Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Dennis Kucinich, the only real Democrat left, has been left out of the ABC Debates again.

What the fuck man!

ABC News announced today that Dennis Kucinich will not be allowed to participate in tomorrow's nationally televised debate from St. Anselm College in New Hampshire. Kucinich has filed an official complaint.

The Democratic Debate tomorrow is about figuring out what real Democrats care about. Real Democrats want to vote for someone who:

- has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning
- has defended the Constitution from the Bush Administration
- will give our country single payer not-for-profit health care.

Mainstream America needs to hear about the one real Democrat -
Dennis Kucinich.

He has a surprise for all of you though.

Tomorrow, during the debate, Dennis Kucinich will air this 30 second television ad as a paid advertisement.

I swear, if you can't give a reason to vote for the guy without putting the word "Bush" in it, then why should I give a damn?

Kucinich is just a joke.

I can't take him seriously when he just reminds me of like an elf or something.

At 1/5/08 02:18 AM, Memorize wrote: I swear, if you can't give a reason to vote for the guy without putting the word "Bush" in it, then why should I give a damn?

Kucinich is the most consistent and articulate candidate on the issues of importance: ending the disastrous war in Iraq, offering our citizens universal and affordable health care (like all the other advanced western economies have), and stopping nuclear proliferation. So why is he excluded from the TV debate?

Kucinich is the only candidate who has been a leader on Capitol Hill against nuclear weapon development and proliferation.

Kucinich voted agains the US Patriot Act. Kucinich voted against the impeachment of Clinton. Kucinich was one of six who voted against the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act.

Kucinich helped introduce and is one of 75 cosponsors in the House of Representatives of the United States National Health Insurance Act or HR 676 proposed by Rep. John Conyers in 2003,[19] which provides for a universal single-payer public health-insurance plan.

Is that enough for you? Kucinich time and time again has proven to have the people's interests at heart. Please make him the Democratic candidate.

At 1/5/08 02:39 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/5/08 02:18 AM, Memorize wrote: I swear, if you can't give a reason to vote for the guy without putting the word "Bush" in it, then why should I give a damn?

Kucinich is the most consistent and articulate candidate on the issues of importance:

Kucinich is the most consistently wrong and articulate in idiotic talking points concerning issues taht wacked out liberal psychos are concerned about.

ending the disastrous war in Iraq

Causing a retreat which will cause be far more disastrous, and will squander the efforts of our military and our current succeses.

offering our citizens universal and affordable health care (like all the other advanced western economies have)

Bringing about an overbearing, government take over of our healthcare system which currently creates quicker, more effective treatments for diseases.

Bringing about a sabotage of our current marvel of a healthcare system by following the mindless, baseless, propaganda-fueled liberal aversion for private-sector economics.

and stopping nuclear proliferation.

? You mean... sabotaging the US military maybe?>

So why is he excluded from the TV debate?

He's a crackpot who has basically zero support, which viewers don't really care about other than a periodic gag reel due to his goblin-like appearance and cracked out

Kucinich is the only candidate who has been a leader on Capitol Hill against nuclear weapon development and proliferation.

Kucinich is mindless fool who wants to handicap our military.

Kucinich voted agains the US Patriot Act.

Kucinich voted against an anti-terror measure as part of a larger Bush administration effort to thward terrorist attacks, you know, the administration whose policies have thwarted several major attack plans.

Therefore, Kucinich voted in favor of terrorist attacks.

Spin is fun.

Kucinich voted against the impeachment of Clinton.

Kucinich is an idiot.

Kucinich was one of six who voted against the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act.

Kucinich voted against preventing terrorist attacks.

Kucinich helped introduce and is one of 75 cosponsors in the House of Representatives of the United States National Health Insurance Act or HR 676 proposed by Rep. John Conyers in 2003,[19] which provides for a universal single-payer public health-insurance plan.

Which provides a government take over of health insurance, which will be far worse for our country.

Is that enough for you? Kucinich time and time again has proven to have the people's interests at heart.

Kucinich has shown time and time again that he takes ridiculously illogical and feckless stances, and doesn't have America's interests at heart, but panders to the far-left that are equally as wacked out of their minds as he is.

