BREAKING NEWS: Nevada Supreme Court rules NBC can block Kucinich from debate

[itsrobert]

Source: KEITH OLBERMANN/MSNBC

The debate lineup included Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois as well as former Sen. John Edwards, but Tuesday evening the Nevada Supreme Court rejected an effort by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich to join in, too.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22656153/

---

Notice how MSNBC gives Clinton and Obama equal billing and than an "as well as former Sen John Edwards"

[New Earth]

1. this is such fucking bullshit

So I just totally wasted my time coming ot my sisters to see the debate. FUCK YOU MSNBC.

[tekisui]

5. Wasn't your sister happy to see you?

Maybe not a total waste.

But, a big fork in the eye from NBC/GE/War Profiteers.

[New Earth]

39. actually she's going out and my brother went to bed

I'm not even gonna watch it now. There is no point. I'll just read about it on DU tomorrow. No Kucinich, no point for me.
Goodnight DU :hi:

FUCK YOU MSNBC AND GE

[fenriswolf]

2. how did KO feel about DK being cut?

[superkia]

7. Hasnt went into it yet and I would assume he is no different than...

any other MSM puppet and will sweep it under the rug.

[merwin]

45. Keith has never been one to sweep anything under the rug.

Do you really watch his show?

[superkia]

48. Yeah and the subject is now under the rug. I have watched his...

show almost daily until a couple of weeks ago when my schedule changed around. He is the one that trashes bushco most but he is only giving us what the puppet masters tell him to and nothing more. Its done wonders for their ratings but really done nothing for us. I will still watch him because of his personality but he is just another one of the highly paid puppets like BillO.

[madhatter47]

58. I agree about KO, used to like him till it dawned on me....

He just rants about what it's safe to rant about. He goes on and on about things that you could ask a child about and he'd know. Why doesn't he rant about this debate? Why doesn't he rant about the horrible living conditions in Iraq? Or the (thank you, honey, my hubby just gave me a downer) fact that intellectuals are now being placed on the no fly list? Or the fact that Haliburton is building more prisons? Or about how people's lives are being destroyed by the corporate/military/hospital/prison industrial complex? Or maybe he could rant about how his company, GE put Dennis out of the debate because they want to have a place to dump their nuclear waste? Or how the media cartel is controlling this election? Or how Americans have had enough of this and can see right through the propoganda machine? But, no he rants about BillO. Auggggghhhhh!

[superkia]

61. You left out the new terrorism defense complex that Colin Powell...

warned about, you know the group of people that Clinton threw a fund raiser dinner for so they could meet with other government officials? Hmmm strange, why would anyone want an industry that only exists if the American sheeple are living in fear or continue to get attacked? So if we are safe and don't live our lives in fear, the industry goes bankrupt, for some reason I don't think our career politicians will let that happen and I hope its not in my city when they arrange it or let it happen, hopefully its a city full of ignorant sheeple!

[Political Heretic]

64. This kind of hyperbole reflects an immature understanding of the media.

Kieth Olberman is neither the messiah nor is he a demon. That's the grey world reality we live in, and I know its hard for human beings - so naturally inclined to drift into black and white thinking - to deal with.

On one hand, it doesn't take much examination to realize that Keith is not simply being "handed" what to say by his "masters" and delivering it. Even the tiniest amount of investigation into KO shows a picture through interviews, writings and off-air conversations of a person who is passionately fed up with what he believes to be this criminal administration.

He began delivering that message, if you will accurately recall the facts, before it was popular, and before he enjoyed his immense popularity. On the other hand he has been allowed to continue to have a voice because his show enjoys excellent ratings. If that climate were ever to change, he would begin to be censored or shut down - or he himself would capitulate, and censor himself.

The fact that KO doesn't cover every thing that you or I can imagine isn't the result of some corporate conspiracy or KO's own conscious desire to "play it safe" or whatever else. Corporate media doesn't function quite like the black/white picture so often spewed around here. Corporate media would give a pundit like KO the very rope to hang themselves with if they though there would be a buck in it. For example, if MSNBC believed there would be MONEY in having every news show in their network lead with 9/11 truth information and the suggestion of a MIHOP conspiracy and cover-up, they would absolutely do it. No question. Hell, they would run full shows no how horrible their parent companies are if they felt that it would be profitable, and their parent companies would happily let them do it if it was making them money. That's how it works. It's not about ISSUES corporations do or don't want on the air per se - that's an effect, not the cause. Its about PROFIT.

