The_CNN_Commentator

quote:

---

one of those FBI dudes

---

you got me

quote:

---

He said he was on painkillers while talking to police the first time so he forgot about having a gun - he could remember every other detail but forgot about his gun.

---

quote:

---

and also met w/ the police a month or 2 later for an OFFICIAL interview including his lawyer and the lead prosecutor and again didn't admit to having a weaspon.

---

quote:

---

So, he’s not only down to one arm but is about to have his colon resized by his new cell mate.

---

on a misdemeanor? tough jurisdiction.

quote:

---

They have no shame

---

true. CNN is utterly biased.

Seven months ago, CNN banned a controversial conservative commentator from making further appearances on its network. A few CNN viewers loved him, more CNN viewers hated him, many viewers loved to hate him, and some viewers saw him as an interesting counterpoint to the liberal slant of most CNN discussion panels. By and large, however, the Commentator was unpopular with the majority of CNN's liberal audience.

He never broke CNN's rules, but he regularly gave voice to an ideological viewpoint that the bulk of CNN's audience simply did not share. In doing so, he was reasonably elequent, but many of them saw arrogance. He was knowledgeable, but many of them saw condescension. He was confident, but many of them saw hubris. In pro wrestling terms, he was the perfect conservative "heel" for the bulk of the liberal CNN audience to hate. His appearances drew CNN audience participation like moths to a flame.

So why did CNN ban him from all future appearances? He made a naive mistake.

He engaged directly in a debate with a CNN on-air personality formerly located in L.A., who also had been given "producer" authority. The Commentator made the mistake of embarrassing that CNN personality in that debate with some accurate opinions about the misleading motivations of the CNN person. The CNN producer displayed the emotional maturity of a 12-year-old girl, characterized the Commentator's opinions as "lies," grabbed his "producer" hat, and banned the Commentator from the network.

Over a period of six months, the Commentator made a number of requests to CNN that the network reinstate him for participation on its panels, but his requests were ignored ... doubtless due to the influence of the embarrassed producer masquerading as an on-air personality.

So the Commentator donned a fake John Holmes moustache, assumed a pseudonym and appeared on CNN while the "producer" was on vacation. Other than the obviously-fake moustache, he made no real effort to hide his identity. He discussed the topics that he had always addressed, and he used his real location, real accent, and normal vocabulary and speaking style. He would gladly have returned without the half-hearted "disguise," but the embarrassed producer had precluded from doing so. The Commentator certainly did not refute the assertions of other panelists as to his "real" identity, something he had made no real effort to hide.

Then the "producer" returned from vacation. Within hours, he again banned the Commentator. Other panelists continued to attack the Commentator and his positions. Unfortunately, the Commentator was precluded from responding by matters outside his control.

It is not known whether CNN management is aware of the actions of this producer. If not, they should remedy the matter. If so, they are spineless. Utterly spineless. When a network (even a biased one) invites political discussion, it should not preclude participation from a competing voice simply because that voice is more effective than the network's own personnel.

Screen-shot this post. Neither it nor this UserName will last long. The producer is back from vacation. He will understand this story, even if no one else does so.