What is Digg?215 Comments
- Glofern, on 01/15/2008, -1/+143All of these debates need to be sponsored by bi-partisan groups and not by the corporate networks. It is as if the networks are trying to decide who we hear, who we see and who they decide should win. What happened to our votes? Well, when we look at how many of them are cast, how they are counted and when they are counted by easily manipulated computers, will we ever know who wins these elections? Probably not for sure.
- swrostmore, on 01/15/2008, -0/+98"If the criteria was one set of rules, and you change the rules in the middle of the game so as to exclude somebody after having invited them, I am offended by that. I am going to grant whatever preliminary injunction we can to see that he is permitted to debate tomorrow." -Judge Thomas"
Source: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/CBS_Kucinich_Deb ... - floridiot2, on 01/15/2008, -1/+59”This country was bought and paid for years ago”
- cactus476, on 01/15/2008, -4/+56People need to understand that news organizations are under no obligation to tell the truth and are accountable only to those that pay the bills. On the other hand, people need to understand that news organizations are under no obligation to tell the truth and are accountable only to those that pay the bills.
- ampersand2001, on 01/15/2008, -2/+42I really enjoy how the media is trying to select who we vote for.
Why isn't anyone doing anything about this?!?? - davewashere, on 01/15/2008, -1/+40Because Kucinich has been right about more issues from the start. While Clinton makes excuses for why she was fooled about the war and Obama has to express regret for some of his votes, Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate who can't stand 100% behind his voting record and does not accept donations from big business. If you allow Kucinich in the debate, he'll be able to take easy shots at the other candidates all night and make them look bad.
- Fox318, on 01/15/2008, -2/+40I just don't understand why it's such a big deal. I would not consider myself a Kucinich supporter but I don't see why he is not being allowed.
- omnithought, on 01/15/2008, -1/+39Funny, I thought the news wasn't supposed to have a political bias. Oh wait...what country have I been living in?
So, the real question is, what are they afraid of? If Kucinich is supposedly unelectable and unpopular, then surely there's no danger of including him, right? - ButterBuddha, on 01/15/2008, -0/+37Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson, is my hero
- jhbarr, on 01/15/2008, -3/+39No, it is basic contract law. He was invited and accepted. They then had a contract and that contract was broken by NBC. see Glenn Greenwald's analysis
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/15/ ... - phnx0221, on 01/15/2008, -1/+35Well if this isn't clearly indicative of what our information providers are motivated by, I don't know what is. The three "front runners" are all supportive of keeping soldiers in Iraq, and have all said that military action with Iran is not off the table. They are the safe candidates in the eyes of those that are in power.
Even if Kucinich doesn't win the nomination, it is imperative that he is included in the debates. Not even just included, but able to answer and ask questions. He is the only person in the democratic party that stands for what the people believe in. He stands for human rights, he stands for justice for the people, he stands for justice for the people of Iraq, and he stands for accountability in an administration that has put forth so many wrongs.
By his being there, and by his ability to actively participate, he will put the candidates on the spot, and uncover the truth of what they stand for (military industry, constitutional infringements in the name of the war on terror, continuing military operations in the middle east under fraudulent reasoning, etc), and expose their lies of "change" to the people who so desperately want it.
***** NBC, and all of the other information media outlets, for attempting to dissuade us from the truth, and for trying to dissuade us from the clear honesty that we need in this country.
Let this be a clear reminder. The fact that major media outlets are clearly trying to choose our candidates for us, is not, by any means, a "conspiracy". The people who are in power, are afraid of the people, and they always have been. They will do anything to keep their control, and it doesn't matter how many lies they tell, or how many people they shut out of our "democratic" process in order to do so. - johnhummel, on 01/15/2008, -0/+29Actually, NBC and the other networks do have one additional obligation:
The FCC
Remember, they are "leased' the public airwaves, with the responsibility that they will serve their local communities. Failure to do so could have their FCC license removed. Granted, fat chance of that - but if the American people really wanted to put the squeeze on NBC, they could elect people who would ensure that networks tell the truth, offer equal time to candidates, and so on.
We just have to decide to do that, instead of throwing up our hands and saying "Oh, well - the corporations hold all the power". - Jazzillion, on 01/15/2008, -0/+27Kucinich's message is radical in terms of change, yet reasonable and well founded. He has the ability to insight passion in people, and is truly running on a platform of change, much more so than Obama. It is very obvious why he would not be welcome. The polls have been fluctuating more than Giuliani's choice for favorite pantyhose, so the big media networks are threated by a candidate who's platform represents the majority of voter's opinions; therefore, stifling his exposure.
