Do you need your humors rebalanced? I know a guy with some leeches and a cucumber.

​@arcarchivist2638 I'll take the cucumber, you can keep the leeches.

Astrology doesn't look into psychic phenomenon. They just read shapes on a chart that appear at specific times and read the details and tell you what will happen based on what maps in history said as context when the chart showed that same shape

​@@brandonharris9160that's like looking at when there's been an anthill in a specific spot and deducing that 9/11 the sequel is about to happen

Yeah, doing astrology for $9,000 a month is already a grift. Using astrology to make wild guesses and directly influence a world leader is on another level. Of course the Reagans were dumb to hire her and give her so much power, but you don't really get into that position by being a great person who makes good choices

They had the same energy as conservatives in 2016 who responded to any criticsm of trump with "but her emails." Also the fact they kept cutting Rob off halfway through explaining his thoughts, because they just coudln't WAIT to tell him why he was wrong. They didn't need to bother to listen to know he was wrong, they had already decided. LIke girl, you didn't read the books, and you aren't listening to the guy who is telling you about what happened, why are you here?

Yeah, this is pretty much a 'Jesus christ, don't ever cheer om the enabler of a Bastard'. The best case is that this fraud egged them o. That is the absolute best case. She made an already horrible set of bastards way worse. Worst case is that she actually directly influenced policies and gave input, which seems to be the case. And that's on top of being a spiritualist yahoo who helped push us back towards the dark ages and helped give cover to the religious right which has profoundly fucked us over on a global scale. No, she gets no points, and may oblivion take her and all her deeds.

I wouldn't say Quigley was a bigot. She was a San Francisco elitist, well educated and patriotic. She knew astrology thoroughly inside and out! She was staunch and wise. High class!

Yeah this is exactly the reason why sometimes I have a problem with BtB. To be fair it's like the only problem I really have with it but man some times it's annoying to hear Robert or a co-host or guest to say something like, "this person was bad and wrong and evil but we're scamming or otherwise negatively impacting other people who were also bad and wrong and evil so it's ok/they're awesome!" Like come the fuck on. It's hard to totally like CRACKED writers though and Robert Evans is one of the better ones so it's a wash?

And also kind of endorsing astrology as if the shit's real

😂😂😂

VtM clans and alignments are horoscopes for real-ass nerds. Gonna see a lot of Brujah Anarchs…

Toreador in the streets, Gangrel in the sheets.

Agreed. Enjoying astrology as a fun diversion is all well and good, but at the end of the day, there's nothing to it, and pretending there might be and that Joan was just harmlessly trying to help is extremely naive. Someone who's willing to use pseudoscience to make money and exert political influence in the ways Joan did absolutely cannot be trusted.

its more Nancy's fault than anyones ronnys brain was turning to mush so you can only really blame her for being that much of a mark

Seriously

It's called joking lol

@@philzeo kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pa5zZJVklbXUf5s.htmlsi=WkuqQScQSmPTIx5H

I like these theories.

it's not "obviously joking" if it's not funny and you just keep insisting that you're right. There IS a joking stance to take on "well, she was dealing with Nancy so lesser of two evils, I'm pro joan" but that's not what these girls were doing. The constant reaching for irrelevant info as a reason to declare Joan innocent for very unrelated crimes (like constantly bringing up Nancy being Hoomphobic as a reason that Joan wasn't bad for pushing for Nancy to seriously push teh war on drugs...wtf?) and strawmanning (like rob trying to say it would have be better for nancy to do shallow fashion mags like she wanted instead of being pushed into the drug war by Joan, and one girl gets angry about it being a misogynistic thing and how Joan was some femisnist hero for pushing Nancy to be taken seriously- while at the same time talking about how nancy was awful and unqualified to be taken seriously). It's not comedy. It's also just bad debate. Bad faith arguments, ignoring facts, reaching for unrelated things, relying entirely on an emotional reaction to someone based on a pre-formed opinion, over estimateing your own ability to "just know" how something worked, connecting things that aren't connected, responding to a specific question with a Honestly my problem isn't so much with the stance that Joan was relatively bening, it's with the fact they couldn't keep straight the facts Rob told them, hadn't read any of the material and just made assumptions that were the opposite of what Rob was telling them, and kept cutting him off halfway through explaining a point. It's not a fun debate if it's just two people tag-teaming to shout down the one person who had information and repeatedly say "but don't you think?" and theorize randomly. Their whole take was just "Nancy Reagan is the worst person ever" and insisting that anything Ron said against Joan must be wrong, because for some reason taking Joan to task *in an episode about Joan* was somehow equivalent to exonerating the Reagans. It's not fun to listen to, because it's not funny and it's not a real debate. It's listening to two stubborn cousins at thanksgiving repeat media talking points about the "other side' in politics.

