JUDGE orders KUNINICH into MSNBC Debate !! NICE !

[Falseflagop]

Hard work pays off!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U5V0J80&show_article=1

[N13]

They are appealing that decision.

[derdy]

It's a great thing to see there are some sensible and fair judges out there

[Antonius Stone]

kick their ass, dennis!

[itshappening]

Wow!

[Onyx]

Wow never saw that one comming. Great, I tip my hat to that judge!

[michaelwise]

Now if we could just get a judge to order the MSM to give Ron Paul proportional TV news coverage.

[Chernitsky]

They are appealing that decision.

proof?

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Loving it!

We should do what we can for Dennis. We don't agree with his federal policies on welfare, but we can all agree that he is an honest person and a patriot. Not to mention that he is Ron's friend.

[Lord Xar]

hmmm.. I wonder why WE didn't have judge rule in our favor...... or did we even seek a judge?

[Drknows]

They should fine them for effing up democracy.

[itshappening]

hmmm.. I wonder why WE didn't have judge rule in our favor...... or did we even seek a judge?

LOL!!! you think our campaign is competent :)

[fuzzybekool]

Appealing the decision will be in vain. The private property appeal is trumped by the fact that the airwaves is not a privately owned entity on to itself, and thus, the public owns the airwaves and can not be coerced by a licensee airing a debate on public airwaves to restrict access to views of a sitting Congressman running for the President of the United States.

[UK4Paul]

Way to go, Dennis Kucinich!

MSNBC are lame for uninviting him in the first place.

[jasonuher]

kucinich is probably the best candidate on the dems side, but as a point of interest:

I love that when judges mandate something we don't like (i.e., kelo decision); it's government tyranny, but when we happen to agree it's 'the process working'.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the fundamental difference here, but Kuc. is still using the power of the government to force his way into a debate funded and aired by independent corporations. [I love that the R/D parties are part of the government when it suits them ($$) and aren't when it doesn't]

[SwooshOU]

It's ridiculous that a court could force a private company to do that.

[Proton]

What the hell?!? Are you guys Ron Paul supporters or communists? lol

This is a private property issue. A judge should not be allowed to force a private company to include a person in their debate.

Just go watch the Leno interview with RP again and hear it from the man himself! Geez...

[N13]

proof?

I heard it on either CNN or MSNBC while I was taking down Christmas stuff.

They said that Kucinich had won, but the case was under appeal.

[Malakai0]

Our campaign and RP himself have a very different way of doing things, as opposed to DK. I strongly applaud Dennis for what he did, and am ecstatic that he will be in the debate. Now I'll bother to watch it! =)
But, ultimately, it is unlikely having to use a judge to force yourself into a debate will garner any votes from the mainstream americans, nor is it complaint with our views of private property and freedom. RP used the power of his message and supporters, and strong numbers from the first 2 states, to ensure he will be invited again. And got a bunch of news coverage from the exclusion as well.
Ultimately our way turned out much much better.


I am glad he did it though, we need someone pointing out to viewers that the big 3 dems aren't as anti war and anti establishment as they think.

A LOT of people still think mccain is anti war,,,

[ceakins]

It's ridiculous that a court could force a private company to do that.

A private company using public airwaves. Again as stated before they do not own the airwaves.

[jasonuher]

Appealing the decision will be in vain. The private property appeal is trumped by the fact that the airwaves is not a privately owned entity on to itself, and thus, the public owns the airwaves and can not be coerced by a licensee airing a debate on public airwaves to restrict access to views of a sitting Congressman running for the President of the United States.

I'm 99% sure this is being carried by cable and satellite TV companies only; who have purchased the spectrum they use from the government. So that doesn't really apply.

[rollingpig]

It's ridiculous that a court could force a private company to do that.Right, in a perfect world, he wouldn't have to.

[ceakins]

I'm 99% sure this is being carried by cable and satellite TV companies only; who have purchased the spectrum they use from the government. So that doesn't really apply.


Licensed.

[Drknows]

What the hell?!? Are you guys Ron Paul supporters or communists? lol

This is a private property issue. A judge should not be allowed to force a private company to include a person in their debate.

Just go watch the Leno interview with RP again and hear it from the man himself! Geez...
Yeah it will be a glorious day when the big media corps start banning dennis and rp from the internet.

[Edu]

It's a public corporation. It's a governmentally regulated entity, created through government rules/laws etc...