So the fact that you don't hear KO talking about everything that could and should be talked about is simply the result of the fact that he's not some sort of Jesus Christ figure for the progressive movement. He is vehemently against this administration, primarily because of its lies and deceptions. His pet issues center on civil liberties (specifically dealing with issues like torture and the coverup to it) and lies about the war in Iraq. That's it. He is profitable for MSNBC so he is allowed to have the forum to vent his frustrations. It's not necessarily his agenda to cover every progressive issue, or even to bring balance back to media or whatever. He has a soapbox for what he cares about, he uses it while he can, and it benefits us. That's it.

Many other issues that are important to us are off his radar. He never championed himself as the progressive voice of the country. He is a commentator who has some specific gripes, and uses his current popularity to express them while the popularity gives him the room to do so. You should enjoy the fact that he is on the air reaching millions of Americans for what he IS not what he isn't.

[Bennyboy]

3. See ya NBC....

never again will I watch anything on NBC or MSNBC. Keith, Fuck you too.

[PFunk]

20. Same here.

I like you KO but not this. As we've starting to lose our democracy piece by piece the media determines our president now. Damn.

[maddezmom]

4. BREAKING NEWS: Nevada Supreme Court rules NBC can block Kucinich from debate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/

[rosetta627]

6. Sonofabitch

Guess the NV supreme court is corrupt too.
Not much left that isn't.

Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight Dennis.

[orleans]

8. Olbermann: Nevada Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of MSNBC

Source: Countdown

kucinich will not be on the debate

No link yet.

[superkia]

9. I am hoping he will at least go into why they chose to exclude him...

or do you think that KO will just brush the situation under the carpet?

[Double T]

15. Does KO want to keep his job?

[BBG]

10. bullshit

nt

[orleans]

16. bullshit what?

[mikelgb]

11. Order Granting Petition for Writs of Prohibtion and Mandamus (Kucinich Loses)

Source: The Supreme Court of Nevada (pdf)

(pdf)

Grants Order of Prohibition and further order of Mandamus

Read more: http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/cases/50889.ordergrantingpetition.pdf

---

Assholes.

[Xipe Totec]

12. Well, that's one debate I won't be watching

We need to boycot the debate on general principle.

[Double T]

13. Boycott ALL GE products and services.

GE has obstructed OUR election process.

[2beToby]

31. Give me a list, I'm up for that

[msongs]

14. ObamaHillary should be happy, no answers uncomfortable to their corporate bosses nt

[rwheeler31]

29. I read it, I do not understand it.

[onenote]

55. pretty much an unassailable decision, legally

The fact that the state court had no jurisdiction over the Communications Act claim was a foregone conclusion since its a principle of law that is well-settled and not open to any doubt. As for the contract claim, it was an interesting try, but without all of the elements of a contract -- ie offer, acceptance and consideration, there is no contract. And the court's point about the lower court's attempt to enjoin the debate from going forward being a prior restraint also is a no-brainer.

I thought maybe the contract claim would have more legs, but apparently even DK's lawyers couldn't come up with a decent contract rationale

[99th_Monkey]

63. The fact that the NV Supremes ruled in MSNBC's favor does not necessarily

mean they did so because Kucinich's lawyers didn't present a good argument, i.e.. it could mean lots of things, including that,
but since we don't yet know what the argument was, how strong it was, it's a bit premature to conclude there was no "decent
rationale" presented.

[onenote]

70. the opinion is posted several places, its pretty airtight.

[99th_Monkey]

71. I guess for now I'll take your word for it. I haven't seen it yet. n/t

[onenote]

74. here you go

It was linked in the first post of this subthread, so I thought you had seen it.

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/cases/50889.ordergrantingpetition.pdf

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Corporations are our masters

I'm surprised they are even allowing us to vote--but then they've rigged the system to shut out anyone they don't like, even if they have invited them. Edwards will be next.

[Maat]

68. I agree with you, Ayeshahaqqiqa.

The situation is very distressing.

[harun]

77. Exactly, they love the system because they pick who is in it (n/t)

[lovuian]

22. It just is more proof that the Agenda continues against the

Anti War supporters

MSNBC is just a coporate whore like the rest

and the Justice system is not for Free Speech

America goes to the Dark Side once more

but at least Kucinich challenged the system and we witnessed the FEAR that the corporations have of kucinich

[Scooter24]

18. I sort of guessed it

given the way the previous judge worded his opinion.