@@meaganglaser That's fair but I'm just confused about the debate part because I don't think its a debate at all??? BTB isn't a debate podcast, in fact I think that's the last thing it is. Rob was just asking for their opinions like he does with any other guest on the show. They were asking questions (albeit irrelevant) for themselves to make their own conclusions on it. I'm honestly kind of baffled at all the "sides" everyone here in the comments are falling on because it's not in question that Joan is a terrible awful person. Rob just said he wasn't confident on whether or not Joan should be on the bastard list or not since she didn't necessarily hit all the criteria for a whole episode to be dedicated to her. This is an assumption but these guests seems to be friends with Rob. If Rob really felt like they were bogging him down and stuff I think he would've said something, he didn't change his opinion in the end and still found the guests' perspective on the matter to be of some value. I still think much of the guests' banter was dry humor and sarcasm, of course I could be wrong. I'm biased because I'm the type of person who sometimes actually gets taken seriously when I'm really being sarcastic 💀But it's also why I get the "It takes one to know one" feeling about them. So I just feel like they're being overly criticized for this. They weren't amazing guests but I don't think they were bad or annoying. I don't think they really deserve to be dragged for their opinions. It's been 2 weeks since I listened so the episode is way out of my brain lmao but to me it didn't seem like they were denying Joan was horrible or that Rob's information on her was incorrect/invalid AT ALL. You can definitely make an argument about how seemingly humoring bad ideas and takes is a bad thing and something they shouldn't do. That approaching topics the way these guests did can plausibly do more harm than good and so they should be more mindful of the way they say things etc etc... This next part is just some food for thought, and based off of my own experiences and understanding so it's not really important. I just think the reason a lot of people got rubbed the wrong way is genuinely because of semantics. We all interpret speech and speech patterns in slightly different ways though we may not realize it. I sorta think that's what's going on here. Like I said, for me, this is a sort of a "takes one to know one" kind of thing. I interpreted and received what they were saying MUCH differently than a lot of other people here. for example the "but don't you think...?" parts of the podcast can sound like the set up to an argument or rebuttal. But for me (and what I suspect may be the same for these guests) "But don't you think?" = "How did this _____ play in as a factor to ____" or something like that. I think that it was a genuine good faith question. I also think their use of the term "Innocent" didn't apply to what people thought it did. The way I understood it was that Joan is innocent in that she did not do these things with any specific intent towards minorities (unlike the Reagans). I said this last time, but I really don't think she had the capacity to even think that far through with her advice. She just did bad things because it behooved her. Joan couldn't give less of a shit about what happened. Where as for the Reagans, it was more out of hatred, disgust, bigotry, and fear for them to implement their shitty agenda. This is what I'm pretty sure these guests were trying to get at when saying she's innocent. I know that to some people these explanations can sound reaching or dumb, but I really do want to point out that there are people who talk and communicate with one another like this(I'm evidence of it lmao). I feel that the way Robert didn't react or take the guests' comments the way this comment section is doing is also very telling. I kind of think of it as a different dialect. The way I say things will be taken differently by someone living in West Virginia or Illinois vs my home city. It can even be different between different communities, my partner is white and I'm not. We grew up only 2-3 hours away from each other. I grew up in a heavily diverse area (white people were a minority in all my schools except college) My partner grew up in an extremely white and high-income area. There are a LOT of moments where we'll be using the same words and using similar sentence structure and speech patterns- but sometimes we end up actually having COMPLETELY different conversations or end up having COMPLETELY different understandings of what the other said. So I think it's worth being aware of that whenever meeting new people and listening to their opinions. woof- I have a bad habit of writing essays in comment sections, but if you took the time to read this far I appreciate you for hearing me out. I hope u have good one!❤

There's the question of whether Nancy or Joan is more credible. Aside from that, everyone agrees that both are terrible people. And yet, compared to every other subject of these podcasts, this one is pretty fucking tame. Not sure what people are mad about.

Relax everyone, the bigot apologetics were just 'a joke'!

@@tonypecoraro9220 something has to be funny to be a joke

Nancy Reagan was a brain trust in comparison.

Very dumb, very bigot-tolerant guests.

Do your parents know you believe in witchcraft?

Can you explain how to get it? Like, what exactly is the thing I could potentially get? I'm not being sarcastic, this is a serious question, I'm honestly baffled by this episode.

@@LoganBluth “it” is subclinical schizophrenia

​@@LoganBluth Shes doing a post-ironic bit. Playing into the wider outside perspective that deem astrology as contemptible while also doing a winking acknowledgment of the absurdity

@@basma.x.6656 That sounds a lot like what right wing grifters like Shapiro and Crowder claim whenever they get caught saying something a little too racist/misogynistic - "It was a joke, those aren't my real beliefs, I was doing a bit." I mean, what part of the episode is meant to clue us in to the fact that it's an ironic bit and not just her honest beliefs? She never acknowledges the joke, so it doesn't really matter if she meant it sincerely or not, the audience has no way of telling the difference.