Bill rants about New Years and the yearly tradition of going to the Grand Daddy of them All!!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Monday Morning Podcast 1-2-12
January 3, 2012
52 comments
Bill’s Monday Morning Podcast
In iTunes, click "Subscribe to Podcast" from the Advanced menu. Then copy/paste this URL: http://billburr.com/feed/podcast
January 03, 2012 at 9:33 pm, Frank Hotdog said:
Jesus Christ, it took long enough. I hope it’s as good as last weeks.
January 03, 2012 at 10:27 pm, Alli said:
Bill you must bring it out in people. Never before have I heard so much bitching and moaning about a free gift. You can call the podcast whatever you please, I know the shits gonna be late (or strangely early) so fuck it! I LOVE IT whenever you get to it! Cheers to the weekly podcast
January 04, 2012 at 9:54 am, Scott Barkus said:
‘Never in my life’ ……. shut your cockholster, snatch. Burr’s not running for city council, he’s a fucking comedian. I’m sure that he can handle getting fucked with better than your stupid ass can.
January 04, 2012 at 12:27 pm, alli said:
You’re probably right… But its really funny when Bill acts like a dick. Not so much when you do. Get your own style.
January 04, 2012 at 5:22 pm, Scott Barkus said:
> stupid cunt.
January 04, 2012 at 6:04 pm, David said:
> Was thinking the same – the lazy, off-the-cuff insults and liberal use of offensive language. At least Bill’s funny when he does it.
January 04, 2012 at 5:03 pm, Koljar said:
meow pussycat>
January 03, 2012 at 10:39 pm, Bobby Dobbs said:
So much bitching and moaning? One single post where a guy says ‘I hope it’s as good as last weeks’? Is THAT the bitching and moaning you’re talking about? People are impatient because they love the podcast and it should be taken as a compliment that people are so eager to hear it. Now stop your bellyaching.
January 03, 2012 at 11:02 pm, TylerNorCal said:
Really? Complaining about how long it took…you stupid fucks. Thank you Mr. Burr.
January 03, 2012 at 11:06 pm, Mustard Sally said:
Holy Shit Bill, let it go already!! who gives a shit about Kobe and his whore wife and his money…you would think your Kobe’s account OR its your money…..smh
January 08, 2012 at 11:07 am, Sharif Duuring said:
> Hey Bill,
Love the podcast. Huge fan. Moral justification for Kobe’s ((((LADY’S)))) 190 million. We say murder is morally wrong because a person has one life to live and no one has the right to take it from them blah blah justified. The justification for the marriage “half” law exists because when two people are married we, as a society, have agreed to recognize the spiritual and emotional “union” of two people “for better or worse”. Stay with me here’s the kicker, let’s imagine that we could alter the events of Kobe’s life. Suppose back in 2003 Kobe gets convicted on rape charges and spends the next couple years in prison and essentially loses his career. If his wife left him in spite of this fictional event we would say good for her and she deserves half his money (quite a bit less than what it is now). Go back further, suppose he injures himself and never makes it to the NBA; he starts drinking; he can’t support his family like hundreds of thousands of athletes that never make it; his wife divorces him and gets half of nothing. When two people take the highest vows that we honor and respect as a society, and they promise before everyone to be together “for better or worse” they deserve half of whatever life grants them. Your not upset that this bitch can’t hit a layup and is getting 190 million. You’re upset that the Kobe can give his bitch that much. You wouldn’t give two shits about the poor schmuck across the street who had to short sell his house and give his bitch $200,000 because he got a blowjob from the Arby’s girl. Kobe’s lady deserves half because her marriage happened to land on the big money end of the spectrum and her half is huge. Who the fuck are we to judge how much a person should get. That’s all we need more fucking court cases in divorce court. Your honor please don’t give her 190 mil she gives a lousy bj she doesn’t deserve it. Fuck that give her her half, she hit the marriage lotto. Give her a break too she stuck through some embarrassing shit. She’s not a gold digger. Lot’s of love.
Sharif Duuring
January 03, 2012 at 11:41 pm, PaulyDak said:
Well worth the wait. Billy does it again! MMpodcast is the best podcast in the history of fuckin podcasts, Burr is a Goddamn comedic genius. GFYS!
January 03, 2012 at 11:51 pm, PaulyDak said:
Sally, you miss Bill’s point completely. It’s not about Kobe, it’s about the laws that allow Mrs Whatever the Fuck Her Name is Bryant or any other gold digging whooorre to take half of their ex-husband’s money. Why don’t you take Burr up on his offer and justify that law and explain it to him? Otherwise why not just GFYS?