As much as I would have liked to have him in the debate, NBC is entitled to host or ban whoever they choose. Once the final party candidates are chosen, then FEC equal-time rules apply.

[LibDemAlways]

19. They won't do it, but the big three should walk off the stage

as a group in protest. By not doing so they are as much as giving their approval to the corporate takeover of the election process.

[Habibi]

21. I agree.

I would think Edwards would do it, but unless the other two do, he really can't.

God damn MSRNC. Bastard fuckers.

[NoSheep]

25. Absolutely. They should protest as a matter of preserving the right to free speech and

an open democratic process. This is outrageous

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JBoy]

38. Are you serious?

If they don't literally walk out of the debate, you'll not vote for the Democratic candidate?

Wow, you're strict.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[2beToby]

43. besides

whoever it will be will be chosen will be the Democrat's candidate, not a Democratic candidate. They've given me absolutely no reason to trust them. Clinton is talking about high stakes and leadership right now, and they are not showing any commitment. Sheesh, they are cowards.

[femrap]

23. To have to hear Timmy's voice

....I think I'll just watch 'Democracy Now' with Amy Goodman instead.

Fuck GE/NBC/ugly, fat, greedy white guys who are scared of PEACE

[southerncross48]

24. No To Democracy

Those invited should not attend. But, this goes deeper. There is no way that the process for electing a person in this country is Democratic. I won't be voting in this or any other election. Just think about the Gerrymandered districts---I am registered in a Republican stronghold----generally the vote is about 40 per cent so the winner is usually close to 20 per cent---that leaves 80 per cent pissed on. Not my idea of Democracy. Take a look at New Zealand and Germany for voting models.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roland99]

27. So, GENBC wants to express "free speech" by, uh, repressing free speech!!

:banghead:

[Bunkie0913]

28. No Freakin' Way

Just too much. This crap makes me sick. Have we figured it out that nobody knows and nobody cares? The general public doesn't give a damn, that has been my personal experience. I try to talk to family and friends and they act like I'm speaking in a different language. Who's in the playoffs, what store has good sales, which celebrity is making an ass of themselves, who was killed, kidnapped and/or caught cheating on their spouse.
This country has taken a decidely bad turn. I'm so disgusted.

[JMDEM]

30. This ruling sucks, but...

the Court was probably right -- how can the courts dictate who a network can and cannot allow on their "show"? And it is just a show, isn't it?

I may be completely wrong -- I'm wide open for other interpretations, perhaps better ones.

And I still think it sucks.

[LanternWaste]

75. I think the bone of contention is that...

I think the bone of contention is that since the airwaves are publicly owned, the citizens should have some say other than merely through the market itself.

[peace13]

32. It is time for Edwards, Obama and Clinton to grow some balls

and refuse to debate without all of the candidates. What could they be afraid of? This is not the demeanor of a President this is something like we already have in the WH...a disgrace.

[Pastiche423]

46. Yet, they did not refuse

They are standing on that stage, proving they do not care about democracy.

[tucsonlib]

33. Outrage!!!

Those hypocritical un-American bastards! NBC is doing more harm to this country than the terrorists ever could. And shame on KO for not taking a stand! I'm just too angry and disgusted to type anymore......

[radhika]

34. Bleeping Indignity

The Kucinich thing is result of main-stream-media taking control of the dialogue, in their terms but on OUR airwaves. Thanks to 1) Bill C's enabling corporate media consolidation which started the downhill race 2) W's paid-for-puppets in the FCC and 3) the pathetic support for the public commons and 4) the general debacle of our times: we-the-people are only permitted to listen to candidates THEY wish to present.

And of course, our corrupt judiciary is enchanted to go along. I propose a boycott of NBC/MSNBC - including Keith Olberman. Yes its a loss, but we have to do something.

[Usrename]

35. Arrrgh!!!

:argh:

[NorthCarolina]

37. Any Bets on If Any of The Media's Top Three Candidates

will speak about this injustice during the debate? My guess is NOT

[rosetta627]

41. Well given that Edwards and Clinton were conspiring to exclude him

From debates months ago, and were caught on microphone discussing it, my guess is NOT as well.

[aquart]

40. Bloody hell.

[tucsonlib]

44. Keith Olbermann's Email Address?

I tried emailing KO at the address provided on the MSNBC website - [e-mail], but received a "Mail System Error" message. Reason given: 5.1.1 User unknown. WTF?

