Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: What's up, guys?
Welcome to the episode of the Parish Circuit that you've been waiting for since we launched this show
[00:00:08] Speaker B: and that you've been asking for. And
[00:00:10] Speaker A: that you've been asking for. We've gotten multiple requests for this.
You got texted today. I literally got texted before we sat down to record this episode by my friend Buddy.
Thanks, buddy.
Longtime listener, first time caller. Y' all ever listen to radio? Okay, anyway, but there's tons of things going on right now. We are going to talk about the amendments.
There's 12amendments in Louisiana come down the docket and David, David, are we about to tell people how to vote?
[00:00:45] Speaker B: We're gonna strongly suggest, I guess, yeah.
[00:00:47] Speaker A: Oh, man. Just. I wanted you to lean into it. I wanted you to. I wanted you to go. I wanted you to go out.
I wanted you to go out on the limb with me
[00:00:55] Speaker B: against the coercive, you know, forcing of someone to do something that they don't want to do.
[00:01:00] Speaker A: Well, I'm not gonna make them. We're not gonna make them. I'm just saying
[00:01:03] Speaker B: will say I'm okay. Binding their conscience.
[00:01:06] Speaker A: How about you?
What about this? What about this? What if we said you ought to vote this way? Could we do that?
Could I get you
[00:01:17] Speaker B: there? Yeah.
[00:01:18] Speaker A: Oh, yes. Okay. We're there. We're gonna tell people, ladies and gentlemen, how they ought to vote. But David, aren't we going to lose our tax exempt status?
Lol.
[00:01:29] Speaker B: That's not one of the amendments.
[00:01:32] Speaker A: Ladies and gentlemen, we have 10amendments coming down the pipe. 10. 10, 10.
Okay, we've got to say this,
[00:01:42] Speaker B: say it quick because then, because remember, this is the episode where we're just going to go boom, boom, boom. We're just
[00:01:45] Speaker A: going to go. We're going to go fast. We're going to go fast. Fine. Okay, fine. David. God, you're so pushy.
[00:01:49] Speaker B: But there's going to be another episode dropping soon where we're going to talk more broadly about, like, all right, why do we have 10amendments coming?
Like, what's this all about?
[00:01:56] Speaker A: Louisiana constitution is super bloated right now. That's true. Amendments keep. Get pushed in. And for the last two or three years, one of the things that keeps being brought up our constitution was most recently rewritten in 1974.
For the last three years, the conversation continues to be pushed forward. Hey, guys, we need to rewrite the Louisiana constitution again. In other words, that's the great reset button on all these amendments. Okay. In other words, you start off with a brand new constitution and none of the amendments make it in. Unless they're intentionally written in from the beginning. Does that make sense?
[00:02:30] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:02:31] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:02:31] Speaker B: Black pill David wants to say something like, and then none of what you're about to vote for is going to matter.
[00:02:38] Speaker A: Yeah,
[00:02:39] Speaker B: but does it matter anyway?
[00:02:41] Speaker A: Well, so let me tell you something. So here's the deal. The amendments that have been put into the Louisiana Constitution, some of these are ridiculous and we're going to talk about those today. Like, it's like, why does this need to be an amendment? It doesn't. This could just be a bill. It doesn't have to be an amendment. But also, some of these amendments are incredibly important. One of the things that we had put into the Constitution was the right to life. Yeah, okay.
[00:03:02] Speaker B: Like you can't kill certain people is in our Constitution now as an amendment.
[00:03:06] Speaker A: It is in our constitution now. And when I was in the room with state representatives and senators and the first conversation started about a constitutional Congress happening again for the state of Louisiana about a rewrite of the Constitution, I asked them, I said, what's going to happen, happen to the pro life amendment we just put in? Is it gonna stay? And they said, quote, we aren't sure about that.
[00:03:27] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:03:28] Speaker A: This is a huge deal. Okay.
This is not some minor little piece thing that's going down here. Like, this is. I feel like we're getting a play run on us and people need to be paying attention. And the pro life people of Louisiana, if we push for a constitutional rewrite, need to get loud that. That stays in no matter what.
[00:03:50] Speaker B: Right. Like, that needs to be loud and clear. Part of the Constitution
[00:03:54] Speaker A: from the jump. We are not going backwards.
[00:03:57] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:03:59] Speaker A: All right, we're going to have a whole episode on that later.
