Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What happened to my thread? It completely derailed.....

At 1/6/08 05:17 AM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/6/08 04:05 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: YOU went off topic long before I did. YOU are the one that quoted what I said in a completely different thread. Then you only ignored me when I was talking about the topic.

This is what happened. I posted a thread about Kucinich being left out of the debate. You said, as a joke, that you wouldn't vote for anyone that looked like an elf. That was off topic.

No it wasn't off topic because it related to Kucinich.

I stupidly replied to your comment, again off-topic, and then you started debating Kucinich's political campaign. That was definitely off topic.

WHAT?!?! First of all, I actually argued why ABC didn't let him on. You ignored it. You brought up something I said in a different thread anyway.

Secondly, debating his political campaign is off topic?

HAHA!

In YOUR first post you were glorifying him, therefore me providing an argument against his political positions, and providing links to show his record is entirely on-topic.

We were debating why a candidate was left out. No matter how "wacko" he was.

I debated that, and I debated why he is a horrible candidate. This was all after in your first post you were glorifying Kucinich.

Seriously, get a grip on reality.

At 1/6/08 07:01 PM, RommelTJ wrote: What happened to my thread? It completely derailed.....

Yeah, and you did it.

You just didn't like the fact that facts came out that compromise your overly-idealistic view of a crackpot candidate.

At 1/6/08 07:15 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/6/08 07:01 PM, RommelTJ wrote: What happened to my thread? It completely derailed.....

Yeah, and you did it.

You just didn't like the fact that facts came out that compromise your overly-idealistic view of a crackpot candidate.

So, basically your argument is that a "crackpot candidate" shouldn't appear on TV? I find that highly subjective.

At 1/6/08 07:29 PM, RommelTJ wrote: So, basically your argument is that a "crackpot candidate" shouldn't appear on TV? I find that highly subjective.

Not necessarily, it's just that a big network like ABC doesn't hold it in their best interests to bring on a crazy person that has like, a 0.000001% chance of winning the election.

At 1/6/08 07:39 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: subjective but true he sides with conspiracy T's and says he "saw a UFO"

If you read this thread, many people have seen UFO's. But whatever, even if he was a nutjob If he has 5% of National support, and constantly tops the independent polls, is a true leftist candidate, and receives Tax money because of the amount of supporters he has, he shouldn't have been excluded from the debate, right?

Shouldn't the debates include as large gamut of opinions as possible so that the people can make an informed decision. I'm ok with people calling Kucinich a wacko after knowing his political campaign, but most people think of him as the "elf guy with a hot wife."

At 1/6/08 07:29 PM, RommelTJ wrote: So, basically your argument is that a "crackpot candidate" shouldn't appear on TV? I find that highly subjective.

WOW since you IGNORED what I already said about this and decide to blame me for taking the topic off subject, let's recap what I said about this:

At 1/5/08 03:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/5/08 03:06 AM, RommelTJ wrote: 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.

-----------------

The fact is, ABC is a private organization, it is not required to give everyone an equal say in the first place. Secondly, they set criteria for the candidates they would allow in the debate, they had to have a certain percentage of support among Democrats to be considered viable. Kucinich is not viable, his support is incredibly low.

Therefore, ABC made a completely justified choice in not letting him on.

In case you didn't know, presidential candidates NEED SUPPORT. Kucinich doesn't have it, and if you applied your logic that "everyone" should be given equal say, you'd it would only be wasting people's time, and there would be LOADS of candidates debating in a single debate, which would be a disservice to the vast majority of viewers whose support is isolated to 4 candidates on the Democrat side.

Seriously, should an independent candidate who only has 10 people supporting him get to debate on ABC just because he's running? What if all people, no matter how little support they had, were allowed to go on? How many people do you think would be at the debate? Hmm?

Use logic for once. There is no conspiracy against Kucinich, he simply doesn't have enough support to warrant going through the time, money, and effort of putting him in the same venue as the candidates that actually have decent amounts of support.

And it's a PRIVATE news organization that hosted the debate. They can do whatever they want, and what they wanted to do was put in place reasonable criteria. Kucinich didn't meet them. Therefore he was excluded.

Get over it.

ABC might be a private organization, but they are debating a matter that interests THE PEOPLE. Therefore, they have a responsibility to THE PEOPLE to air every viable candidate. Dennis Kucinich is a viable(not probable) candidate.

Disney might own ABC, but they do not own the airwaves. The airwaves belong to THE PEOPLE.

Republican candidates are very specific. I like them. They know what they want. Democratic candidates just yell change, change, change, but never go into specifics. The only candidates that goes into specifics and calls Democrats out is Dennis Kucinich. Most people in his party do not like him because of that.

The stated criteria was that in a recent poll the candidate had to reach a threshold of 5%.
In a recent poll in the Fall, Dennis did poll above this threshold in a national reputable poll. Additionally, Facebook, the co-sponsor of the debate, had it's own poll in which Dennis Kucinich polled above 5%.

Yet, Dennis was not allowed to participate in the Debate.

