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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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