[00:04:01] Speaker B: Let's run.
[00:04:02] Speaker A: But let's talk about the 12amendments. All right, Dave, let's go. Amendment number one.
[00:04:06] Speaker B: All right. Property tax exemptions for surviving spouses of disabled veterans.
Basically what the question is, should surviving spouses of qualifying disabled veterans be allowed to transfer their additional property tax exempt to a different home one time? So here's the gist.
Disabled veterans get certain tax exemptions on their property. If they die, their spouse keeps those unless they move,
[00:04:31] Speaker A: which it's very likely they would move.
[00:04:33] Speaker B: Yeah, it's like people relocate after a spouse dies all the time, move closer to family, whatever. So it's basically saying, do we want to allow them to change their tax exempt status to a different property once?
[00:04:44] Speaker A: Sure,
[00:04:45] Speaker B: yeah. I put yes for this one.
[00:04:47] Speaker A: Yeah, that one's easy. Also, can we put an amendment in about no property Taxes again, ever.
[00:04:52] Speaker B: That's going to come back up, Stuart. Yes.
All right, moving on. Number two, Amendment two, local government authority to adjust property tax rates. So the question should local taxing authorities be allowed to maintain a lower property tax rate without losing the ability to restore a previously authorized higher rate later?
Basically, when a.
Here's long story short. Okay. A new assessment occurs on property values every four years.
[00:05:23] Speaker A: Yep.
[00:05:23] Speaker B: If a property value.
[00:05:24] Speaker A: Why it matters who your tax assessor is.
[00:05:26] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:05:27] Speaker A: Okay, continue.
[00:05:27] Speaker B: So let's say the. Which,
[00:05:29] Speaker A: by the way, tax assessor. Sorry to interrupt you. Tax assessor is like one of the easiest positions to get and stay in for a long time because it's drama free. So whenever you have new people running for the ballot, you need to pay attention. Okay, sorry, Dave, go ahead.
[00:05:41] Speaker B: So here's the gist. So normally how this works is if a. Let's say there's 10 mills on a tax, that's the rate at which a property is being taxed.
But then in one of these assessments, the property value goes up significantly.
Basically how it works right now is the millage would go down to keep the property taxes the same.
Does that make sense? So if this year I'm paying a certain amount and next year my property is assessed at a higher value, even though that has gone up, my property value has gone up. In theory, my property tax rate should stay the same because they'll adjust the millage accordingly.
[00:06:26] Speaker A: So you pay the same amount of money.
[00:06:28] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:06:28] Speaker A: Okay,
[00:06:29] Speaker B: but what this would allow, if we vote yes, it would basically, within a certain amount of time, allowing the local authority, whoever that is, in this case, parish government, something like that.
[00:06:42] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:06:42] Speaker B: To increase your taxes.
Keeping the same millage.
[00:06:47] Speaker A: Keeping the same millage. So you pay more
[00:06:49] Speaker B: money. So if your property value increases, your taxes increase,
[00:06:52] Speaker A: you pay more money.
[00:06:53] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:06:53] Speaker A: This is an easy no.
[00:06:54] Speaker B: Easy no. Easy no. And look, if I butchered.
[00:06:57] Speaker A: Can you follow the theme of this episode so
[00:06:59] Speaker B: far? If I butchered the explanation slightly. Forgive me, but it's still a no. It's
[00:07:04] Speaker A: a no. No. So Amendment one, yes. Amendment two, no.
[00:07:07] Speaker B: All next one.
[00:07:09] Speaker A: Limit three.
[00:07:10] Speaker B: Prohibiting bail after conviction for aggravated crimes against children.
[00:07:15] Speaker A: Oh,
[00:07:16] Speaker B: basically, this is.
[00:07:17] Speaker A: I know already. Sorry, Keep going.
[00:07:19] Speaker B: Yeah, I was gonna say this seems pretty obvious. I don't think this one needs a lot of explanation.
Basically, if you vote yes, it means that people who have committed particular crimes, aggravated offenses against minors, will not be able to get out on bail.
[00:07:39] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:07:39] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:07:40] Speaker A: That's easy.
[00:07:41] Speaker B: Number three, Amendment three, yes. All right,
[00:07:43] Speaker A: so we got a yes. No. Yes.
[00:07:44] Speaker B: Yes. No. Yes. Okay,
[00:07:45] Speaker A: got it.
