John King, USA...tea party coverage on CNN

[Jamisjockey]

Actually seeing reasonably fair coverage of the tea party on CNN for once....I had to put the kids to bed, so I wasn't able to watch all of it.

[RevDisk]

Actually seeing reasonably fair coverage of the tea party on CNN for once....I had to put the kids to bed, so I wasn't able to watch all of it.

I've been seeing a fair amount of semi-reasonable press for the Tea Party as of late...  Is it bad that a small amount of even handed treatment by the MSM makes me more worried than the mud slinging?

 

[grampster]

Encouragement of the Tea Party on the Left or in the MSM, may be a strategy to encourage another 3rd party movement.  That means the Leftists hold onto power.

[taurusowner]

That is a good point grampster.  I have a feeling some people on our side are already falling for that trap.  It is tempting to abandon the GOP in favor of a party that at least appears serious about being conservative.  But doing so will only divide us into 2 camps, neither of which has any chance to take on the Left.  The only real way to win elections AND promote our ideas and policies is to get Tea Party members or others who have similar grassroots conservative goals, to run in GOP primaries.  I want the Tea Party to win as Republicans.  Not have them run against Republicans and both lose.

[MechAg94]

The best thing they can do is identify Congressional candidates from either party who fit their views and support them. 

However, I have heard there are people on both sides who support the tea party stuff so trying to make it a Repub only group may not work well. 

[S. Williamson]

The more parties with true political power, the better.

[RileyCA]

The more parties with true political power, the better

The reality, however, is that the *derogatory term deleted* have zero political power.  They make a lot of noise and get some press, but they can't compete with the multinational corporate $$ who own our government.  The sad truth is that the 'Tea Party' "movement'' is just another feelgood bread and circuses diversion for the rubes. Party on, *derogatory term deleted*.

[taurusowner]

RileyCA, you're new here so you may not really know how this forums tries to operate.  First, using derogatory and semi-sexual slang terms like "*derogatory term deleted*" is a pretty quick way to make sure no one takes you seriously.  So if you do intend on continuing to be a contributing member, and I assume you do, it might be in your best interest to avoid speaking like that.  Second, we also try to err on the side of fact and use less hyperbole.  So when you say things like "multinational corporate $$ who own our government", it would be best to have some data to support that.  And finally, you are falling into that same age-old pattern of thought much of Left uses; trying to break everyone down into groups.  You are seeing people who attend Tea Parties as a group in and of themselves, like "the black vote" or "the women vote".  You seem to think they only represent small and singular personality type, and that they a few in number.  Actual facts, no matter how hard the media tries to blur this, are quite to the contrary.  "Tea Partiers" are everyone.  They come from everywhere.  They are not a political party trying to gain power.  That is how the Left sees them, because special groups vying for power is what the Left is, and that is the only lens they see the whole world through.

EDIT: After taking a look at some of your other posts, I am wondering if I should retract my assumption that you want to simply be a contributing member of APS.  I read you previous 8 posts, and there is some thinly veiled insult or disparaging comment in nearly every one.  I have to ask...why exactly are you here?

[RileyCA]

EDIT: After taking a look at some of your other posts, I am wondering if I should retract my assumption that you want to simply be a contributing member of APS.  I read you previous 8 posts, and there is some thinly veiled insult or disparaging comment in nearly every one.  I have to ask...why exactly are you here?

That is you interpretation.  If dissent or the free exchange of ideas here is not allowed, please say so.

[PTK]

That is you interpretation.  If dissent or the free exchange of ideas here is not allowed, please say so.

Sure it's allowed! Important to note the rules, though;

1. Please watch your language.  No vulgarities, rudeness, or words that would make Art's Grandma blush (or swear herself!).

2.  No porn, gratuitous violence, or offensive posts.  Moderators' judgment will be the determining factor in what is offensive.  If you'd say it to a gathering in your average family living-room, you should be fine to say it here.

3.  Offensive threads will be deleted in their entirety.  Offensive posts will be deleted, leaving the original thread intact if possible.  Offenders won't be warned - if you see a post or thread of yours is gone, it means it fell foul of Rule 1 or Rule 2 above.

4.  Repeat offenders will be banned.  No excuses, no reasons needed, no argument.  The rules are simple enough.  If you can't follow 'em, don't post!

You have read the rules, correct?

[RileyCA]

OK, I'll come clean.

I've voted straight Republican since 1968 (beat that), except for Ross Perot in '92.  I voted GWB twice.  THEN, in 2007 quit the Republican party, registered Decline to State and voted OBAMA in 2008.  You can sue me, or ask me why.  I've been 'conservative' since the 60's.  You can call me a Goldwater Republican.

[taurusowner]

Cute.

But we both know no one, including me, said anything about "free exchange of ideas" not being allowed.  And you have yet to answer my question.

You see, usually when a person joins a new forum, whether it be about politics, guns, video games, motorcycles, gardening, etc, they first start out by introducing themselves, reading posts, making some constructive comments, and just generally being a nice person.  After a while when you rack up a post count and people know you, then you generally get more leeway when you say things that could be considered insulting.  I could say right now Nick1911 is a moron when it comes to picking a CCW weapon and that Glocks are the only way to go.  Granted he may debate this point with me, but I doubt that he would truly think I am being an ass for saying something that is obviously a joke.

But what if I said that in my first post ever here?  Don't you see how being new and unknown to a forum can cause one's words to be taken differently than if one has been around a while?

There is a difference between a discussion and an argument.  There is a difference between challenging and idea, and insulting someone.  And to be blunt, so far your posts seem to be closer to insulting arguments than polite challenges and discussions.  So back to what you said about "being allowed".  No one is saying you're not "allowed" to post.  But I have to ask, if you're doing everything you can to make the members of APS ignore and disregard your posts...why do you continue to post at all?