So yes, they can tell an entity they created by legislation what to do.

[spiteface]

What the hell?!? Are you guys Ron Paul supporters or communists? lol

This is a private property issue. A judge should not be allowed to force a private company to include a person in their debate.

Just go watch the Leno interview with RP again and hear it from the man himself! Geez...

Whew, I thought maybe I was going insane for a second until I read this. The "public airwaves" defense is BS. Would some of you advocate bringing back the fairness doctrine as well? That was a grand idea. Having the government approve or disapprove of the content of a TV broadcast is antithetical to everything this campaign stands for. At least I thought so. If they have the power to decide who should be allowed in a debate, certainly they have the power to decide who isn't. Where do you think that will end up?

[spiteface]

It's a public corporation. It's a governmentally regulated entity, created through government rules/laws etc...

So yes, they can tell an entity they created by legislation what to do.

Shouldn't we be for abolishing this travesty rather than cheering it on?

[Matt Collins]

I DISAGREE WITH THIS!!!

I don't want the government telling any company who can participate in a private debate no matter how bad I want the candidate involved (except of course unless a contract is being enforced).

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

What the hell?!? Are you guys Ron Paul supporters or communists? lol

This is a private property issue. A judge should not be allowed to force a private company to include a person in their debate.

Just go watch the Leno interview with RP again and hear it from the man himself! Geez...

Of course you are right.

But dammit, it's nice to see Dennis win this. :)

[MooCowzRock]

kucinich is probably the best candidate on the dems side, but as a point of interest:

I love that when judges mandate something we don't like (i.e., kelo decision); it's government tyranny, but when we happen to agree it's 'the process working'.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the fundamental difference here, but Kuc. is still using the power of the government to force his way into a debate funded and aired by independent corporations. [I love that the R/D parties are part of the government when it suits them ($$) and aren't when it doesn't]

I agree completely...I hated the idea of this from the start. It does work well for the right side, but they are going about it the wrong way...its still and infringement on private property and the rights of the network/company to be biased...I dont like the idea of going against the principles we stand for in order to bring about the principles...its for a good cause, but its hypocritical...

[yongrel]

Ugh. I feel more than a little uneasy about a court ruling on how a company uses its own property.

[Green Mountain Boy]

Perhaps there was a contract between Kucinich and MSNBC in the Judge's eyes that was breached?

[Edu]

Shouldn't we be for abolishing this travesty rather than cheering it on?Yes, you abolish it by not forming/using a corporation. It's just the easy path and they say they will protect you from personal liability, government save me! But you pay a price for that protection, you always do.

You can also abolish it through education, most people don't know the alternatives. (I'll give you a hint, it's been around for 200 years now).

[TSOL]

incredible !

[rfbz]

yeah as much as this seems like a good thing, a judge being able to issue an injunction on a debate seems a bit much.

The free market solution would be a massive boycott to the network and to have their image tarnished, sort of like how we did with Fox.

[billv]

Appealing the decision will be in vain. The private property appeal is trumped by the fact that the airwaves is not a privately owned entity on to itself, and thus, the public owns the airwaves and can not be coerced by a licensee airing a debate on public airwaves to restrict access to views of a sitting Congressman running for the President of the United States.

MSNBC is a cable channel. Unless it is broadcast over the air in some markets, I think the judge ought to butt out. It's MSNBC's debate, their broadcast so it should be between them, their viewers, their advertisers, and their distributors. All of this hinges of course on whether or not MSNBC broadcasts over the air or not in some markets.

[devil21]

I believe the judge ruled that it was a fairness issue and would likely fall under the equal protection clause, so all the talk about who owns or licenses what is irrelevant. There is still a presumption that everyone be treated equally even if it is a presidential candidate and the issue is a televised debate.

[billv]

It's a public corporation. It's a governmentally regulated entity, created through government rules/laws etc...

So yes, they can tell an entity they created by legislation what to do.

Ummm.....no they can't.

[Voodoo]

I believe the judge ruled that it was a fairness issue and would likely fall under the equal protection clause, so all the talk about who owns or licenses what is irrelevant. There is still a presumption that everyone be treated equally even if it is a presidential candidate and the issue is a televised debate.

On private property :rolleyes:

[rp08orbust]

hmmm.. I wonder why WE didn't have judge rule in our favor...... or did we even seek a judge?

Uh, doesn't asking a judge to force a private organization to include someone in a debate violate ours and Ron's libertarian beliefs? Furthermore, it violates the Constitutional right to freedom of association.