- petoria, on 01/15/2008, -0/+25We were waiting on you.
- FunkyDung, on 01/15/2008, -0/+24"All of these debates need to be sponsored by bi-partisan groups"
No...They need to be sponsored by non-partisan groups. A duopoly is only marginally better than a monopoly. - logicalnoise, on 01/15/2008, -1/+20RTFA. NBC invited him then decided they just wanted three candidates. If they had never invited him Dennis wouldn't have a whole lot of ground stand on. The fact NBC did invite him is the key reason the judge ruled in his favor.
- jackhowitzer, on 01/15/2008, -2/+21It's because the MSM doesn't want to hear things from a candidate whose ideas differ from other candidates. I am more for Dr. Paul, but I would definitely support Kucinich, I like his ideas, and I like to see some contrasting ideas on the stage to get a better look at the whole picture. And I know he will do well in the debate unless they find another way to exclude him, or just smear him/ignore him once they get him on stage.
- redrighthunter, on 01/15/2008, -0/+18Let Kucinich speak! All candidates who haven't dropped out should be included in any debate. "I'm sorry, I thought this was Amurica!"-Randy from South Park
- tuurd, on 01/15/2008, -4/+22As an Ohioan I am less than thrilled with Kucinich's record over the past 30ish years, but in light of where this country is headed I find it reprehensible that our election system is being so blatantly manipulated by MSM with little regard for We The People, or Truth. I will be voting for Ron Paul, but refuse to accept that Kucinich should be excluded solely based on the decisions of NBC and not the people that ultimately matter- US!
FOX is already on my ***** list, and now I can see that CNN and MSNBC will be there shortly. Looks like I'll be getting my news solely online from now on. - tman84, on 01/15/2008, -0/+18as far as I am concerned Kucinich is the only Dem who actually answers questions, and has an actual platform that you are informed about. He's also not afraid to stand up to corporations, or the rest of Washington, and doesn't pander to voters or cave into lobbyists or special interest groups like Hillary, Obama, and Edwards
This is probably also the reason the Corporate MSM is trying to exclude him from the debates - rficwizard, on 01/15/2008, -1/+18Ron Paul supporters are more likely than others to want to see Kucinich in this debate. For one thing, opening up the playing field in every way possible is good for those who support change. Secondly, for many Ron Paul supporters, Kucinich is their second choice. For example, I took a survey that was supposed to rank which candidate is the best choice, given my stand on the issues. Ron Paul was the #1 result, #2 was Kucinich, and #3 was Gravel. I knew before I took the survey that those were my favorite candidates. In fact, Ron Paul has mentioned several times that he and Kucinich agree on some important issues.
Paul/Kucinich '08! (I know, it could never happen, but wouldn't it be awesome?) - jhbarr, on 01/15/2008, -0/+17There is more to it than NBCs freedom, it is breach of contract. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/15/ ...
Kuciinich alleges that he had a binding contract with MSNBC once they offered and he accepted the terms of his participation in the debate, and that MSNBC's refusal to allow him to participate constitutes a breach of that contract. He also alleges that his exclusion violates the mandates of Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires broadcasters -- who operate the public airways, i.e., airways which are public, not private, property -- "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." - ampersand2001, on 01/15/2008, -1/+17ok, fine...but if anything happens to me, it IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.
- an0nymous, on 01/15/2008, -0/+16NBC reneged on their offer to have him appear. Dennis claimed (reasonably, in my view) that this constituted a breach of contract. The courts agreed.
All issues of free speech, participatory democracy aside, and corporate influences aside: NBC welshed on a deal, and an expert on contract law said they were wrong. - zgoos, on 01/15/2008, -0/+16Like, say, the League of Women Voters who used to sponsor them. Wiki has a brief description of why they no longer sponsor the debates. It's a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voter ... - inactive, on 01/15/2008, -3/+17ummmm no. you are wrong. It's like this... "okay ... I know I said we were gonna play four-on-four hoops today, but since your fourth guy is too good, I'm going to change the rules right before the game, and now it's three on three. Because I don't want a fair game, and I can just make up the rules as we go along... because I DENY that this is a publicly owned BB court... and I'm AFRAID of a FAIR GAME"
get it now...outlaw? you ***** DICK! - zengonzo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+13Like, say, a district court judge?