Please make him the Democratic candidate.

Hah.

At 1/5/08 02:35 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Kucinich is just a joke.

I can't take him seriously when he just reminds me of like an elf or something.

I actually believe you judge people that way. You said:

See, I really don't like Hillary, but John Edwards is such a sleazeball. I don't understand how anyone can like him. He looks like, acts like, and talks like a car salesman.

Ok, so a car salesman can't be President. Next you said:

Humans are very visual. Even if they don't do it consciously, they judge people and things by appearances.

The perception of height is a big thing. ... It may be because their height creates confidence, and that this is attractive, but it is also argued that height itself is attractive and that tall, lean politicians tend to be more attractive than shorter people. There is a natural human aversion to short people, they associate it with immaturity or unhealthiness, semi-consciously. Most people won't say "I hate short people" but it's an instinct to size someone up like that even if they don't notice they do it.

Ok dude. SO according to you, short people should also be excluded from Politics. A Hollywood star, that is precisely what we need in The White House! [/sarcasm]

Vote based on the issues that concern YOU! If you think about it, Dennis Kucinich is the right candidate for Americans. Vote Kucinich.

At 1/5/08 02:52 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/5/08 02:35 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Kucinich is just a joke.

I can't take him seriously when he just reminds me of like an elf or something.

I actually believe you judge people that way.

Um first off, I judge Kucinich based on the fact that he is absolutely cracked out of his mind.

Secondly, I was making a joke.

See, I really don't like Hillary, but John Edwards is such a sleazeball. I don't understand how anyone can like him. He looks like, acts like, and talks like a car salesman.

Ok, so a car salesman can't be President.

A person whose entire campaign is based on manipulation, and ACTS like a car salesman shouldn't be president, i.e. John Edwards.

Next you said:

Humans are very visual. Even if they don't do it consciously, they judge people and things by appearances.

The perception of height is a big thing. ... It may be because their height creates confidence, and that this is attractive, but it is also argued that height itself is attractive and that tall, lean politicians tend to be more attractive than shorter people. There is a natural human aversion to short people, they associate it with immaturity or unhealthiness, semi-consciously. Most people won't say "I hate short people" but it's an instinct to size someone up like that even if they don't notice they do it.

Ok dude. SO according to you, short people should also be excluded from Politics.

Funny, now you're just lying and saying I said something I didn't.

I never said they should be excluded from politics, I was stating the FACT that tall people are naturally more respected in the work place than short people. What I said was based on human nature and how humans judge other people visually, which IS human nature, not a trait of just my own.

A Hollywood star, that is precisely what we need in The White House! [/sarcasm]

I'd approve of Arnold.

Vote based on the issues that concern YOU! If you think about it, Dennis Kucinich is the right candidate for Americans.

Nope, in fact any sort of logical thought process would cause anyone with half a brain to realize that Kucinich is way too much of a liberal extremist to be president, and would do America all sorts of harm.

Vote Kucinich.

Vote for communism, same thing.

Ok cellar, this is what I don't get. If you are a Heavy Republican or opposed to socialism, then why would you vote for a Democrat?

Even if Kucinich is a wacko with zero support, like you said he is, then why should he be excluded from the debates? I thought anybody could run as President.

At 1/5/08 03:06 AM, RommelTJ wrote: Ok cellar, this is what I don't get. If you are a Heavy Republican or opposed to socialism, then why would you vote for a Democrat?

First off, I'm NOT a Republican, but I AM opposed to socialism.

I'd vote for a Democrat if I though he/she was the best candidate.

If you're referring to my suggesting that I'd vote for Barack Obama, well that's because of a whole slew of issues. But he's no socialist anyway, not by a long shot, and especially not comparison to the kind of wacked out socialism that Kucinich calls for.

Obama's healthcare plan is not socialist, there is no government take over in the works with Obama. He simply wants to put in place measures to reduce costs so that Americans can still pick and choose for themselves from the myriad of providers, but the poor can have access to the best quality healthcare.