[rp08orbust]

I believe the judge ruled that it was a fairness issue and would likely fall under the equal protection clause, so all the talk about who owns or licenses what is irrelevant. There is still a presumption that everyone be treated equally even if it is a presidential candidate and the issue is a televised debate.

Doesn't just about ALL big government come about because of "fairness issues"?

[RPTXState]

I think the issue here is that Dennis was invited, then told he was not.

Wouldn't that be a contractual issue?

[spiteface]

I believe the judge ruled that it was a fairness issue and would likely fall under the equal protection clause, so all the talk about who owns or licenses what is irrelevant. There is still a presumption that everyone be treated equally even if it is a presidential candidate and the issue is a televised debate.

So I could be in the debate, or are some more equal than others? This ruling stinks to high heaven. I gotta look up what the judge actually said.

[kaktak]

This so called "judge" needs to be be disbarred!!! His definition of fairness means nothing to the law. His job is to interpret the law which American people have created, and in this case he fails to do so.

That is the problem with these judges, they have too much power, and there's no check and balance for them.

[Dlynne]

A private company using public airwaves. Again as stated before they do not own the airwaves.

This argument applies to new networks, ABC,CBS, and NBC, but not to cable.

The difference between this and Paul/Fox is that DK was first invited (a contract) and then uninvited (breach of contract).

[Drknows]

I dont fully agree with Dennis either but Im just curious....

What if MSNBC bought up all the internet service providers and started banning Rp and Dennis? Leaving just the the top three candidates?

Well you say... They cant because of free speech.

WRONG! they could because they own the ISP's and could ban sharing of information just like TV does.

Well you say a new company would come along that offered old internet.

But what if they ban advertising it? What if MSNBC controlled all the information? What if they controlled the power companies? the satellites?, the phone books? the shipping industry?.

Boycott? Yeah you could but what if this was spanned over generations? What if the people were fed lies and never seen any truth? Would they even know what truth was?

This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson would never be elected in todays world. The media would smear his ass to no end then ignore him.

[devil21]

On private property :rolleyes:

Is the debate in NBC's studio? If not, then NBC has no private property to defend and it boils down to a basic equal protection issue. Was the venue involved in the lawsuit? I don't know. But if not, then there is no private property to speak of, relevant to the issue. The airwaves issue has been hashed out already and that's the only possible "property" that NBC could claim.

[Rede]

Hard work pays off!

Holy S#!T. Do you really think that this is good news?

This is the type of thing Ron Paul is running AGAINST. It is freedom, including the freedom to exclude people when others think you shouldn't, that Ron Paul is fighting for. It's their network and they have the freedom to let whoever they want on it.

[spiteface]

I would say wow, MSNBC must do a damn fine job of satisfying customers. If they didn't they would lose business like crazy.


I dont fully agree with Dennis either but Im just curious....

What if MSNBC bought up all the internet service providers and started banning Rp and Dennis? Leaving just the the top three candidates?

Well you say... They cant because of free speech.

WRONG! they could because they own the ISP's and could ban sharing of information just like TV does.

Well you say a new company would come along that offered old internet.

But what if they ban advertising it? What if MSNBC controlled all the information? What if they controlled the power companies? the satellites?, the phone books? the shipping industry?.

Boycott? Yeah you could but what if this was spanned over generations? What if the people were fed lies and never seen any truth? Would they even know what truth was?

This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson would never be elected in todays world. The media would smear his ass to no end then ignore him.

[AlexMerced]

this falls in like with Kucinichs views of government, so DK is consistent with his views and I respect him for fighting the system in a consistent manner

Although as Ron Paul supporter, I'd be upset if he did something like this cause it would be inconsistent with RP's views. luckily RP is as consistent as they come.

It's easier for RP to buck the system cause his message is to dismatle the system.

It's hard for DK, cause his message is give more power to the government that's opressing him, Ironic huh.

[Voodoo]

Is the debate in NBC's studio? If not, then NBC has no private property to defend and it boils down to a basic equal protection issue. Was the venue involved in the lawsuit? I don't know. But if not, then there is no private property to speak of, relevant to the issue. The airwaves issue has been hashed out already and that's the only possible "property" that NBC could claim.

That's enough.

[devil21]

So I could be in the debate, or are some more equal than others? This ruling stinks to high heaven. I gotta look up what the judge actually said.

