There was part of an interview with maggie greene on the radio, and she
says, "I have freedom of speech and all I did is ask questions. There's
nothing wrong with asking questions."

And the interviewer didn't have the right replies. He shoudl have said,
"Is it true that your father was a paid killer? That he worked for
organized crime and he murdered 14 people?

Is it true your mother was a prostitute when your father met her. That
she got pregnant with you while he was paying her for sex?

Is it true that you've cheated on your husband for the last 5 years and
that you've had sex with 3 men at the same time?

I've asked these same questions about you in interviews when you were
not there to respond, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions,
right."

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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?

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. .

"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.

On 2/5/2021 12:32 AM, 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.

"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.

"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?

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. .

"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.


She will get paid good money for doing next to nothing. But that's
better than having someone that has her "ability" to think making
important decisions.

On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:


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.

Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:


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.

Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.

There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.

On Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 10:58:45 PM UTC-5, 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.

Odd though how those reporters could ask tough questions, keep going at
Trump, but pitch mostly softballs to Biden and Democrats. It's how Trump got
elected.

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.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:21:59 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


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.

And they weren't the same ones who voted against trump on Rand Paul's
claim it was unconsitutional. I had looked at that list almost a week
ago and could be wrong but I didn't recognize any name as being in both
groups.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:14:30 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 10:58:45 PM UTC-5, 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.

Odd though how those reporters could ask tough questions,
keep going at Trump,

They asked loads of softball questions of trump. After that blonde's
first question at the debate, few tried good questions.

And they asked loads of hard questions at Hillary.

but pitch mostly softballs to Biden and Democrats.

You don't seem to have read my OP. It was about how they asked softball
questions to Maggie Greene, a Republican.

It's how Trump got
elected.

No.

On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 12:54:49 -0500, micky posted for all of us to digest...


There was part of an interview with maggie greene on the radio, and she
says, "I have freedom of speech and all I did is ask questions. There's
nothing wrong with asking questions."

And the interviewer didn't have the right replies. He shoudl have said,
"Is it true that your father was a paid killer? That he worked for
organized crime and he murdered 14 people?

Is it true your mother was a prostitute when your father met her. That
she got pregnant with you while he was paying her for sex?

Is it true that you've cheated on your husband for the last 5 years and
that you've had sex with 3 men at the same time?

I've asked these same questions about you in interviews when you were
not there to respond, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions,
right."

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?

Simple, there are no "journalists" anymore. There are no truth seekers all are
aligned with a viewpoint before they start their project.

As to "reporters" they are just statement readers. If the teleprompter breaks
down watch them get flustered.

The media is owned by a few families and mostly oriented left, with a few
exceptions.

The White House now wants questions submitted prior to the briefings.

Ask yourself, why when something happens all the networks parrot the same line
on the same day. This was especially evident regarding Trump. He would do or
say something and immediately 5 or more networks would yell *racism* in lock
step. Wouldn't at least one outlet have a different take?

I don't know of an independent source. Who would fund it? If you know of one
please post it here. Don't bother with the MSM of either side.

--
Tekkie

On 2/5/2021 12:08 PM, Tekkie� wrote:

On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 12:54:49 -0500, micky posted for all of us to digest...


There was part of an interview with maggie greene on the radio, and she
says, "I have freedom of speech and all I did is ask questions. There's
nothing wrong with asking questions."

And the interviewer didn't have the right replies. He shoudl have said,
"Is it true that your father was a paid killer? That he worked for
organized crime and he murdered 14 people?

Is it true your mother was a prostitute when your father met her. That
she got pregnant with you while he was paying her for sex?

Is it true that you've cheated on your husband for the last 5 years and
that you've had sex with 3 men at the same time?

I've asked these same questions about you in interviews when you were
not there to respond, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions,
right."

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?

Simple, there are no "journalists" anymore. There are no truth seekers all are
aligned with a viewpoint before they start their project.

As to "reporters" they are just statement readers. If the teleprompter breaks
down watch them get flustered.

The media is owned by a few families and mostly oriented left, with a few
exceptions.

The White House now wants questions submitted prior to the briefings.

Ask yourself, why when something happens all the networks parrot the same line
on the same day. This was especially evident regarding Trump. He would do or
say something and immediately 5 or more networks would yell *racism* in lock
step. Wouldn't at least one outlet have a different take?


Maybe they are all just reporting THE TRUTH.

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:


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.

Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.

There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.

It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:


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.

Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.

There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.

It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

Corse the repugs never do anything like
that with rabid pig ignorant trumpets, eh ?