Anyhow, here's what I wrote:

Dear Keith,
I was a huge fan of your show right up until tonight. But in failing to take a stand on the NBC/Kucinich outrage, you've revealed yourself as just another network hack. I am so disappointed. In a just world, the indefensible, un-American actions by NBC would have, at the very least, qualified for one of your "Special Comments". Or maybe a "Worst Persons"?
Watch those ratings of yours begin to tumble, Keith. The public hates a coward. The public hates a sellout. The only way to redeem yourself at this point would be to denounce your Overlords on your show tomorrow, state that you're "Not going to take it anymore!", and walk off. Can you do that, Keith? I won't hold my breath....

[Zorra]

47. I'm so....shocked!!! Fascist judges ruling in favor of fascist media

in order to prevent a Democrat from spreading ideas about re-establishing democracy in America?

Yuh - Who knew?

It is time for American democrats to engage in massive nationwide general strikes and boycotts.

[snarky08]

49. Screw it.

I turned it off. My stomach is turning. What a crock of shit.

[tritsofme]

50. Headline should read: 1st Amendment Upheld, NV Supreme Court Rules That Government Cannot Compel

The Press Who They Must Invite To Debates

Sanity reigns.

[tucsonlib]

53. Re: Sanity Reigns

Obviously not in your house, Pal. Your reasoning is so moronic on so many different levels that I'm left stunned and speechless.

[onenote]

56. yep.

Its possible to think that MSNBC mishandled this and made a mistake in disinviting DK while still believing that the government should have no role in forcing a different decision. That's my take. MSNBC had a choice to make, they made the wrong one, but its their mistake to make or not make, and none of the government's business, any more than it would be the government's business to tell a newspaper that submitted questions to edwards, clinton and obama and ran their answers side by side that it had to print dk's answers to the same questions. For some reason, this point seems lost on a lot of DUers.

[tucsonlib]

59. What if?

What if a newspaper submitted questions to Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Kucinich, and then refused to publish only Kucinich's answers? That's more akin to what happened here. Should a corporation's 1st amendment rights trump those of the individual? What about Dennis's freedom of speech? What about the public's right to know? What about journalistic responsibility??

[onenote]

60. your hypothetical: it would be perfectly within the paper's first amendment rights

As the supreme court has made clear, "a responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated" and "he choice of material to go into a newspaper...and treatment of public issues and public officials - whether fair or unfair - constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment" and thus, the first amendment bars the government from "compelling editors or publishers to publish that which reason' tells them should not be published."

Or as Potter Stewart, joined by William O Douglas (one of the greatest defenders of the first amendment to ever serve on the supreme court) once wrote: no government agency - local, state, or federal - can tell a newspaper in advance what it can print and what it cannot.

[tucsonlib]

62. Well, Allow Me to Retort

I understand your argument, and it's a pleasure to engage in civilized debate for a change. First of all, we're not talking about a mom and pop newspaper here. We're talking about General Electric - a mega-corporation that has a vested interest in who becomes President. We're also talking about "Corporate Personhood" - A concept that you obviously agree with but which I find absurd on its face, and dangerously antithetical to a free society. I get the impression that you're of the Ron Paul/William Kristol school of "No Government At All". (Except for purposes of national defense.) You trust corporations more than government. I take the opposite view, and I believe that history (especially recent history) has proven me right. Without government oversight, corporations have demonstrated that they will pollute, cheat, steal, export jobs, destroy lives and families etc. etc. with gay abandon, as long as it means rising profits and fatter paychecks for the bosses. I'm not anti-capitalism by any stretch of the imagination, but certain things should not be profit-driven: Police/Fire protection, Education and Health Care for example. And that's why a government of, by and for the people has critical roles to play. You can't honestly believe that General Electric, along with the DLC and the Republican Party fought to keep Kucinich out the debate because they were shocked (Shocked I tell you!!) at the assault on their first amendment rights. I know you're not that naive. Bottom line: They're afraid of his message, and they want to keep the public as ill-informed as possible. It's better for business.

