On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 3:32:25 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 05 Feb 2021 03:08:15 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 04 Feb 2021 21:58:40 -0600, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 12:54:49 -0500, micky wrote:

Why do reporters, and this applies just as much when dealing with both
liberals and conservatives, not dig a little deeper than just giving the
interviewee the chance to make a speech?

What you're asking is, why don't they push back when they know something
vague or even untruthful is being said. I think it's as simple as if they
did fact checking in real time, and pushed back as a result, they would
probably find themselves on the outside, looking in, in pretty short order.

Lawmakers don't tend to like it when reporters ask tough questions, in
spite of that being probably the best way to get at the truth. Remember how
Trump used to say, 'That's a nasty question and you're a nasty woman." He
only said out loud what they all probably think when they get a pointed
question.

Well you're right but it's a big flaw in the system. Anyone who really
tries can, with a little practice, learn to give non-answers and stupid
answers and large number of people listeing will believe them. So
reporters in these cases just become master of ceremonies for the
performances of liars etc.

Today in some House hearing, Greene tried more double talk and 11
Republican representatives voted against her. Should have been all 200.
Maybe I'll have links later. Maybe she thought her crummy ansswers
would be good enough.
"I was allowed to believe things that weren't true." Maybe she could
think, or read, a little bit. Butthen she only went over 3 of the many
hateful or nonsense stories she has told in the past.

That was some mighty interesting wording. Allowed? Who was suppose to
stop her?


"The school shootings were real". She never said they weren't real. She
said they might have been false flags, done on purpose to promote gun
control.

And in this statement she didn't say which school shootings. If she wanted to
renounce what she had said, it should have said the Parkland and Sandy Hook
shootings and that she apologizes for harassing that survivor.




"911 was real". I guess that means a plane really did hit the
pentagon,or does it. I don't think she actually said that. Maybe she's
only talking about the WTC. Yeah, everyone knew that wss real. She
didn't believe about the Pentago before. Who knows if she does now?

Exactly. Again she did not renounce what she said, that there was no evidence
of a plane at the Pentagon.


And she said more crap today, and tons of ridiculous crap in the past.
Her words today really were much too little, made no reference to most
of the crap she has spread. .

Exactly.

"I didn't hear anyone retract or apologize for antisemitic or
islamophobice posts that have been done over and over again... Too
little, too late". CNN keeps playing this but since I only listen,
don't watch, I don't know who says it.

Of course now she doesn't have to spend her time going to committee
meetings.


Booting her off those committees is not about punishment, it's that someone
so stupid, so deranged, shouldn't even be in Congress, so the least they can
do is make sure she's not in any more positions. At least there were 11 GOP
that voted to boot her, sad there were not more.