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 15:18:10 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 12:08 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 12:54:49 -0500, micky posted for all of us to digest...


There was part of an interview with maggie greene on the radio, and she
says, "I have freedom of speech and all I did is ask questions. There's
nothing wrong with asking questions."

And the interviewer didn't have the right replies. He shoudl have said,
"Is it true that your father was a paid killer? That he worked for
organized crime and he murdered 14 people?

Is it true your mother was a prostitute when your father met her. That
she got pregnant with you while he was paying her for sex?

Is it true that you've cheated on your husband for the last 5 years and
that you've had sex with 3 men at the same time?

I've asked these same questions about you in interviews when you were
not there to respond, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions,
right."

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?

Simple, there are no "journalists" anymore. There are no truth seekers all are
aligned with a viewpoint before they start their project.

As to "reporters" they are just statement readers. If the teleprompter breaks
down watch them get flustered.

The media is owned by a few families and mostly oriented left, with a few
exceptions.

The White House now wants questions submitted prior to the briefings.

Ask yourself, why when something happens all the networks parrot the same line
on the same day. This was especially evident regarding Trump. He would do or
say something and immediately 5 or more networks would yell *racism* in lock
step. Wouldn't at least one outlet have a different take?


Maybe they are all just reporting THE TRUTH.

Maybe they are all just reporting THE OBVIOUS (TRUTH.)

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:


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.

Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.

There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.

It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.


BS.

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:


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.

Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.

There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.

It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.


BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.

On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

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.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.


It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help pay off the national debt.

On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:37:43 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:14:30 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 10:58:45 PM UTC-5, 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.

Odd though how those reporters could ask tough questions,
keep going at Trump,
They asked loads of softball questions of trump. After that blonde's
first question at the debate, few tried good questions.

I was referring more to Trump's four years as president. The press sure
went after him hard there. Compare that to the press actively helping Biden,
trying to claim that the laptop was a Russian plant. If that was Eric Trump;s
laptop, you know damn well it would have been the top story all over the place.
Instead they not only gave it little coverage but with most stories they said
that according to their "experts" it looks like a Russian plant. Meanwhile they
ignored that the current DNI who would be in the best position to know had
come out and said that US intel has nothing to indicate that the laptop is
a Russian fake. And even at the debates, they went after Trump hard.
Even the conservative radio host asked that question about the nuclear
triad, exposing that Trump didn't even know what it is. It's this unfair,
biased treatment in the media that helped Trump get elected and it
can happen again.






And they asked loads of hard questions at Hillary.
but pitch mostly softballs to Biden and Democrats.
You don't seem to have read my OP. It was about how they asked softball
questions to Maggie Greene, a Republican.

i haven't seen the media actually asking her much of anything, so I don't
know what they have asked. But they sure are hammering away at her with
clips of her chasing the HS student, tweeting Qanon BS, etc. It's non stop.



It's how Trump got
elected.
No.

Oh yes it is, Republicans are fed up with the bias.

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

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.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.
It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help pay off the national debt.

Where were you for the last 4 years? How much national debt did Trump pay off?
Oh, wait, he greatly increased the national debt with a reckless tax cut and increased
spending. The deficits had been declining since 2009, down to $500 mil, Trump
doubled them. No surprise there, when running Trump said we could just keep borrowing
and then stiff our creditors, negotiate to get them to settle for only partial payment.
I saw that and said this shyster wants to do to America what he did to his casinos
and other properties. Folks like you saw it and decided he was the best candidate
among 16 Republicans for president.

On 2/6/2021 3:44 AM, jimmy wrote:
On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

Well you're right but it's a big flaw in the system.Â*Â* 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.Â*Â* So
reporters in these cases just become master of ceremonies for the
performances of liars etc.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system.Â* Uneducated voters that
think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.


It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help pay
off the national debt.


That is exactly what Biden is doing, just like Democrats always to. By
doing things that help grow the economy. It always grows bs=est under
Democratic Presidents.

"A president has only limited control over the economy. And yet there
has been a stark pattern in the United States for nearly a century. The
economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic presidents than
Republican ones.

Its true about almost any major indicator: gross domestic product,
employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. Its true if you
examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or
instead assume that a presidents policies affect the economy only after
a lag and dont start his economic clock until months after he takes
office. The gap €œholds almost regardless of how you define success,€� two
economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write.
They describe it as €œstartlingly large.€�
Annual G.D.P. growth rate


Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6
percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans,
according to a Times analysis. In more concrete terms: The average
income of Americans would be more than double its current level if the
economy had somehow grown at the Democratic rate for all of the past
nine decades. If anything, that period (which is based on data
availability) is too kind to Republicans, because it excludes the
portion of the Great Depression that happened on Herbert Hoovers watch."