[onenote]

69. Your impression of my "school" of thought is mistaken

I am of the William O. Douglas progressive school of thought that values a free press and therefore generally opposes government intrusion into the exercise of editorial judgment, whehter that judgment is exercised by the print media or the electronic media and whether the ultimate owner of the vehicle for the speech (i.e., newspaper, cable network, Internet website etc) is an individual, partnership, or corporation. I recognize and support the imposition of reasonable, limited regulation on free over the air broadcast stations in terms of multiple and cross ownership in order to further the government's interest in promoting a diversity of voices (but am less enthusiastic about regulation that directly seeks to mandate diversity of content although I support the application of the FCC's equal opportunities rules and wouldn't mind seeing the return of the personal attack rule. I am on the fence about the fairness doctrine. I didn't support its repeal but am uncertain that it could/should survive constitutional scrutiny today. I don't think its repeal is the source of all of our problems, which sometimes seems to be the view of a few DUers. If the fairness doctrine was as significant as its made out to be, how did Richard Nixon romp over George McGOvern in 1972 (with the fairness doctrine in place) and how did Bill Clinton emerge victorious in 1992 and 1996 without it. Its value may be more as a deterrent of extreme abuses than anything else, which is why I opposed its repeal.

Finally, I think one of the most overlooked sources of the current concentration of media is the 1992 Cable Act, which gave broadcasters the right to withhold from cable opertors the right to retransmit free, over-the-air television stations unless they received compensation from the cable operator, notwithstanding the fact that the broadcaster was obligated by the terms of its license to provide free service to the community that it serves. The result of this change in the law was not the extraction of cash payments from cable operators but rather the creation of new broadcaster-owned cable networks, such as Fox News and MSNBC, which were then shoved down the throats of cable operators and which crowd out the available "shelf space" for independently owned networks.

[tucsonlib]

72. Then You Must Agree With......

The mass media — essentially the voice of the Establishment — much of the time reflects the mood of the Pentagon and the causes which the military-industrial complex espouses. So, we the people are relentlessly pushed in the direction that the Pentagon desires.

--William O. Douglas


On Corporate Personhood:

"There was no history, logic, or reason given to support that view nor was the result so obvious that exposition was unnecessary." --William O. Douglas (1949)

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.
--William O. Douglas
(I realize that you and I might have different interpretations here.)

The function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it invites a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it passes for acceptance of an idea.

--William O. Douglas

So who, I ask you, best represents the ideals expressed by Justice Douglas - The judge who insisted that GE allow the dissenting voice of Dennis Kucinich to be heard, or the judge{s} who gave GE permission to censor what the American people could hear?

[onenote]

73. the judges that upheld the right of the press to act irresonsibly

That's an easy one for me.

And I have a follow up question which I've never been able to get answer to regarding the opposition to corporate free speech rights.

If a newspaper is owned by an individual or a corporation or a partnership, why should it change the level of freedom the editor of that paper has to decide what to print? First let's assume that the only thing that the corporation owns is the one newspaper. Then let's assume that it owns one newspaper and the same corporate parent has an ownership interest of 50 percent (directly or through a subsidiary) in a baseball team. WHy, and how, should the first amendment rights of that newspaper be any different in any of those situations? (Note, I'm not talking cross ownership or multiple ownesrhip of broadcast facilities, which I've already addressed in an earlier post as reasonable rgulations,imo).

I guess I'm trying to understand why it would be healthier for society for newspaper (or tv stations) to be owned as sole proprietorships of a very extraordinarily rich moguls than held by corporations that, at least in theory, have shareholders that can influence their behavior.

Thanks.

[wtmusic]

79. Agree

your (very interesting) discussion underscores the importance of restrictions on media consolidation.

How can we possibly deny any entity the right to free speech?

How can democracy possibly survive without access to a variety of opinions?

[tucsonlib]

82. Re: How can democracy possibly survive without access to a variety of opinions?

Precisely. And the American people were denied that access by the Nevada State Supreme Court ruling, allowing MSNBC to censor opinions with which they disagreed.
I understand your position, in a theoretical sense, but the real-world result of bestowing 1st amendment rights to corporations which supercede the individual's rights is a corruption of the Democratic process. It's not like MSNBC threw a private party where opinions were bandied about. The network, in effect, was allowed to dictate to millions of viewers, "Here are your (our) three, and only three, choices." The corporate-controlled media as kingmaker. How can you continue to defend such an abomination?

[wtmusic]

83. I don't defend the abomination, I defend the method of dealing with it

If we let government decide what media must present to the electorate we immediately run into trouble.

What about all the write-in candidates? Will you deny a voice for them too?

My local news outlet interviewed Obama 4x and Hillary 5. Unconstitutional, I say!

That's the tip of the iceberg. And it is theoretical, but you can be sure that that sense can be exploited in future legal actions once a precedent is set.

