Judge: Include Kucinich In Nev. Debate

woooot!

go judge!



.

Bumping for IMPORTANT news!

The courts have now just begun to back up the American public against the RICO of the lamestream.

Give em hell Dennis!

I believe this judge was right on. FAIR IS FAIR.


RP08

Good Post AG :D.

We need an independent commission which is neutral, has rules of fairness, and which hosts ALL debates.

The cost of holding the debates could be passed on to the networks which decide to place cameras in the debates, by charging them a nominal fee to do so.

It's time we stop allowing the corporate media to pick and choose the candidates who we the PEOPLE are then allowed to pick from.

I am just overwhelmed with joy on this....yes, I know emotions should not be a part of it but there you have it.

Choosing between Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul is a hard thing to do. Paul has a stricter stance regarding immigration though, and he is not for gun control, so that helps him in that regard.

Next day and importance.....judicial precidence is being set.

Now wait and see if the judge has teeth. Will the judge arrest the debate holders if they go ahead in contempt of the injunction he may have to issue? Will MSNBC cave in or will the Judge?

Oh I would love to see that fight......hhmmm big MSM vs a ticked off judge.

A_G1RL...that language from you made me chuckle.

It made me LMAO!

You guys don't see how wrong it is to have judges dictating what is going to be on television? Why not? because you like Kucininch...Judges can decide both ways you know, what happens when one decides there is something you shouldn't see? or maybe decides that you should see something he wants you to, but you don't really want to? Television is one thing I believe in free market solutions for, if some station is not showing something you want, don't watch it, let their sponsors know why you aren't, make sure you let them know you will be letting others know why too. But having a judge threaten or force any broadcaster to give air time to candidates that are dead last? It's wrong, if it was covered under the equal time rules, it wouldn't have happened. Bigger gov't cuts both ways, just because you personaly like it this time, doesn't make it right.

SHR is right. At times I need a swift kick in the ass as a reminder of the double edge.

But, you have to admit the judge did have "a pair of hangy down things".



Damn, it just doesn't sound the same when I say it. ;)

.

Well, he's not dead last, and they DID have the requirement that THEY set for the top four. They now wanted to change that requirement because they didn't want Dennis on the stage, they didn't count on Richardson dropping out already.

This breach of contract was clearly due to trying to inhibit his point of view in the debates. This judge just recognized it for what it was and is upholding the original contract.

Did I like it? Yea, gotta confess. Would I like infringement under other terms? Nope, gotta admit that too. But in this case of a contract, I think the judge saw his 'in'

Likely it was just more along the lines that since he was invited, it would be breach of contract to be un-invited, I doubt the judge cares who or what he is about. This sort of thing just always leads to more of the same, and next time it won't be what you happen to like, and the 20 times after that once precident is set, they likely won't be either....Hopefully it gets done as purely a contractual matter and not because some judge "feels" people will be better off because of his decision......

I hate it when you logic me out of a good buzz.....feeling that is, not drugs.

So, SHR, you think this is but a case of Judical activism?

From my point of view the TV broadcast media is not a simple type of "free market economy thing". If it were, then everyone could broadcast on any channel they wanted to at any time. The airwaves are owned as it were by the people and not by the corporations. The broadcast corporations do have to abide by the terms of their contracts with the federal government that has licensed that portion of the air waves to that station or network.

Also note from the simple and short newsrelease about this case one cannot tell just exactly what the case was nor the reasoning of both the defendant and the plaintiff, nor can one read in these short articles about the judges decision and his reasoning about it. Jumping to conclusions about a legal case without hearing the case at hand is like being on a jury but not ever sitting in the jury box and hearing the case.

Was this really an Equal Time issue? Or wasn't it? We cannot tell either way because we did not sit in on the "jury" to hear the case. Only the court transcripts have any validity about what went on in court on this case. Second guessing legal cases without that information is as bad as voting for someone bases only on his campaign ads.

This does apply to broadcast media only, and not to cable subscription media, nor newspaper and print.

But the point about over regulation is spot on, lest we all find our precious internet being forced into the position that every poster be forced to mention all candidates equally in all their posts.

For all of that, the plaintiff can and most likely will file an appeal which could effectivley block any injunction the judge lays down.

Which is worse, limited coverage or no coverage? Or anyone being able to broadcast at any time on any frequency at any power level they can afford?

"Hangy down things" ... I am a girl, too ... but I could not figure this out at first. I thought, "Chads?" Then I realized it was those same things that Hillary has!

This is great news! Who are THEY to tell us who we need to listen to in a candidate? I'd still love to see a Paul/Kucinich ticket.

NBC has filed an appeal.

Hearing today, but haven't heard any news of a result.

BTW, did I see that Olbermann is one of the commentators?

[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]

Nevada Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling. Kucinich will not be allowed to be in tonight's debate.

MSNBC is now on the 'YOU SUCK' list with Faux.

This is complete bologna and we all know it. No, Kucinich is not my guy but it's still the same principle. Heck, I really didn't agree to them putting the 4th place rule on it to begin with. As long as they are national and they haven't dropped out then they should be there to debate the issues.

Hunter, Gravel, Kucinich, and whomever else I am missing because the lamestream has made me forget them..... you all have been messed over by our money controlled government. Don't give up on us because of the Richard Noggans. (sp?)

it's really a rather pathetic state of affairs in this country when all candidates are not included in a presidential debate.

Bump for the newbie