EDIT: you're voting history has nothing to do with your apparent pattern of disparaging comments.  Example; I would say that MicroBalrog is one member I disagree with frequently.  And some of his beliefs I would consider to be more in line with your own views or even Obama's than the rest of APS.  But The difference is that MicroBalrog has been here a while, longer than me I think.  AND, he doesn't voice his disagreement in a snide and insulting manner.  You do.  And you know that's what we are taking issue with.  So please, don't play the "they're attacking me for my beliefs" card.  Those types of emotional appeals don't work so well with the APS types.

[PTK]

OK, I'll come clean.

I've voted straight Republican since 1968 (beat that), except for Ross Perot in '92.  I voted GWB twice.  THEN, in 2007 quit the Republican party, registered Decline to State and voted OBAMA in 2008.  You can sue me, or ask me why.  I've been 'conservative' since the 60's.  You can call me a Goldwater Republican.

What does any of that have to do with your not following the rules?

1. Please watch your language.  No vulgarities, rudeness, or words that would make Art's Grandma blush (or swear herself!).

2.  No porn, gratuitous violence, or offensive posts.  Moderators' judgment will be the determining factor in what is offensive.  If you'd say it to a gathering in your average family living-room, you should be fine to say it here.

3.  Offensive threads will be deleted in their entirety.  Offensive posts will be deleted, leaving the original thread intact if possible.  Offenders won't be warned - if you see a post or thread of yours is gone, it means it fell foul of Rule 1 or Rule 2 above.

4.  Repeat offenders will be banned.  No excuses, no reasons needed, no argument.  The rules are simple enough.  If you can't follow 'em, don't post!

You have read the rules, correct?

[RileyCA]

What does any of that have to do with your not following the rules?

Be specific.  What rules have I violated?   I've not used vulgarities, nor porn, nor any other prohibited speech.  Explain why you can't fend for yourself and need to call a higher authority.

[taurusowner]

Who's calling for a higher authority?

And more importantly, when you say, "I've not used vulgarities, etc..." why do you overlook the part in the rulebook about rudeness?

You know, I'm trying real hard here to just talk to you and really see if maybe we are just getting off on the wrong foot.  But every single one of your posts is either full of rude comments or a persecution complex.  What gives?  Am I missing something?

Can we just start all this over?  Can you just like, have a conversation and leave the emotions, insults, defensiveness and all that at the door?  Whatever happened to just talking?  You know, I have a sociology class with one of the most die-hard Ann Arbor liberals I have ever met.  And every single class turns into me and him debating some point.  But neither one of us insults the other, raises our voices, or speaks in any manner other than just to convey ideas.  So I know it's possible for two people on opposite ends of the political spectrum to just...talk.  What's going on?

[S. Williamson]

Who's calling for a higher authority?

I, for one, have.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm pretty well done with the GOP.  The GOP has for too long supported many big government candidates.  Sure, they might be ok on gun issues and maybe anti abortion, but then they bring us TARP, expansions in welfare, etc etc.  I will vote for candidates who meet my political needs.  If there is a third party candidate avialable who meets those needs better than the GOP candidate, I'll vote for them.  I hope the tea party forms into a viable organization and sinks the GOP.

[PTK]

I'm pretty well done with the GOP.  The GOP has for too long supported many big government candidates.  Sure, they might be ok on gun issues and maybe anti abortion, but then they bring us TARP, expansions in welfare, etc etc.  I will vote for candidates who meet my political needs.  If there is a third party candidate avialable who meets those needs better than the GOP candidate, I'll vote for them.  I hope the tea party forms into a viable organization and sinks the GOP.

Agreed. As it stands, both the dems and reps are useless for true freedom-loving US residents.

[jamis-jockeys-cabin-boy]

"It's truly amazing despite all the crimes committed by governments, people still religiously cling to the idea governments are necessary to protect life, liberty and property.  You can even point out governments not only have no duty to protect anyone, but also do a disastrous job at whatever they bother doing.  Despite overwhelming evidence government is not only unnecessary, corrupt and a cancer on the world, its victims continue to revere them."

Repubican or Demoncrat, they are both statists. One wants a bigger form of statism then the other.

The main question is, should a service or a product be provided at the barrel of a gun?

If our gubernment is so concerned about our life, liberty, and property then why are they the fist in line to take it away from us?

[Desertdog]

Maybe this will explain why CNN is now trying to do better in their reporting.

Even more startling, however, is the ratings freefall of the former news giant CNN, whose viewing audience has been sliced by 39 percent.

Irony report: Was CNN 'tea-bagged'?
Network's decline follows rise of grass-roots America

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138665

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

RileyCA, you're new here so you may not really know how this forums tries to operate.  

Psssst.  He's not new.  He's been around for a while, off and on under various names and accounts.

[RevDisk]

Maybe this will explain why CNN is now trying to do better in their reporting.

Irony report: Was CNN 'tea-bagged'?
Network's decline follows rise of grass-roots America

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138665

Anything slightly more reliable than WND?  Supermarket checkout line tabloids have generally more accurate stories.  I know MSM print is dying very quickly (which gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling), and the thought of MSM news channels meeting the same end makes me gigglesnort as well...   But...  WND could say the sky was blue and any rational person would be best off checking for themselves. 

[Desertdog]

Anything slightly more reliable than WND?

Which one would you suggest; MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NPR, CBS, or NBC?

[RevDisk]

Which one would you suggest; MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NPR, CBS, or NBC?

You left out quite a few other sources.  Are you claiming that WND is often accurate and doesn't greatly exaggerate?

[Desertdog]

Are you claiming that WND is often accurate and doesn't greatly exaggerate?

It's called fact checking.  If you find them incorrect, then do your duty, and point out where the correct statement is.