- an0nymous, on 01/15/2008, -1/+14Um actually this is an issue of contract law and nothing else.
1. NBC offered Kucinich a spot and he accepted.
2. Kucinich did poorly in the caucauses. NBC retracted the offer
3. Kucinich sued claiiming breach of contract and the court agreed.
That's it. No freedom of speech issues. Just a contractual dispute. If 1. hadn't happened this wouldn't be an issue. - whitefael, on 01/15/2008, -1/+14All candidates should have the opportunity to express their views and the American people should have the opportunity to hear them. I don't want a news organization filtering something like this because it's too important; it concerns the direction of the next four years. Otherwise, how can I make an informed decision without hearing from all candidates?
- sodade, on 01/15/2008, -1/+14If we REALLY wanted to put the squeeze on NBC, we would revoke their corporate charter and imprison the people responsible for ***** with our election process.
- pintomp3, on 01/15/2008, -1/+14NBC: these are our elections and we will preselect the candidate for you.
- TrojanGuy, on 01/15/2008, -0/+12God forbid there's somebody in the debate who will actually challenge the safe talking points.
- vade79, on 01/15/2008, -0/+12Irrelevant. He could say he likes to kill babies and they should still allow him. They said they would allow the top 4. He is #4 and they don't want him there cause they don't like him? unacceptable.
- Firehed, on 01/15/2008, -0/+12What do you mean, "as if"? It's quite blatantly obvious that's the case.
- scm21st, on 01/15/2008, -0/+11The right of NBC to use the public airwaves needs to be revoked.
- BowieX, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10SADLOL @ "Democratic debate" irony.
- F1R3DUP, on 01/15/2008, -1/+11people need to start boycotting networks that do this *****. it is completely unacceptable.
- Soyea, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10They did it to Ron Paul, Now Dennis. the media does not pick we do you run your on the ballot you get on the debate end of question.
- thegreathal, on 01/15/2008, -1/+11Hey, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, how does it feel to suck Kucinich's balls?
- theOster, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10agreed. i think there needs to be a major revamp of how this system works. my biggest problem is that the pols are conducted by corporations and whatever they report *hugely* influences voter decision. if you see that your fave guy has 0.1% of voters and the other guy has +30% it will probably inform you that you are throwing your vote away if you vote for your fave.
one saving grace is that we have judges like Charles Thomson that say things like it is "a matter of fairness" and said "Nevada voters will benefit by hearing from more than just top contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards."
Good work Charles. - Bilabrin, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10I believe it used to be run by the League of Women Voters but then, when they were going to let the Libertarian candidates into the presidential debates the D and R candidates shunned them and formed their own, partisen debates.
- logicalnoise, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9it's not their debate they are sponsoring it with the DNC. and it's our airwaves we decide what goes on them.
- nosecohn, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9I'm actually really surprised that NBC is pushing this. It makes them look really bad.
They're argument is essentially, "it's our broadcast and we'll run it as we see fit, democracy be damned." In a way, they're right. It's their company (public airwaves argument aside). If that isn't an argument for publicly funded elections, I don't know what is. - offspring06, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9***** NBC. Dennis Kucinich is running for the nomination of the Democratic party so he should be allowed to participate in the debate.
- cyrix, on 01/15/2008, -7/+16Except that's a game. This is a process in which we elect our next President. Pretty big difference here. What? Are you just mad because your boy Ron Paul isn't doing as well as you thought?
- swrostmore, on 01/15/2008, -1/+10Why are you more worried about government control of broadcast media (this isn't about "the press") than you are about corporate control of broadcast media?
- lucutus, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9Unless they broadcast it on regular TV bandwidth. Which BTW is getting sold off by the current administration basically eliminating the FCC from power. Of course nobody notices this as we are all distracted by our wonderful new HD tv screens.
- inactive, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9The fact is if the people truly want change, they will demand that Kucinich and Paul be allowed into the debates. If the people are willing to accept who the mass media has decided to be a presidential hopeful then the game is truly over. The people have once last shot at making a difference by calling the networks, emailing, calling the judge in Las Vegas and simply stating that NBC is not electing our next president thank you very much- that's our job.
- Groovemaster, on 01/15/2008, -1/+10The corporations pick the presidents who will start the most wars and bring them the most profits. It's an American tradition.
You can't just expect a nation founded on greed, selfishness and gluttony to change just because it doesn't suit your "morals" and "values". - bowens44, on 01/15/2008, -0/+8Your contempt for our electoral process is noted.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 215 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is