[00:07:46] Speaker B: Amendment four.
[00:07:46] Speaker A: Amendment four.
[00:07:47] Speaker B: Lifetime. This was an interesting one. Lifetime term limits for Louisiana governors. So right now the law says that Louisiana governors, they
[00:07:55] Speaker A: want Jeff Ledrie out of there.
[00:07:58] Speaker B: Can serve two consecutive. They can only serve two consecutive terms.
Kind of like. Well, no, it's not really like a president, but they can serve two consecutive terms. But then they could sit out a term and then be reelected,
[00:08:10] Speaker A: come back.
[00:08:10] Speaker B: So what this is proposing is that it's a.
You can only serve two terms total.
[00:08:16] Speaker A: Yeah. Okay. This is just such classic. Who proposed this amendment? Do we have that rundown?
[00:08:22] Speaker B: No, no, I'm gonna. We're gonna do some drinking and we probably bring that up in our next episode. All
[00:08:25] Speaker A: right,
[00:08:26] Speaker B: fine. See who wants what kind of a thing.
[00:08:28] Speaker A: Yeah,
[00:08:29] Speaker B: but what's your first.
[00:08:32] Speaker A: So I know, but this is reactive. They don't want. We are a hyper conservative state right now, and this is a reactive push to limit the powers of Jeff Landry and any other governors like Jeff Landry carries a tremendous amount of sway. And they know, in my opinion, that he could come back in later if he wanted to. And this is a targeted, intentional play. And so in my mind, I'm like, I don't like this. So I'm stuck a little bit because I'm like, well, term limits in general could be helpful, I suppose, but I don't agree with the implementation here right now. This is one of those things, like term limits are informed more by the current.
Where are we right now as a culture? Do you get what I'm saying? Yeah. And so in my mind, I'm like, man, I don't want term limits like that imposed right now because we're cooking. We've got things moving in a good direction. Let's let Jeff keep the ship.
[00:09:29] Speaker B: Yeah,
[00:09:29] Speaker A: let's let Jeff hold on as long as he can. I'll take
[00:09:32] Speaker B: it.
Ask
[00:09:33] Speaker A: me again when there's a Democrat in office.
[00:09:36] Speaker B: Well, that's part of the problem that I see here is I'm leaning towards no on this one because in a society that we hope to see one day that has a shared value system, even if you have the two consecutive term limit, if there was a phenomenal leader, a phenomenal godly leader who served for two terms, let's say, and then has not served for four years or eight years or 12 years, but we realize we need them back, you know, please come back. We need a godly ruler that's proven back in the seat.
[00:10:09] Speaker A: Get Teddy Roosevelt back in the seat.
[00:10:11] Speaker B: Yeah. So that's Where I'm like, yeah, now. And what's crazy is our country operated with no term limits for presidents. For 32 presidents.
[00:10:21] Speaker A: Yeah. Well, but it was the George Washington unspoken rule.
[00:10:24] Speaker B: Right. There was a precedent that
[00:10:25] Speaker A: was that Washington set.
[00:10:27] Speaker B: But there was also a shared value system that recognized, like, what we wanted as a nation and things like that that we've kind of lost, unfortunately. So I understand the push for term limits and things like that. I really do. Yeah. But I think we need to. Our goal should be to break out of this system, get back to some shared values where we could recognize a phenomenal godly leader and they could potentially serve for longer than two terms.
[00:10:50] Speaker A: Yeah. So for me, I'm looking around and I'm saying, what time is it right now? Based on what time it is right now, I'm gonna say, no, no, no, stay away from this term limit stuff. I understand the play that's being run on us. I don't want to play this way.
[00:11:00] Speaker B: Awesome. All right, so number four. No, number five.
[00:11:03] Speaker A: Number five,
[00:11:04] Speaker B: How Louisiana pays down state retirement debt? So the question is, should Louisiana have more flexibility in deciding which retirement system debts receive additional state payments? So here's the long and short of it. There's a ton of federal employees or not federal, sorry, state employees, and particularly, particularly teachers who have benefits that have not been paid out yet but are owed. Does that make sense? So if you retire as a teacher after 20 years or 30 years or whatever, you have some insane benefits. Often
[00:11:34] Speaker A: this is actually a huge burden of the expense of the public education in Louisiana.