Our only option, which would only require enforcing antitrust laws already on the books, is restricting media consolidation.

[tucsonlib]

84. Re: I don't defend the abomination, I defend the method of dealing with it

I understand what you're saying. In this case, however, Kucinich was invited by MSNBC to take part in the debate, having met their criteria as a candidate. Less than 48 hours later, MSNBC withdrew the invitation, explaining that they decided to change the requirements. (This was right after Richardson withdrew from the race.) So, ethical and constitutional issues aside, MSNBC was guilty of breach of contract.

[LanternWaste]

76. Wasn't DK originally invited to the debate?

Wasn't DK originally invited to the debate? If so, isn't this a breach of contract-- if in spirit only if not by the law?

I'm under the impression that the airwaves are publicly owned... if that is indeed the case, shouldn't the citizenry have some voice other than simply the market system?

Also, doesn't the Fairness Doctrine do precisely what you appear to believe is a breach of 1st Amendment rights? If not-- what is the precise and relevant difference between the two?

[Igel]

80. He was.

But the order basically says he didn't try to enforce it as a contract, and couldn't make an argument that it should now be enforced as a contract because it didn't meet all the requirements for a contract.

The airwaves are publicly owned, but leased. Rather like having a landlord say that two men can't have sex in the apt. they leased. The Fairness Doctrine can be imposed as a restriction on the lease, presumably (at least the government can, and few can stop the government from doing such things) ... on the other hand, would SCOTUS and lower courts agree that this is a reasonable restriction on the lease-holders' free speech, esp. if imposed after the 'space' was leased?

In any event, the problem is that the current laws do not allow imposition, esp. imposition by a state court that grants relief to an individual seeking enforcement. Don't like it, get the laws changed ... but arguing that selectively ignoring the laws is a dangerous path to go down.

(Further, I find odd a lot of reactions: The debate is to give those who might change their minds or have yet to make up their minds a chance to see the candidates. It's not targetting those who already have their minds made up and just want to see their idol on the little screen, whether the idol is DK, HC, BO, or JE. In addition, all the calls for "all the candidates" seem to limit "all" to "four out of the dozen or so running"--as long as DK is in, it's "all"--or at least all the important one ... no "sic" allowed, the grammatical faux pas is intended.)

[LanternWaste]

81. Or like saying

"The airwaves are publicly owned, but leased. Rather like having a landlord say that two men can't have sex in the apt. they leased."
Or like saying a network may not show full-on sex during prime time?

"but arguing that selectively ignoring the laws is a dangerous path to go down."
Maybe someone is doing that... I'm merely asking questions to a topic of which I do not have full knowledge of-- yes, I'm in the minority as I profess ignorance and ask questions in an attempt to alleviate that...

[mainegreen]

78. Yup.

And as was pointed out to me the other day, MSNBC is also cable, so no airwave/public interest issues either.

[frog92969]

51. GRRRR

:argh:

[peacetalksforall]

52. They hate us for our freedom. Yeah right - Dick..

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

54. This morning, I was happy

that judge had decided in Kucinich's favor. Now I come home to hear this crap. Why bother watching, Kucinich isn't there to keep 'em on their toes.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.

[geomon666]

57. And the beat goes on. n/t

[ProudDad]

65. I repeat...

Why the FUCK are private mega-corporations having ANY FUCKING THING to do with OUR ELECTIONS?!?!


I know the answer to this rhetorical question: "because the corporate capitalist masters have bought the lame-ass, feeble, rigged electoral process in this country!"

[TankLV]

66. This is sooo wrong - what are they afraid of

as if we didn't know...

[Political Heretic]

67. I wish John Edwards would take his first question, comdemn the ruling, then walk out.

Unfortunately, I when I say "I wish" that, I really don't in the real world. Because in the real world wherein the media is already doing everything to marginalize and ignore Edwards (I'm not implying grand conspiracy, they just see their ratings tied up in an obama/Clinton horse race) all that would do is leave his important voice out of the debate.

Of course the best solution would be for every candidate to walk off. Not just not show up. It would be more powerful to agree to show up, then surprise embarrass NBC by scolding them on air, and walking out - leaving them with dead air time.

[fascisthunter]

85. That's Fascism

it controls our political process and some like that, until it doesn't favor their candidate.

[ProudDad]

86. Good News! Dennis was re-included!

Breaking the Sound Barrier: Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4090533&mesg_id=4090533