm not willing myself. It's not like stiff upper lip. Keep going. Don't blink.

I'm not physically having it. I think that comes from experience. I've had dentists look in my mouth and go, how long has this been this way? And I've been like six months. And they're like, oh, you got a high threshold for pain. Like, most people run to the dentist that afternoon. You put it off for six months. It's not exactly a compliment when they're looking in your mouth,

going, Jesus Christ, you got high tolerance. Wave the hand to me. Yeah, all right. I'm going to share some dating data with you and all our listeners. Sorry. Is it something that, where did this data come from? I was talking to a friend, single friend. He asked that he remain nameless.

It's fine. Don't need him to help. You guys don't know who he is. So it's not going to help or hurt the story. But a single guy out there using those dating apps. And I said, what have you learned from the dating apps, the world, the dating world out there and apps? I have no experience on it. He had some very interesting data experience.

You know, this falls under the heading of, well, no one's done a lab study, a double blind study or something on it. But boy, I'll tell you, when you start seeing something and you start seeing it consistently, it's better than any study that comes out of Stanford. And he said, he goes through these profiles and they have like these pretty short profiles and the profile sort of says, you know, what do you like? Where were you at? You know, who'd you vote for? Some stuff like that. Not who'd you vote for, but like you're Democrat, you're progressive, you're moderate, conservative. What are you?

He said, well, no one checks conservative because this is LA. You know what I mean? You, you, you check conservative and you're off. You've taken your pool and it's now kiddie pool.

Right? Right. So he said, when you see like moderate, that's kind of slang for, not slang, but think a little more conservative. Right. Right. People people won't go there, but they will go moderate. And then there's liberal and there's, you know, left leaning or whatever. But if you see moderate, that probably means a little more conservative than it does moderate.

But they're rounding down to keep the pool open, right? He said it was interesting. He said, when you then look at the other profiles, other questions that are asked, moderate versus progressive or whatever they're calling it on the website, he said the moderates, the website he said the moderates it's like uh likes it'd be like sushi travel um you know uh ultimate frisbee or whatever sports cars whatever it is when you go to the liberal likes it was a bunch of proclamations like you must love love my dog. You must love my cat. Won't tolerate this. No games.

Like it was a list of demands. And he said, it's really consistent. And I thought, this is kind of interesting. Like one group's saying what they like and the other group is saying what they won't tolerate. Wow. And they're supposed to be the group of tolerance. Right. They're the tolerant group.

And these are a bunch of 24-year-olds. But now you picture them at the campus and they've taken over the chancellor's office and they got a list. You know what I mean? It's that list of things they like to do. Right. They got demands.

And I thought, it's a very interesting little window into this world because if you say to two random single 28 year old women and go what are you looking for like what do you want a guy what do you like to do it is true that some women will go i like sushi i like travel i like the beach i like whatever and then another group we're like no games you must love my dog. Right. You must. You must know me. Know that. Know me.

Yeah. Meat is murder. No long list. So my mom and her friends, they were very liberal. Figure they're better people. They're not happier. That's for goddamn sure. My mom had a big, long list of things not to do or we couldn't do.

We had to boycott. You can't eat these grapes. You can't do that. She had nothing on her list of joyous things to do. Wow. Yes. I dig. It's an interesting... I'm talking to a...

He's a guy who's just scrolled through 250 of these or 500 and he started noticing this pattern of like, here's what you need to do with me and my dog. And a lot of like, none of this and none of that. No meat, no games. You must love my dog. You must love. Now, the others said, I love my dog.

But they said, you got to love my dog. It's kind of an interesting glimpse, right? Yes. Not becoming. No. No. Why would you want to date someone who you ask them what they wanted, what they loved in life, and they gave you a list of demands? But I would argue this is the very thing that people react to because the people that are making the demands are never looking at themselves.

They don't look over here. I'm perfect. You are the one that we need to straighten out. And it's really what people react against, I think. Yeah. That very phenomenon of like, what are you doing? What are you up to? But think about that if somebody posed a question to you.

Hey, Drew, what do you like? What flips your cookie? I'd be like, I like cars, and I like racing cars and i like building i wouldn't go like here's a list of things for you to do or for you to like or now here's how you have to feel about phil the labrador we need a new modern version of do you like pina coladas there needs to be a you have to love my dog do Do you think meat is murder? That's all for this week. Thanks for listening to the Adam and Dr. Drew Show Classics.

Remember to check back each week for new episodes. And while you're at it, don't forget to like, subscribe, and rate us five stars wherever you get your favorite podcasts.