Gymkata!

The King of Stuff conducts a news roundup discussing the latest CDC face-plant, the Olympics, social media outrage, Pelosi’s January 6 kangaroo court, and a free-speech ruling in New Jersey. Subscribe to the King of Stuff Spotify playlist featuring picks from the show. Today’s pick is “Superperfection” by Film School

Subscribe to King of Stuff in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 12 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Ricochet Audio Network:

    Pelosi’s January 6 kangaroo court, 

    Kinda like this?

    https://ricochet.com/859769/impeach-remove-bar-from-office/

    Ah, memories…

    • #1
  2. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network:

    Pelosi’s January 6 kangaroo court,

    Kinda like this?

    https://ricochet.com/859769/impeach-remove-bar-from-office/

    Ah, memories…

    I believe the two are very different and the timing is very different. Do you agree the current charade is a sham? And why would you be upset that I agree with you now?

    • #2
  3. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Will the editor yield for a point of clarification?

    And why would you be upset that I agree with you now?

    Agree with what exactly? That Pelosi’s sham committee is a kangaroo court or that you now admit that the post you wrote on January 6th (cited above) was rash, reactionary, and showed a high degree of reckless emotion instead of waiting for other facts and information about what happened on that day to come to light? If you still stand by what you wrote on that day, then how are you now different from Pelosi-Republican footstools (Cheney and Kinzinger) on the kangaroo committee? Given that we’ve not seen you backtrack on anything you wrote in that post (at least I haven’t seen it), I think it’s quite fair for @drlorentz to call you out and question your credibility on your characterization of Pelosi’s committee.

    • #3
  4. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network:

    Pelosi’s January 6 kangaroo court,

    Kinda like this?

    https://ricochet.com/859769/impeach-remove-bar-from-office/

    Ah, memories…

    I believe the two are very different and the timing is very different. Do you agree the current charade is a sham? And why would you be upset that I agree with you now?

    What ever gave you the idea that I’m upset? I’m amused. The juxtaposition is hilarious. You can’t make this stuff up. Keep it coming.

    • #4
  5. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):
    I believe the two are very different and the timing is very different.

    I guess you don’t see how that argues against yourself.

    • #5
  6. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):
    I believe the two are very different and the timing is very different.

    I guess you don’t see how that argues against yourself.

    No, I don’t see how it argues against myself. I thought Trump would do more damage in office if he remained past Jan 6. Turned out he didn’t. Then once he left, there was no need for a second impeachment. I place this committee in the same vein but even more useless.

    I treat a sitting president differently than an ex-president. That’s a pretty big difference.

    • #6
  7. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Will the editor yield for a point of clarification?

    And why would you be upset that I agree with you now?

    Agree with what exactly? That Pelosi’s sham committee is a kangaroo court or that you now admit that the post you wrote on January 6th (cited above) was rash, reactionary, and showed a high degree of reckless emotion instead of waiting for other facts and information about what happened on that day to come to light? If you still stand by what you wrote on that day, then how are you now different from Pelosi-Republican footstools (Cheney and Kinzinger) on the kangaroo committee? Given that we’ve not seen you backtrack on anything you wrote in that post (at least I haven’t seen it), I think it’s quite fair for @ drlorentz to call you out and question your credibility on your characterization of Pelosi’s committee.

    The article I wrote on Jan. 6 and the podcast I posted yesterday cover different situations, as I’ve said above. One concerned a sitting president, the other an ex-president. And nearly every op-ed I write deals with a developing situation. We still don’t have the facts of what happened on Jan. 6; using this logic, I still can’t weigh in on the event, nor can anyone else.

    I stand by what I wrote then and my opposition to Cheney and Kinzinger now.

    • #7
  8. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network:

    Pelosi’s January 6 kangaroo court,

    Kinda like this?

    https://ricochet.com/859769/impeach-remove-bar-from-office/

    Ah, memories…

    I believe the two are very different and the timing is very different. Do you agree the current charade is a sham? And why would you be upset that I agree with you now?