Kucinich basically wants the government to completely take over the healthcare industry, give the government the power decide who gets what, and when. No more competition, no more private medicine, no more decisions of Americans on what coverage they want to fit their needs, he wants to singularize our industry and put it under government control.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

Even if Kucinich is a wacko with zero support, like you said he is, then why should he be excluded from the debates?

Firstly, you're talking about a private news channel. The debates are hosted by private organizations, not the government. They can do whatever they want, and exclude whoever they want.

I thought anybody could run as President.

They can, but not everybody can get enough support to warrant getting airtime.

If everybody, no matter how little or nonexistent there support, was given equal time in the spotlight, that wouldn't work. You'd be talking about hundreds of thousands of candidates.

A candidate actually has to be a contender to justify pinning them against other candidates in debates.

Wow, do you actually think that politics is about politics?
Its no more than a popularity contest! The important issues are not important at all.
Hillary is a woman and married to Bill Clinton, while Obama is half-black. Neither is that great of a candidate, but they don't have to be because of those "credentials".
Kucinich should have known it was a losing up-hill battle to begin with.

I just did a quick Google and apparently the reason he was excluded, along with Gravel and Hunter is that they didn't meet set benchmarks in their support or something. It's not like it's a giant conspiracy against him, just ABC being cautious and trying to work out who they can make the most money off when it comes to advertising ( Kucinich wouldn't bring in many viewers I imagine so in their minds he's not worth it)

I can sort of see where ABC is coming from, but even so, it isn't gonna hurt them to actually let every candidate have a fair say. Fair and democratic elections require all candidates a chance to be heard after all.

At 1/5/08 04:43 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: I can sort of see where ABC is coming from, but even so, it isn't gonna hurt them to actually let every candidate have a fair say. Fair and democratic elections require all candidates a chance to be heard after all.

I agree. Even if ABC is a private company, they have an obligation to their viewers and to the American people. I mean, ABC can only gain MORE money by airing Kucinich. In fact, they are gaining more money because Kucinich is going to pay for his ad.

I think ABC simply does not want to air someone that will take power away from that. If they could get away with banning Edwards, they would.

At 1/5/08 03:48 AM, Maxben wrote: Hillary is a woman and married to Bill Clinton, while Obama is half-black. Neither is that great of a candidate, but they don't have to be because of those "credentials".

WRONG. Practically everyone I knew believed Obama would be a great president during the Illinois Senate election, when he was running against a BLACK GUY and eventually won in a landslide.

At 1/5/08 02:13 AM, RommelTJ wrote: Dennis Kucinich, the only real Democrat left, has been left out of the ABC Debates again.

He's not a serious candidate, and he has no chance of doing anything. He's way too low in the polls.

The media has a responsibility to give their time to serious candidates, since we're this far into the primaries.

ABC News announced today that Dennis Kucinich will not be allowed to participate in tomorrow's :nationally televised debate from St. Anselm College in New Hampshire. Kucinich has filed an official :complaint.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/candidates/#1380
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/
iowa.html

Kucinich hardly has 2% of the vote, while the leading democrat has nearly 40%. He has no chance. Now don't go saying "That's because no one gave him a chance to begin with. How can he have a chance if he gets no respect?" Well, they gave him the same airtime as other candidates early on in the race, but now he's lost, so they're not showing him anymore.

I don't see what's wrong with that.

The Democratic Debate tomorrow is about figuring out what real Democrats care about. Real :Democrats want to vote for someone who:

I suppose you magically have the authority to decide what 50% of the country should be thinking, as opposed to what it really thinks.

- has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning
- has defended the Constitution from the Bush Administration
- will give our country single payer not-for-profit health care.

So basically, this isn't about being fair, this is about you being mad that other Americans don't share your views. Dennis Kucinich and his views got a fair chance. Not enough Americans supported his views, so he's getting kicked out. What's wrong with that?

Mainstream America needs to hear about the one real Democrat -
Dennis Kucinich.

I guess you magically have decided what it means to be a real democrat, even though 98% of the democrats disagree with you.

He has a surprise for all of you though.

I'm not too surprised by this.

Tomorrow, during the debate, Dennis Kucinich will air this 30 second television ad as a paid :advertisement.