[00:11:38] Speaker B: Absolutely.
[00:11:39] Speaker A: Like the way the reason we have such a high property tax in St. Landry Parish is they talk about it regularly, it's largely because of retirement benefits.
[00:11:46] Speaker B: Yes. So the question is, do we allow the state basically to pay off higher interest loans first rather than the oldest loans first? Does that make sense? So basically it's saying right now the requirement is the older loans must be paid off first.
What this amendment is proposing is that, hey, there might be an older loan that's like whatever, 3% interest or something like that. I'm just throwing a number out there. I don't know what the interest rates are, but let's say we got a new loan, you know, a couple years ago that has a 10% interest rate.
Does that make sense? The amendment. If the amendment is passed, it would allow the state to pay off the higher interest loans before the old loans.
[00:12:31] Speaker A: Okay, man, this one's. So
[00:12:34] Speaker B: it's kind of a Dave Ramsey approach.
[00:12:37] Speaker A: They're going after the Most volatile debt first. Right.
And part of me is like, why are we in so much debt in the first place?
[00:12:44] Speaker B: Right.
[00:12:45] Speaker A: If it places the state in a better position and we're still paying our bills. That's the real question. Does that mean that now we just don't pay our bills? Because that's a problem.
But if I'm going to operate under the assumption that we are paying our bills, we are paying something on these loans, and everybody's content with what they're receiving, then obviously, yes, you pay off the higher expense first.
[00:13:06] Speaker B: Yep.
I think it's a yes. But I also think that get
[00:13:10] Speaker A: the heck out of debt. The
[00:13:11] Speaker B: direction that we're headed. Yeah. There shouldn't be any debt involved here. And Louisiana is not the only state, but lots of states give such. Give crazy benefits to state employees. Yeah. We need. You need to look at that. Seriously.
[00:13:25] Speaker A: 100%
[00:13:25] Speaker B: and maybe cut a lot of expenses.
[00:13:28] Speaker A: Cut that thing to the ground. Yeah. 100%.
[00:13:31] Speaker B: Yep. Okay. Six.
[00:13:32] Speaker A: Wait, so what was five?
[00:13:34] Speaker B: Five is. Yes. Five
[00:13:35] Speaker A: is. Yes.
[00:13:35] Speaker B: So basically allow the state to pay off higher interest loans when necessary. Put
[00:13:39] Speaker A: a better financial position.
[00:13:40] Speaker B: Yeah, got
[00:13:41] Speaker A: it. Okay.
[00:13:41] Speaker B: Instead of necessarily the older ones.
[00:13:42] Speaker A: Got it. Six.
[00:13:43] Speaker B: All right.
Additional property tax exemption for senior citizens. So the question is, should Louisiana allow local governments and voters to authorize substantially larger property tax exemptions for qualifying homeowners age 65 and older?
Basically it would allow. Sounds like parishes to.
Or maybe municipalities to give.
There are already tax exemptions on a lot of property taxes. It sounds like for people that are 65 or older. Okay. And this would basically. Well,
[00:14:16] Speaker A: they freeze your tax rate at a certain point.
[00:14:18] Speaker B: Yeah. Or the. You have exemption up to. In one way that this words it is. They have exemption up to a certain valuation of their property.
[00:14:25] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:14:25] Speaker B: And they're only taxed above that. That makes sense. So this would basically allow local localities to pass tax exemptions to greater values.
So like right now, if you maybe the. The line. I think a standard line is 100,000. Yeah. So like, if you have property that's worth 200,000, you only get taxed on 100,000 of it if you're older than a certain age or
[00:14:46] Speaker A: so. Less property tax.
[00:14:47] Speaker B: Yes. So this one's an easy. Yes, easy. Yes. Again, some of the. Some of the details get a little confusing maybe. But if it's results in fewer taxes for someone, I'm going to be kind of like,
[00:14:57] Speaker A: yeah, yeah, less property tax sounds great.
[00:15:00] Speaker B: Yep. Now let's do that for everybody.
[00:15:01] Speaker A: Yeah. Let's put the. No More property tax amendment in.
[00:15:05] Speaker B: Amen. All right. Amendment 7.
Public funds for removing hazardous drinking water lines.
So the question is, should local governments be authorized to use public money to identify and replace certain hazardous drinking water service lines located on privately owned property? This is very. Is actually pretty relevant for a place like Opelousis, where I get notifications every year in the mail.