    What ever gave you the idea that I’m upset? I’m amused. The juxtaposition is hilarious. You can’t make this stuff up. Keep it coming.

    Sorry for my confusion.

    I guess I’m just wired differently. When interacting, I tend to look for points of agreement rather than disagreement. If someone wrote an article yesterday that I agreed with, I’d think “good for them.” I wouldn’t point out that the same author disagreed with me seven months ago in another piece. (Frankly, I wouldn’t keep track of what they wrote seven months ago.)

    As I noted in the podcast, all I can do is offer my opinion. If you don’t like my opinions, I’m fine with that. I’m certainly not for everybody — or even most people. That’s why I don’t show up in the comments of every post I disagree with to demand the author recants. As it turns out, I end up promoting a lot of them to the front page.

    • #8
  9. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Will the editor yield for a point of clarification?

    And why would you be upset that I agree with you now?

    Agree with what exactly? That Pelosi’s sham committee is a kangaroo court or that you now admit that the post you wrote on January 6th (cited above) was rash, reactionary, and showed a high degree of reckless emotion instead of waiting for other facts and information about what happened on that day to come to light? If you still stand by what you wrote on that day, then how are you now different from Pelosi-Republican footstools (Cheney and Kinzinger) on the kangaroo committee? Given that we’ve not seen you backtrack on anything you wrote in that post (at least I haven’t seen it), I think it’s quite fair for @ drlorentz to call you out and question your credibility on your characterization of Pelosi’s committee.

    The article I wrote on Jan. 6 and the podcast I posted yesterday cover different situations, as I’ve said above. One concerned a sitting president, the other an ex-president. And nearly every op-ed I write deals with a developing situation. We still don’t have the facts of what happened on Jan. 6; using this logic, I still can’t weigh in on the event, nor can anyone else.

    I stand by what I wrote then and my opposition to Cheney and Kinzinger now.

    How can you be opposed to Cheney and Kinzinger? All three of you are still in total alignment on laying the blame for what happened on January 6th squarely on Trump and calling for his impeachment and barring him from holding future elective office. They actually carried out your wish and voted for impeachment. I’d actually be shocked if you hadn’t tweeted them or phoned their offices to thank them after they had done so, given the condemning tone of your January 6th post. Perhaps it’s their personal style that irritates you now…or perhaps because Kinzinger gets too easily verklempt.

    And re: commenting on developing situations…other information was coming in the hours and days immediately after January 6th about possible Antifa and BLM bad actors in the crowd by Trump supporters who were there calling them out. I realize such reliable news sources and documentarians like the unbiased New York Times won’t address that; and granted a good deal of this information has been removed by Facebook and Twitter in the months following. But you made a judgement call on the very day that the chaotic situation occurred when false narratives were spewing forth from media outlets on what Trump actually said and when he said it, and who some of the protesters were. Of course, you didn’t advocate tossing the President on a bonfire, so there is that. That was someone else.

    • #9
  10. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):
    As I noted in the podcast, all I can do is offer my opinion. If you don’t like my opinions, I’m fine with that.

    And when your opinions prove foolhardy, what then?

    1.Trump did not incite a riot.

    2. There were no grounds for impeaching him.

    3. Barring him from office is absurd.

    As it turns out, I end up promoting a lot of them to the front page.

    Unless they’re about election fraud and audit movements nationwide. Wouldn’t want to cover the topics that actual conservatives are discussing everywhere but the Ricochet main page.

    • #10
  11. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    While ‘consulting’ for HBO’s Veep, Mitt Romney told Julia Louis Dreyfus: If you’re explaining, that means you’re losing

     

    • #11
  12. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):
    As it turns out, I end up promoting a lot of them to the front page.

    How about this one, with almost 30 “likes?”

     

    https://ricochet.com/1020868/the-mindless-heartless-execution-of-ashli-babbittand-the-death-of-her-grief-stricken-german-shepherd-when-she-never-returned/

    • #12