Check the graphs on the page.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/o...3e91b65130eb97

On 2/6/2021 7:41 AM, wrote:



It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers
to help pay off the national debt.


It would be nice if the Repubs didn't run-up such a
national debt - by giving tax breaks to their
Billionaire-Buddies !
John T.


They do that every time they take power. And the deficit always blows up.

It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers
to help pay off the national debt.


It would be nice if the Repubs didn't run-up such a
national debt - by giving tax breaks to their
Billionaire-Buddies !
John T.

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 05:21:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

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.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.
It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help pay off the national debt.

Where were you for the last 4 years? How much national debt did Trump pay off?
Oh, wait, he greatly increased the national debt with a reckless tax cut and increased
spending. The deficits had been declining since 2009, down to $500 mil, Trump
doubled them. No surprise there, when running Trump said we could just keep borrowing
and then stiff our creditors, negotiate to get them to settle for only partial payment.
I saw that and said this shyster wants to do to America what he did to his casinos
and other properties. Folks like you saw it and decided he was the best candidate
among 16 Republicans for president.

Eisenhower was the last president to actually reduce the debt.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 05:21:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

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.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that
think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.
It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help pay
off the national debt.

Where were you for the last 4 years? How much national debt did Trump pay
off?
Oh, wait, he greatly increased the national debt with a reckless tax cut
and increased
spending. The deficits had been declining since 2009, down to $500 mil,
Trump
doubled them. No surprise there, when running Trump said we could just
keep borrowing
and then stiff our creditors, negotiate to get them to settle for only
partial payment.
I saw that and said this shyster wants to do to America what he did to his
casinos
and other properties. Folks like you saw it and decided he was the best
candidate
among 16 Republicans for president.

Eisenhower was the last president to actually reduce the debt.

It wasn't him that did that, it was the war ending that did that.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 03:36:55 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the subnormal trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 03:36:55 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 05:21:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

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.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that
think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.
It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help pay
off the national debt.

Where were you for the last 4 years? How much national debt did Trump pay
off?
Oh, wait, he greatly increased the national debt with a reckless tax cut
and increased
spending. The deficits had been declining since 2009, down to $500 mil,
Trump
doubled them. No surprise there, when running Trump said we could just
keep borrowing
and then stiff our creditors, negotiate to get them to settle for only
partial payment.
I saw that and said this shyster wants to do to America what he did to his
casinos
and other properties. Folks like you saw it and decided he was the best
candidate
among 16 Republicans for president.

Eisenhower was the last president to actually reduce the debt.

It wasn't him that did that, it was the war ending that did that.


We haven't managed to do it since and we ended the Vietnam war.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 03:36:55 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 05:21:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

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.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that
think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to
register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.
It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help pay
off the national debt.

Where were you for the last 4 years? How much national debt did Trump
pay
off?
Oh, wait, he greatly increased the national debt with a reckless tax cut
and increased
spending. The deficits had been declining since 2009, down to $500
mil,
Trump
doubled them. No surprise there, when running Trump said we could just
keep borrowing
and then stiff our creditors, negotiate to get them to settle for only
partial payment.
I saw that and said this shyster wants to do to America what he did to
his
casinos
and other properties. Folks like you saw it and decided he was the
best
candidate
among 16 Republicans for president.

Eisenhower was the last president to actually reduce the debt.

It wasn't him that did that, it was the war ending that did that.

We haven't managed to do it since

We havent had a world war since.

and we ended the Vietnam war.

It never had the same effect on the national debt as WW2
did and didn't have anything even remotely like the same
effect on the economy as WW2 did which saw an immense
economic boom once WW2 ended as everyone got on
doing what they were prevented from doing during
WW2 and involved rebuilding vast swathes of europe.

On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 22:06:16 -0500, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:


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.

Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.

There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.

It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

That's because they can pay them less.

--
Tekkie

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 15:18:10 -0800, Bob F posted for all of us to digest...


On 2/5/2021 12:08 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 12:54:49 -0500, micky posted for all of us to digest...


There was part of an interview with maggie greene on the radio, and she
says, "I have freedom of speech and all I did is ask questions. There's
nothing wrong with asking questions."

And the interviewer didn't have the right replies. He shoudl have said,
"Is it true that your father was a paid killer? That he worked for
organized crime and he murdered 14 people?

Is it true your mother was a prostitute when your father met her. That
she got pregnant with you while he was paying her for sex?

Is it true that you've cheated on your husband for the last 5 years and
that you've had sex with 3 men at the same time?