[00:15:27] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:15:28] Speaker B: That basically just says, hey, the lines. Like, we can. We can confirm that none of the lines outside of your property have lead in them.
[00:15:38] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:15:39] Speaker B: But just so you know, there's a small chance that the line leading basically from the city line to your house.
[00:15:45] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:15:46] Speaker B: Has lead in it.
[00:15:47] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:15:47] Speaker B: We don't know.
[00:15:48] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:15:49] Speaker B: So this would. This basically saying this would allow local, you know, municipalities to use public money to replace private lines.
[00:16:00] Speaker A: Oh, I don't like that.
[00:16:02] Speaker B: Yeah,
[00:16:02] Speaker A: yeah, that's your property.
[00:16:05] Speaker B: So this would be a. I mean, it kind of sounds like, nice, like if tomorrow it turns out someone does a test and they're like, oh, yeah, you actually. The line running from the street to your house has lead in it.
[00:16:15] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:16:16] Speaker B: And, you know, the city will pay for it to replace it.
[00:16:20] Speaker A: Oh, yeah, let's give the state more power.
[00:16:23] Speaker B: So that's where.
[00:16:24] Speaker A: Yeah,
[00:16:24] Speaker B: that's where the temptation might be to act pragmatically. But this is. Yeah,
[00:16:31] Speaker A: yeah. You own that house. This is your responsibility.
Take responsibility. I was just having this conversation with somebody the other day. Our job is to take responsibility for what's ours. Stop looking to the nanny state to solve your problems.
So easy. No,
[00:16:45] Speaker B: absolutely. Okay. No. So
[00:16:47] Speaker A: fix it yourself.
[00:16:49] Speaker B: We're gonna run down. We're gonna run down the line. Don't worry. At the very end of the episode, I'm gonna say that. Number one. Yes. All
[00:16:55] Speaker A: right, where are we now?
[00:16:55] Speaker B: Number
[00:16:55] Speaker A: eight. Number eight.
[00:16:57] Speaker B: This one is prohibiting foreign adversaries from expropriating private property. This one is one of those where it doesn't make any sense why it's on the docket. The question is, should Louisiana explicitly prohibit foreign adversaries and their agents from exercising expropriation? There we go. Powers. So this relates to eminent domain and things like that. Okay. That the government can wield to take your property when it relates to, like, a major thruway or whatever.
[00:17:31] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:17:33] Speaker B: And the amendment is asking for the language to be added that adversaries can't do that. Like, foreign powers can't do this in Louisiana.
[00:17:45] Speaker A: Why is this even. Why does this even need to be put into. Of course they can't be allowed to do this. Why is this Even here,
[00:17:52] Speaker B: really. From what I can tell, there's no. Great.
I can't think of any examples or I don't see any examples of where this has happened or that it's even a danger or a possibility.
And yet it's here for everyone to vote on. Why, as an amendment.
[00:18:06] Speaker A: Yeah. This is, this should not even be
[00:18:08] Speaker B: strange. Just like we want some verbiage in there that, I don't know, protects, quote, unquote from foreign powers and their influence.
[00:18:18] Speaker A: Which amendment is this?
[00:18:19] Speaker B: This is the eighth one.
So it sounds fine, but then it's like, why is this even on the list? Like, what is this even actually going to do?
[00:18:30] Speaker A: Yeah,
[00:18:30] Speaker B: so it seems just like fluff.
[00:18:32] Speaker A: It seems like, yeah. Why? I mean, okay, so foreign powers shouldn't have that. I would vote yes on it.
[00:18:39] Speaker B: Yeah. Just maybe, like, to be safe, just in case.
[00:18:42] Speaker A: But this is, this is one of those stupid moments where we're like, why are we even putting this into the Constitution?
[00:18:46] Speaker B: Let's add another page to the Constitution for no reason. Yeah, that's what's happening here. I think so probably. Yes, I guess, but it's pointless. Okay, moving on, though. Amendment nine, increasing income limit for property tax assessment freezes.
So the question should Louisiana increase the maximum income threshold for qualifying homeowners to receive a special property tax assessment freeze?