I have nothing wrong with that. But he shouldn't act like he's getting cheated, since he's not. He's been given a fair chance like everyone else, but he hasn't been able to get 30+% of the electorate behind him, so he's not being given the same attention as serious candidates.

1) I don't think American [By majority] want a total retreat from Iraq, Minus one for Kunnich
2) I don't even beleive that Americans [By majority] want Universal Health care either Minus Two
3) I don't think Americans [By majority] Want to see a disarmament of the military to the degree that Kunnich beleives is just and good Minus Three
4) I Don't think Americans [By Majority] Want a Candidate who has a large chunk of his campaigning festered in 'I'm not going to be like That failure" Minus Four
5) I don't think Democrats today are comfortable in letting someone speak out like that who is that extreme and far to the left, especially since they know full well Conservative Pundits feed off of the idea that All democrats have plans that are as extremely socialistic and if not communistic as that of Kunnich. Minus Five
6) Not only are his views probably too extreme in the eyes of the democrats, the fact that he has [as assumed by his word and deed] little to no intention of Moderating himself in a general election if he ever was elected [Which is probably not going to happen given points 1-4] would also keep the democrats from wanting to show him to the world.

Kucinich is being added on because he doesn't have the numbers to even get on the caucus ballot in Iowa, and more then likely New Hampshire.

Nobody like Kucinich.

Does it matter. Do you seriously believe he even as a chance at say, 1% of the votes?

At 1/5/08 02:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/5/08 02:39 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/5/08 02:18 AM, Memorize wrote: I swear, if you can't give a reason to vote for the guy without putting the word "Bush" in it, then why should I give a damn?

Kucinich is the most consistent and articulate candidate on the issues of importance:

Kucinich is the most consistently wrong and articulate in idiotic talking points concerning issues taht wacked out liberal psychos are concerned about.

ending the disastrous war in Iraq

Causing a retreat which will cause be far more disastrous, and will squander the efforts of our military and our current succeses.

In your opinion.

offering our citizens universal and affordable health care (like all the other advanced western economies have)

Bringing about a sabotage of our current marvel of a healthcare system by following the mindless, baseless, propaganda-fueled liberal aversion for private-sector economics.

In your opinion.

and stopping nuclear proliferation.

? You mean... sabotaging the US military maybe?>

In your opinion.

So why is he excluded from the TV debate?

He's a crackpot who has basically zero support, which viewers don't really care about other than a periodic gag reel due to his goblin-like appearance and cracked out

In your opinion.

Kucinich is the only candidate who has been a leader on Capitol Hill against nuclear weapon development and proliferation.

Kucinich is mindless fool who wants to handicap our military.

In your opinion.

Kucinich voted agains the US Patriot Act.

Kucinich voted against an anti-terror measure as part of a larger Bush administration effort to thward terrorist attacks, you know, the administration whose policies have thwarted several major attack plans.

Therefore, Kucinich voted in favor of terrorist attacks.

In your opinion.

Spin is fun.

Yes.

Kucinich voted against the impeachment of Clinton.

Kucinich is an idiot.

In your opinion.

Kucinich was one of six who voted against the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act.

Kucinich voted against preventing terrorist attacks.

In your opinion.

Kucinich has shown time and time again that he takes ridiculously illogical and feckless stances, and doesn't have America's interests at heart, but panders to the far-left that are equally as wacked out of their minds as he is.

IN YOUR OPINION.

Would you care to provide some links to support these claims of yours?

I am seriously interested. If the man is pro-terror, he should not be elected.

I want to see some of these terror plots we stopped. Or that he aided.

Show me.

Also, I realize that i am going to get hardcore flamed for this. I am making the point that you CONSISTENTLY state YOUR OPINION as fact, and anyone who disagrees with you is OBVIOUSLY lying.

Reviewer can you prove that if you placed an unsharpened pencil vertically on a table and blew on it ; it would fall over without trying or seeing it happen once?

At 1/5/08 06:16 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Reviewer can you prove that if you placed an unsharpened pencil vertically on a table and blew on it ; it would fall over without trying or seeing it happen once?

Ehh, you lost me after the semicolon.

Ironically.

Come again?

Fuck 'im. Vote Ron Paul.