January 03, 2012 at 11:58 pm, JonnyCynical said:
Seriously,The last 25 minutes of the podcast was shit. Come on now with the fucking greedy whore Kobe shit.Bottom Line…. Fuck Kobe.
January 04, 2012 at 12:20 am, squirrel said:
More dilemmas, sad yacht faced man.
January 04, 2012 at 12:38 am, Brian said:
Bill, you goddamned asshole. I spent last week trying to play devil’s advocate for justifying Kobe’s ex-wife’s entitlement, now you got me racking my brain again. I don’t think anyone “deserves” shit, except a kick to the ass, and I definitely don’t think anyone deserves a metric fuckton of cash for taking a dick that’s attached to a rich man and living the good life.
The only reason I could think of for arguing that this non-contributing cunt is entitled to $190m would be if she helped him maintain a certain frame of mind to get through practices, games, etc. and come out a champ. That’s it. That’s all I can think of. But when you think about it, what can a woman really give a man to keep him smiling? Regular pussy? If that’s the case, then why not shop around? Maybe start a bidding war in the Staples Center. “Yeah, I’ll give up the pussy for a pair of shoes, a meal at Red Lobster, and an iTunes gift card every week.” “WE GOT A WINNER!”
And I’m sure some snarky cunt (who nobody wants to fuck in the first place) would say, “Wow, what an asshole…. women don’t just trade pussy for gifts and perks.” Turn on your television, bitch. Some women plan their futures around that mentality. Some answer with that when their high school counselor asks them, “what do you want to do for a living?” “UHH UMM OMG I WANNA MARRY(fuck) A RICH GUY AND TAKE HIS MONEY LOLZ”
January 04, 2012 at 12:53 am, Bonjouryoucunts! said:
Seriously JohnnyCynical? What kind of fucking name is that? Let me see.. another cynic who see’s the world through his black shades and speaks of it through his raspy voice of accumulated experience and candid straight-shooter vocabulary à la Sam Elliot ? What a fucking loser you are mate.
Also, Bill
many thanks for the podcast.
January 04, 2012 at 1:37 am, pavlov's prick said:
the impression of the colored dude was priceless
January 04, 2012 at 10:22 pm, kevin said:
> “colored” Really? did I hop into my time machine instead of my car this morning?
January 06, 2012 at 6:28 pm, Donna said:
Grandpa??
January 04, 2012 at 2:42 am, FUCKINGBRAD said:
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, BRAD!
January 04, 2012 at 9:06 am, frank hotdog said:
The ‘there had better be a head laying in the middle of the road’ bit was great
January 04, 2012 at 10:57 am, John48221 said:
If got married and divorced to some rich laaadeee!!! who was worth $380 million and I got $38 million I would take that deal and shut up. Earn 5% a year and that’s $1.9 million for the rest of my life. That’s how a guy thinks but not a woman. Getting half is trying to get revenge or punishment not equity.
January 04, 2012 at 12:28 pm, Isaiah from D.C. said:
Bill, United sucks hard, and they’re not the least bit apologetic when they screw you over. I think it’s worse than American.
And yes, I did get a ticket for going 70 in a 55 heading towards the Central Coast. No joke: I know that in California the rental cars have different license plates and make you a target, so I intentionally didn’t go a tick over 70. Everyone’s flying past me, but, sure enough, one of California’s finest picks my number out of the tumbler and gives me a ticket. As he handed it to me, he said, “Enjoy your time in California,” because he knew I was an out-of-stater.
January 04, 2012 at 5:21 pm, Scott Barkus said:
Get my own style? I have come from a long, proud line of New England motherfuckers and assholes. My grandfather was the heavyweight champion of the world of mean, loudmouth assholes. This is not a copyrightable style, you bandwagon jumping pain in the ass. I like Bill’s work, and we listen to the MMPodcast at work, on the road in Iraq and in Afghanistan. If I want to throw shit, I will throw shit. I don’t need to hear your ‘One to Grow On’ After School Special commentary, you fucking skank.
January 04, 2012 at 5:36 pm, christina Villarreal said:
I keep wondering why people keep taking shit from politicians. And I figured it out. Booze, sex, and food. Everyone does one of the three. Ever notice how booze is cheaper than cokes? Thats because if we’re drunk all the time we won’t be coherent enough to question what these greedy cocks are doing with all the peoples money. Same thing with sex and food. They haven’t found a cure for cancer, but there is med. to help with “limp dick” syndrome. (like there aren’t enough horny men running around) Lets get the half dead ones back in the game too.