Okay,
[00:19:14] Speaker A: okay,
[00:19:15] Speaker B: so basically, right now, certain Louisiana homeowners can qualify to freeze the assessed value of their primary residence or property tax. This
[00:19:23] Speaker A: is what I was talking to you about. A second
[00:19:24] Speaker B: purposes. What would change? Amendment 9 would raise the income threshold to 150,000. It's currently at 100,000 for basically getting a freeze.
[00:19:36] Speaker A: So it makes it harder for you to be able to get your property tax frozen. It raises the requirement.
[00:19:46] Speaker B: So, yeah. Yes. Raises the qualifying income limit to 150. No, no.
Expanding eligibility for assessment freezes. Does that make sense? So.
[00:19:56] Speaker A: Oh, so the people who make less. Yes. Are the ones who are eligible for freezes.
[00:20:00] Speaker B: Exactly. So. So this expands the number of people who will be able to get. Yeah. An assessment. So
[00:20:07] Speaker A: less property taxes.
[00:20:08] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:20:08] Speaker A: So, yes. So,
[00:20:09] Speaker B: yes.
[00:20:11] Speaker A: But, but I, I disagree with everything that's happening around me. Do you know what I'm saying? Like in. I'm in the arena right now and I'm like, you're deciding my property tax and you're trying to say, all you poor person who only has an assessed value of $150,000 and will freeze your taxes, don't worry. Like it's a Marxist play, but it means less property taxes. So I'LL say yes.
[00:20:32] Speaker B: Sure. We're being forced to play the incremental game.
[00:20:35] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:20:36] Speaker B: But only.
But it's all a farce because it's only within a very small subsect of the. Of the population. Yeah. Like, it's like less property taxes. Great. For who? For this tiny group of people.
[00:20:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:20:48] Speaker B: And only some of their taxes are going down. So even if we took that all the way, it still wouldn't solve the ultimate
[00:20:53] Speaker A: problem. Property taxes
[00:20:55] Speaker B: problem. Yeah,
[00:20:56] Speaker A: got it. But it means less property taxes for somebody.
[00:20:58] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:20:59] Speaker A: So I'll approve it.
[00:21:00] Speaker B: There we go. Okay.
[00:21:02] Speaker A: But it is a Marxist play. Heads up. Okay, keep going.
[00:21:04] Speaker B: Last one, last one, last
[00:21:05] Speaker A: one. Number 10. Here we
[00:21:06] Speaker B: go. Property tax exemption for rehabilitated blighted properties. Oh, this one's kind of strange. So the question is, should Louisiana authorize property tax exemptions for qualifying abandoned, blighted, or derelict properties that have been rehabilitated? So basically would allow. Here's my understanding. It would allow. Let's say someone right down the street from us took one of those rundown buildings in Opelousas, downtown Opelousas,
[00:21:29] Speaker A: fixed it up,
[00:21:30] Speaker B: and right now it's assessed at a particular value and it's being taxed at a particular rate. If they fixed it up, it could basically continue at that low rate of taxation.
[00:21:41] Speaker A: So them bringing it back to life does not penalize them.
[00:21:45] Speaker B: Does not penalize them via tax.
[00:21:46] Speaker A: Yeah. So less taxes.
[00:21:48] Speaker B: Yes,
[00:21:49] Speaker A: Approved.
[00:21:49] Speaker B: So that was an easy yes for me as well. All right, so to keep this quick again, we're already past time slightly, by the way. Oh,
[00:21:56] Speaker A: thank you. All
[00:21:56] Speaker B: right, here's the list. Last thing. So, number one. Yes. Number two. No. Number three. Yes. Number four. No. Five. Yes. Six. Yes. Seven. No. Eight, Nine and ten. Yes.
[00:22:09] Speaker A: We're done. Thanks, guys, so much for listening to another episode of the Paris Circuit. This was supposed to be 10 minutes long and it's 22.
One more thing before we're done. Shout out. Ladies and gentlemen, it is shout out time. Shout out to some of our sponsors. Did you know that people send us money for this show? People send us money for this show. And I want to specially give a shout out to James Andrepant. James Andrepant, who contributes on a monthly basis to the Paris Circuit. You're the man.
Thank you. We appreciate you. You're great.
Wan imagine one day where we could have this thing fully funded and pointing the flock cameras at the government full time.
[00:22:46] Speaker B: Oh, yeah,
[00:22:47] Speaker A: that'd be amazing. James, you're helping us take a step in that direction. Thanks, guys, so much for listening, and we'll see you next time.