Ron PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon Paul Ron PaulRon PaulRon Paul Ron PaulRon PaulRon Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon Paul Ron PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon Paul Ron PaulRon PaulRon Paul Ron PaulRon PaulRon PaulRon Paul Ron Paul

At 1/5/08 09:54 AM, Al6200 wrote: Kucinich hardly has 2% of the vote, while the leading democrat has nearly 40%.
I don't see what's wrong with that.

So, if the population of the United States is 303,619,006 people (Current US Population), then 2% is 6,072,380 people.

You don't think that a candidate with 6 million supporters deserves coverage?

I think so.
When issues like this happen, I can't help but think about the tomorrow. With Minorities becoming a Majority, wouldn't you want to make sure NOW that you have a say TOMORROW?

Reviewer has made one of the most pathetic posts I've seen to date.

At 1/5/08 03:56 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

IN YOUR OPINION.

MY OPINION, based on facts vs. YOUR OPINION!

Would you care to provide some links to support these claims of yours?

You want to provide some links to show that your opinion is supported against mine?

I am seriously interested. If the man is pro-terror, he should not be elected.

He is against fighting terrorism, that's for sure. He's even voted against making 9/11 a day of remembrance. When was the last time he even mentioned terrorists, let alone fighting against it? Not only does he refuse to acknowledge the threat from terrorism, but he refuses to do anything about it.

From what I've seen, he's been against almost every single major anti-terror measure, including the invasion of Afghanistan for fuck sake. He wanted to do nothing after 9/11. He voted against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted against the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act.

Funny, because the these, and other measures, have allowed the US to successfully thwart 10 major terror attacks, including 3 that involved airliners in the US.

I want to see some of these terror plots we stopped. Or that he aided.

Show me.

He consistently votes against basically any act that would allow us to beef up our defense. He has consistently been against the war on terror. He has voted against every major defense authorization bill since 1996.

He is basically voting against us defending ourselves.

His slogan is "Strength through Peace". He does not support war, nor the war industry. He supports peace. He thinks that we should fix the problems in America first, and stop pretending there is a major terrorist threat.

At 1/5/08 07:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Reviewer has made one of the most pathetic posts I've seen to date.

I try.

The intent was to get you to provide actual links, instead of just claiming things.

I think I succeeded.

Would you care to provide some links to support these claims of yours?

You want to provide some links to show that your opinion is supported against mine?

I never stated one.

And I admit, I do not have the resources or political knowledge to debate with you over these things, the conclusions from which are still based in personal opinion.

At 1/5/08 07:36 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 1/5/08 07:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Reviewer has made one of the most pathetic posts I've seen to date.

I try.

That's a great goal.

The intent was to get you to provide actual links, instead of just claiming things.

Apparently you're holding me to a higher standard considering you asked me and only me to provide links, yet other people parade their opinions as fact all the time and of course you don't say "your opinion" 10 times in a row and demand they provide links.

I think I succeeded.

I think it backfired in your face and now you're trying to pretend it was just some ploy.

Would you care to provide some links to support these claims of yours?

You want to provide some links to show that your opinion is supported against mine?

I never stated one.

And that makes it even more ridiculous. You have no point of reference. You're in no position to even question my opinion, not only because politics essentially ARE opinion, but you have no ability to even validate anything that would show that my opinions contrast with reality.

And I admit, I do not have the resources or political knowledge to debate with you over these things, the conclusions from which are still based in personal opinion.

That's YOUR opinion, ooooh.

;

cellar, why does it always have to be about you? Can you let a topic be? Can we get back on topic, please?

*Ahem*

Ok, if Kucinich has 6million plus supporters, he shouldn't have been excluded from the debates. (which are airing right now)

This is what America is saying after seeing Kucinich. Where the heck did he come from? Who is he? And why does he remind me of one of those goblin-things from Lord of the Rings?

Seriously, he is an unknown for most of the populace. That and his crackpot ideas are enough to keep him from being a serious contender.

At 1/5/08 07:54 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

Ok, if Kucinich has 6million plus supporters, he shouldn't have been excluded from the debates. (which are airing right now)

How many of those " 6 millions " voted?