I wonder what would happen if no one voted for any body for president? would they just elect who ever they wanted to? or would they listen to the people and have no one for president. I could totally see you being our president. when it comes time, i’m going to vote for you LOL ;p
January 04, 2012 at 6:02 pm, iamacunt said:
2012 has now officially started.
January 04, 2012 at 6:35 pm, brandon fields said:
WOMEN ARE UNABLE TO JUSTIFY THIS TOPIC BECAUSE THEY NEVER HAD TO WHICH RELATES TO WHY YOUR NOT RECIEVING ANY POSITIVE E-MAILS FROM WOMEN.
January 04, 2012 at 6:37 pm, ernie perez said:
Hey bill Monday use to be the worst days but now its awesome cause of your podcast. You freakin rock!!!!! When are you coming down to the Orlando Florida area???
January 04, 2012 at 7:18 pm, Jovan said:
Excellent podcast Bill. You were sharper than ever.
January 04, 2012 at 7:41 pm, MiketheWop said:
I heard once that the idea is, as you said, archaic. It came about when most women didn’t work and if there was a divorce she would have nothing. But these days we are all “equal”, unless there’s a life threatening situation in which us fellas come last. Anyways, it’s a bullshit law that hasn’t been updated to the century that we live in.
January 04, 2012 at 7:42 pm, James said:
The Moral Justification for Large Divorce Settlements
Dear Bill
The reason you are so outraged over the issue of large divorce settlements is because you’re approaching it all bass-ackwards.
To understand the moral justification for these settlements, you first need to understand that the woman doesn’t get a massive payout when she gets divorced, she gets the massive payout on the day she gets married. As soon as a couple gets married, everything he owns is hers and vice-versa. I know that sounds like I’m explaining the law to you, but just hold your horses, I’m getting to the moral justification.
It is morally justified that the law considers a man and wife to be a single entity with completely merged assets because the idea of marriage is the complete union of a man and woman for the rest of their lives for the purposes of creating and raising children. The children are created from the physical union of the DNA of each partner, and the man and woman need to live together to raise them, so it is morally justified that the institution of marriage reflects this by joining the man and woman into one legal entity with equal merging of assets.
A marriage in which one partner maintained financial superiority over the other would not only be immoral, it just wouldn’t make sense. How could that be called a marriage? That would be a master-and-slave relationship, or perhaps a temporary marriage of convenience in which the richer partner hid assets and planned to break up when convenient. That is certainly not the traditional definition of marriage till-death-do-you-part.
If you disagree with the concept of marriage itself, that’s a different argument. But since you never said you were against marriage itself, I have to assume you’re on board with it and with my reasoning so far.
So it logically follows that a man who finds a woman he wants to marry must consider her to be his equal. Once he marries her, he knows she will become his equal in the eyes of the law, so unless he doesn’t understand the concept of marriage, is an idiot, or is acting fraudulently, he must consider her to be his equal before he marries her.
So a man like Kobe Bryant who is worth around 400 million dollars must consider the woman he decides to marry to also be worth 400 million dollars. That is her value to him, at least the part of her value that you could express in dollars. If he doesn’t feel that way, he shouldn’t marry the woman. Marrying a woman whom he didn’t feel was worth that amount would be immoral—that just follows logically if you’ve agreed with everything I’ve said so far. (It may sound crass to talk about the value of a wife in dollar terms, but that has no bearing on the argument about morality. Dollars are just a clumsy proxy for the concept of value in general.)
So how could a man who married a woman whom he considered to be worth 400 million dollars when he walked her down the aisle, then not want to pay her half-portion of that amount when they get divorced? You want to talk immoral? THAT would be immoral. He enters into a lifelong agreement with this woman, then secretly screws another woman and says, “You know what? I know I said you were my equal when we got married, but this marriage isn’t convenient for me any more, so I’ve decided that now you’re not my equal. Here’s a little something to live on.” Is that moral? No, it is not.
Bill, you seem to have this idea that value can only be ascribed in the one-size-fits-all manner that YOU dictate. For example, a woman has be a world-class basketball player or she’s not worth huge money. That’s not the way economics works. Value is not what Bill Burr says it is. Value is whatever the market will bear. The market is whoever is willing to pay. In this case, the market is the guy saying “I want to marry this woman. I am worth 400 million dollars, therefore to me, she is also worth 400 million dollars.” (Again, I know, sounds crass, but that doesn’t change the argument.)