I've asked these same questions about you in interviews when you were
not there to respond, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions,
right."

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?

Simple, there are no "journalists" anymore. There are no truth seekers all are
aligned with a viewpoint before they start their project.

As to "reporters" they are just statement readers. If the teleprompter breaks
down watch them get flustered.

The media is owned by a few families and mostly oriented left, with a few
exceptions.

The White House now wants questions submitted prior to the briefings.

Ask yourself, why when something happens all the networks parrot the same line
on the same day. This was especially evident regarding Trump. He would do or
say something and immediately 5 or more networks would yell *racism* in lock
step. Wouldn't at least one outlet have a different take?


Maybe they are all just reporting THE TRUTH.

You mean the Russian Collusion Delusion?

As asked before, provide one proven item they have reported on. Just one and
not from either side of the MSM. Last chance.


--
Tekkie

On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 04:41:15 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 03:36:55 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 05:21:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

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.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters that
think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to
register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.
It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help pay
off the national debt.

Where were you for the last 4 years? How much national debt did Trump
pay
off?
Oh, wait, he greatly increased the national debt with a reckless tax cut
and increased
spending. The deficits had been declining since 2009, down to $500
mil,
Trump
doubled them. No surprise there, when running Trump said we could just
keep borrowing
and then stiff our creditors, negotiate to get them to settle for only
partial payment.
I saw that and said this shyster wants to do to America what he did to
his
casinos
and other properties. Folks like you saw it and decided he was the
best
candidate
among 16 Republicans for president.

Eisenhower was the last president to actually reduce the debt.

It wasn't him that did that, it was the war ending that did that.

We haven't managed to do it since

We havent had a world war since.

and we ended the Vietnam war.

It never had the same effect on the national debt as WW2
did and didn't have anything even remotely like the same
effect on the economy as WW2 did which saw an immense
economic boom once WW2 ended as everyone got on
doing what they were prevented from doing during
WW2 and involved rebuilding vast swathes of europe.

But nobody else even tried. Eisenhower is also the last guy who
actually reduced the size of government and that was 55, 10 years
after the war ended.
After Vietnam and the Cold war ended DoD continued to get bigger.
There was no "peace benefit".

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 04:41:15 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 03:36:55 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 05:21:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 6:44:17 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
On 2/6/21 12:24 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 20:09:30 -0800, Bob F
wrote:

On 2/5/2021 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:57:22 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/05/2021 07:16 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2021 3:08 AM, micky wrote:

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.
Yes, there is a huge flaw in the system. Uneducated voters
that
think
someone like that would be good to have in Congress.
There is a huge flaw -- uneducated voters vote.
It does seem to be the democrats who go out of their way to
register
aliens, winos, bums and homeless people.

BS.
Not when you think about and actually look at their registration
drives. They sign up anyone with a pulse.
It would be nice if the democrats signed up some taxpayers to help
pay
off the national debt.

Where were you for the last 4 years? How much national debt did Trump
pay
off?
Oh, wait, he greatly increased the national debt with a reckless tax
cut
and increased
spending. The deficits had been declining since 2009, down to $500
mil,
Trump
doubled them. No surprise there, when running Trump said we could just
keep borrowing
and then stiff our creditors, negotiate to get them to settle for only
partial payment.
I saw that and said this shyster wants to do to America what he did to
his
casinos
and other properties. Folks like you saw it and decided he was the
best
candidate
among 16 Republicans for president.

Eisenhower was the last president to actually reduce the debt.

It wasn't him that did that, it was the war ending that did that.

We haven't managed to do it since

We havent had a world war since.

and we ended the Vietnam war.

It never had the same effect on the national debt as WW2
did and didn't have anything even remotely like the same
effect on the economy as WW2 did which saw an immense
economic boom once WW2 ended as everyone got on
doing what they were prevented from doing during
WW2 and involved rebuilding vast swathes of europe.

But nobody else even tried.

Ike didn't try, that all happened automatically,
nothing to do with Ike. In fact he continued to
spend heaps on the cold war, particularly with
the immense number of nukes and SAC etc.

Eisenhower is also the last guy who
actually reduced the size of government

Again, hardly surprising given the immense
govt that was needed for WW2.

and that was 55, 10 years after the war ended.

Takes time to wind down what govt operations
were needed during the war and with Korea etc.

He stupidly got the USA involved in Vietnam
and in bailing out the French there.

After Vietnam and the Cold war
ended DoD continued to get bigger.

It did under Ike too.

There was no "peace benefit".

That's bull**** with the withdrawal from Japan etc.