I guess if you wanted to run for president, have an actual campaign and then file a lawsuit if you aren't included then sure. We all have the constitutional right to petition the courts for redress.

[Taco John]

hmmm.. I wonder why WE didn't have judge rule in our favor...... or did we even seek a judge?


Because our candidate doesn't believe in this kind of government intervention.

[Vendico]

does the ends justify the means?

[devil21]

That's enough.

Huh?
So let me get this straight. People are complaining that DK used his constitutional right to petition the court for redress of an injury? People on a RON PAUL forum that strongly advocate CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? Are you people kidding me?

Having said that, anyone with no legal background probably should STFU about this issue. I imagine that applies to 95% of the people posting on this thread.

[Proton]

I dont fully agree with Dennis either but Im just curious....

What if MSNBC bought up all the internet service providers and started banning Rp and Dennis? Leaving just the the top three candidates?

Well you say... They cant because of free speech.

WRONG! they could because they own the ISP's and could ban sharing of information just like TV does.

Well you say a new company would come along that offered old internet.

But what if they ban advertising it? What if MSNBC controlled all the information? What if they controlled the power companies? the satellites?, the phone books? the shipping industry?.

Boycott? Yeah you could but what if this was spanned over generations? What if the people were fed lies and never seen any truth? Would they even know what truth was?

This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson would never be elected in todays world. The media would smear his ass to no end then ignore him.

This monopoly situation can only happen through government intervention. A monopoly is not likely in a free market unless the company is doing a really good job.

The existence of the FCC, and government control of the 'public' airways, is what creates these issues. You can't cure problems created by government with more government.

Did you know when radio was first taking hold in the US, everyone had their own radio station much like how we all have websites now? Churches, businesses, they all had their own small transmitters.

The regulations to prevent monopolies, and regulate the 'public' airways only serve to increase the barriers to entry, and strengthen the existing corporations hold on the medium.

Government regulation = BAD

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

The bottom line is that the judge has no jurisdiction to do this.

But still, I'm happy for Dennis. :)

[Menthol Patch]

Awesome!

[UtahApocalypse]

Another Article:


A Las Vegas judge has ruled that democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich must be included in the Tuesday night presidential debate in Las Vegas.

Kucinich filed a lawsuit against NBC. He said he was initially invited to be in the nationally televised debate but the offer was later rescinded. Base on the earlier invitation, Judge Charles Thompson ruled in Kucinich's favor saying if he isn't included, he will issue an injunction stopping the debate.

The judge will meet with lawyers from both sides to sign the court order at 4 p.m. The attorneys for NBC claim the state has no jurisdiction in this matter, but they declined to say what their next legal move, if any, will be.

http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/24785-kucinich-wins-lawsuit-against-nbc-to-be-included-in-debate

[Drknows]

This monopoly situation can only happen through government intervention. A monopoly is not likely in a free market unless the company is doing a really good job.

The existence of the FCC, and government control of the 'public' airways, is what creates these issues. You can't cure problems created by government with more government.

Did you know when radio was first taking hold in the US, everyone had their own radio station much like how we all have websites now? Churches, businesses, they all had their own small transmitters.

The regulations to prevent monopolies, and regulate the 'public' airways only serve to increase the barriers to entry, and strengthen the existing corporations hold on the medium.

Government regulation = BAD


I agree but it's gotten to the point where its so bad that truth is being covered up.

Its only going to get worst because even if free markets were to happen today and new companies sprouted up the big media corps have enough money to put them out of business or buy them up. Google even controls what you see. The googlebot controls all. And the internet is free as can be. Its not that bad now but just wait a few more years. Sure you can say yahoo but for how long? How long can they go on when the sheep only say google? I bet Jerry yang has sleepless nights pondering this same question.

Its slowly happening. Its takes time to take away your freedoms and control information. its not going to happen over night. But just like your mother weened you off breast milk. You wont even notice a difference.


On one side you have government regulation that wants to stop growth on the other side you have big money that wants to take over. There will be no middle ground.

[Ronin]

Interesting perspective from a digg comment. I don't necessarily agree, but it's another way to look at it..


If the media companies that are providing a public service have full control of public content and make money off of it are they not cheating the public of what is rightfully their's to begin with?
So this makes such content as a presidential debate not private property but public property and profit can be made from it but fairness of the information provided to the public should be maintained.

[constitutional]

wow, more judges like him... please!