Perhaps you think it is too harsh that marriage has no ‘do-overs’ or ‘salary caps’. ‘Salary caps’ would be bullshit for the reason I outlined before. That wouldn’t be marriage. That would be a master-and-slave relationship. And ‘do-overs’? Gimme a break. The do-overs were the thousands of women Kobe Bryant fucked before he ever got married. None of those women ever got a dime. And I bet every one of them was dreaming of becoming Mrs Bryant. Who knows, some of them might have even been perfectly innocent girls who really loved him. You really still wanna talk morality?
No-one holds a gun to a man’s head to force him into marriage. Men are quite free to not get married, and especially in today’s world, there is really no reason at all for a man to ever marry. Plenty of men raise children nowadays without ever marrying their mate.
So if you think it’s immoral that a woman can be considered to have a worth of 190 million dollars in a way that YOU personally don’t approve of, then perhaps it is YOU who are the douchebag.
January 05, 2012 at 8:47 am, RJ said:
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
I’m starting to get the feeling this actually means: our filter found a word we don’t like, message deleted, and you shouldn’t actually expect it to appear, ever.
January 05, 2012 at 11:45 am, D said:
> Actually it means that you are such a retard that you can’t make a post that is acceptable in the comments section of a dirty comedian’s website.
January 05, 2012 at 1:08 pm, RJ said:
Indeed, that makes perfect sense.
January 06, 2012 at 6:34 pm, Donna said:
Well done!
January 07, 2012 at 8:57 pm, Antonio said:
> I’m sorry, but to me you’re still explaining the law. I’m reading all this, and still go: “WHY?!”. Only now like 15 times. ****
Let’s recap: Man works his ass off. Man is worth a million. Man marries a woman. Guy and woman become a “single entity”. Woman is worth 1 million too now. Then man and woman divorce. Man waves goodbye 500k. You don’t see the flaw here? You are a single entity during the marriage. I can live with that part. But how come you step into a marriage as a dude with 100%, and you step out with 50%. Why does one half of the entity have to suffer more than the other half, as soon as they stop being a single entity?
*** This is what we’re teaching our kids. Johnny and Billy go out to play. Johnny brings a bag with 200 marbles, Billy brings his with 10 (cause his parents are on the dole). They have fun for a couple of hours. Playing with the 210 marbles. Then their mothers call them home, party is over. What!? Billy is filling his filthy bag with 105 marbles! “Mom, Billy is a thief! You’re a filthy thief Billy! Get out of our house! Shush!”
January 08, 2012 at 4:21 pm, Donna said:
> Moron.
January 04, 2012 at 8:13 pm, Gary Rue said:
Gotta love these fu@ks who write a book on your website to show how knowledgeable they are on a topic that no one cares that much about i.e. divorce. Bill , your show rules and if this person is wrapped too tight then they should not listen. Although the mere fact this person took the time to type all that above or below “divorce crap” gives you more material. So thank them , HAHA.
January 04, 2012 at 11:37 pm, Fred Savage said:
Bill,
I do not support state divorce laws which require a 50/50 split, but I will describe the legal basis for such requirements.
Basically, mandatory 50/50 splits are rooted in two things: (1) efficiency and (2) fears of exploitation and unfair bargaining power between the spouses.
In regard to point (1), divorce proceedings in which the money was divided based on the totality of the circumstances e.g. how long they were married, how much the wife contributed to the earning power of the husband (or vice versa), how many kids, if any, they have etc. are long and complicated processes. Lawyers make a number of arguments as to why their client should get a certain amount of money, and judges must balance each side and make a determination. Because this is expensive and time-consuming, it is cheaper for clients to have a mandatory 50/50 split (because it’s a clear-cut rule), and courts are not as clogged up and slowed down with long divorce battles.
In regard to point (2), the history of divorce law contains a number of cases in which a rich and successful husband took advantage of their wife in a divorce proceeding. This was done through a number of ways such as the wife not being a sophisticated client and thus hiring bad lawyers and making bad deals, or the wife not having access to funds to properly fight the husband in a legal battle. The clear-cut, mandatory 50/50 split protects spouses from being taken advantage of.
January 05, 2012 at 2:24 am, Bruce said:
Bill,
Here is my take on the divorce thing.
When a rich, successful man marries a beautiful woman with a bangin’ body, they both have hopes and expectations. She plans to live a life of eternal luxury with little or no effort and he hopes to spelunk her delightful crevices at least every other day if not more. They have equally shallow goals; the difference is his plans will be over and his hopes dashed within months of the nuptials. Her plans for his money, however, will only flourish and blossom with the fullness of time and continue into and beyond their inevitable divorce: aided, abetted and encouraged by the legal system. It won’t end until they open up her three story granite mausoleum and shove her ancient carcass into it, as dry, wrung out and dusty as his dick was three weeks after he married her.
Why are we putting up with these one sided divorces with settlements and alimony? Why should the man exclusively be compelled by law to engage in a repugnant act on a monthly basis? We need an equitable exchange of assets. A fair system would require the ex-wife to blow the ex-husband for her alimony check each month. They are both forced to pleasure someone they abhor. And to make sure it’s fair, that she is putting in first class effort for first class money, the system I advocate would allow him to roll up her check, stick it in a smooth capsule and shove it up his ass. The rest goes like this: she would place her open purse (designed by the fucking twats at Prada) on its side on the table behind him before going to work on him. If she does her job like a pro with enthusiasm, the rockets go off, his sludge hits the back of her throat and that check shoots out of his ass, over the table and into her purse. They both get what they want at the exact, same instant like a seamless, cold war spy swap on an East German bridge.
A rich guy like Paul McCartney might even have an extra hundred grand shoved even further up his ass; “Heather, sweetheart, relax…most of it’s out of your hair. Now before you put your lipstick back on…may I interest you in my bonus round?”
January 05, 2012 at 9:28 am, marty said:
That movie that u and nia saw with that badass chic was gina carano. She’s a professional mixed martial artist. Look her up. She’s just as badass, yet cute, in real life
January 08, 2012 at 10:35 pm, will said:
> Really? How the fuck did Billy Boy here manage to go see a movie a month before it’s in theaters, you idiot? He clearly stated “the chick with the dragon tattoo over her ass movie”.
Yo, Billy
hire yourself some computer wiz kid to add a “moron filter” to your podcast comments page…and btw, you’re looking like Beacher from “OZ” nowadays
the soul of Patrice lives on
January 06, 2012 at 7:16 am, will said:
She get’s half because she did her job so he could go on the court and earn his 400 million while they were married; we don’t know what the fuck Kobe’s into: making her wear a laker girl outfit with no panties, calling him “Shaq”, or tying her titties up with hoop netting…whatever it was, she did it and he was able to go out and drop 80 with a clear head. If not, he’d probably be sitting on the bench calling Stu Jackson a “CRACKA ASS CRACKA!” every night till he got traded so she’s kind of responsible for him playing like a star. I’m not saying I agree with the shit, but it’s something I’d probably have to tell myself in his shoes so I don’t pull a “Ray Caruth/ OJ simpson type meltdown and fuck up my kids for the rest of their lives
January 06, 2012 at 12:02 pm, Steve Croce said:
I thought you would dig this, Bill.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/golf-devil-ball-golf/tiger-woods-ex-wife-bulldozes-12-million-home-232405259.html
January 09, 2012 at 10:13 am, Mahk O said:
Freakin ridiculously funny, talking about your trip on the Drunk Struggle Express at the Rose Bowl. Glad it wasn’t just me. “Flickin’ the salt off the pretzel, which was getting on my shirt ‘cuz I already put mustard on it.” Gold.
January 09, 2012 at 10:19 am, Merlin said:
Maybe call it Monday/Tuesday noon podcast. (MNP/TNP? Jus sayin’)
January 09, 2012 at 8:49 pm, Merlin said:
GeeZ bill!!! Where’s the tuesday afternoon podcast???!!! Nia, can you get this fucking guy to be podcast-punctual?! *fathead!* lay off the booze! GFYS!
February 03, 2012 at 12:52 pm, scpnecginy said:
GSnSMg fwtqioylbxec
February 05, 2012 at 7:44 am, Brownie said:
sir, you fgoort the actual stench of death emanating from your unwashed neighbors to the left and right. morbid stench pervades these events like the smoke smell on the pages of a pipe-smoking, tweed elbowed intellectual’s library. sometimes i feel the encroachment of the grave when these smelly oafs enter my browsing space!
February 06, 2012 at 3:44 am, fajfryb said:
SniFCO nnpxwagkuinj
April 29, 2012 at 9:22 pm, will said:
I can justify the divorce for half law. Who decides and enforces these laws? We do, and these things are only testimony to our own imperfections as a whole. Its like asking “why is kathy griffin a celebrity” shit if anyone knows.