He received Funds from the US Government because he meets the criteria.

This is not about Kucinich. It's about THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE deserve a debate that includes all the issues. The points that Kucinich makes are not represented on the debate.

The media has a moral and ethical obligation to have all sides be heard.

No candidate in the debate argued for an immediate pull from Iraq, for example.

At 1/6/08 08:11 PM, RommelTJ wrote: The media has a moral and ethical obligation to have all sides be heard.

No it doesn't. The reason for this is the "private organization" aspect of it.
The only way for there to be any moral obligation is if the government ran and distributed the info within the media. It does not and you can all ready see the flaws with that.

At 1/6/08 08:24 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 1/6/08 08:11 PM, RommelTJ wrote: The media has a moral and ethical obligation to have all sides be heard.

No it doesn't. The reason for this is the "private organization" aspect of it.
The only way for there to be any moral obligation is if the government ran and distributed the info within the media. It does not and you can all ready see the flaws with that.

Yes, they do. They don't have a legal obligation, but they should air every point of view.

Taken from the AP's Code of Ethics:
"The newspaper should serve as a constructive critic of all segments of society. It should reasonably reflect, in staffing and coverage, its diverse constituencies. It should vigorously expose wrongdoing, duplicity or misuse of power, public or private. Editorially, it should advocate needed reform and innovation in the public interest. News sources should be disclosed unless there is a clear reason not to do so. When it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of a source, the reason should be explained."

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=387 has a list of Code of Ethics of most Journalists.

The ABC Code of Ethics is not listed, but it is generally assumed that a Journalist should cover all aspects. To quote FOX: "Fair and Balanced" (LOL)

At 1/6/08 08:11 PM, RommelTJ wrote: ABC might be a private organization, but they are debating a matter that interests THE PEOPLE.

Yes, and the PEOPLE do not support Kucinich.

Therefore, they have a responsibility to THE PEOPLE to air every viable candidate.

Which Kucinich is not.

ABC set criteria. Candidates would have to have atleast a certain proportion of support among their parties.

Kucinich did not meet that critera, therefore ABC, who is a private organization followed through with its rules, which were completely logical because even according to your logic, they were doing it in the best interest of the audience... an audience that doesn't give a shit about Kucinich.

Disney might own ABC, but they do not own the airwaves. The airwaves belong to THE PEOPLE.

LOL

Now you're just talking complete bullshit.

ABC is a private organization, if the PEOPLE didn't want to watch it, the "airwaves" aren't shoved down their throat.

But what WOULD have happened if Kucinich, a candidate with almost no support, was allowed to debate and take up equal time, the airwaves would be used to shove Kucinich down the throat of the PEOPLE. And these PEOPLE happen not to support Kucinich.

Get that through your head. Not only did ABC do what's completely in its power considering it was hosting a private event, but if they did allow Kucinich to debate, they'd actually be doing a disservice to the audience considering Kucinich has marginal at best... wait no... his support is basically nil.

The stated criteria was that in a recent poll the candidate had to reach a threshold of 5%.

Among democrats.

In a recent poll in the Fall, Dennis did poll above this threshold in a national reputable poll.

In the fall? You mean BEFORE the recent caucuses that we've already had? LOL

Additionally, Facebook, the co-sponsor of the debate, had it's own poll in which Dennis Kucinich polled above 5%.

The support was supposed to be among voters, not random, underage teenagers on Facebook.

Yet, Dennis was not allowed to participate in the Debate.

Because he DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA AND DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT.

He received Funds from the US Government because he meets the criteria.

This is not about Kucinich. It's about THE PEOPLE.

WHO DON'T SUPPORT KUCINICH!

THE PEOPLE deserve a debate that includes all the issues.

THE PEOPLE deserve a debate that includes viable candidates that they support, not candidates who do not have enough support to even be viable.

The points that Kucinich makes are not represented on the debate.

Kucinich does not represent the audience of the debates, considering they don't support him.

The media has a moral and ethical obligation to have all sides be heard.

The media has the moral and ethical obligation not to shove a candidate down people's throat even though he has no support.

I can see why you like Kucinich, you're just as batshit insane as he is.

At 1/6/08 08:37 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Yes, they do. They don't have a legal obligation, but they should air every point of view.

Yup. Let me reword this.
Your right it does have a moral obligation, but it doesn't have an obligation to full fill that obligation.
Like I said before it's the "private organizations" to choose and dictate what they show and blah blah blah. Just because they 'should' air every point of view doesn't mean the 'will' or 'do'.
Is/Ought gap, naturalistic fallacy, or what ever you want to call it.

Also your link didn't help your point. :O

At 1/6/08 08:37 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/6/08 08:24 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 1/6/08 08:11 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

Yes, they do. They don't have a legal obligation, but they should air every point of view.

It's impossible to show and air every point of view, ration or irrational.

So, to help the prospective voters of New Hampshire, there showing the most rational and the most likely candidates that actually appear on the ballot and that people actually take seriously.

There's a reason that Kucinich wasn't on the ballot in Iowa, there's a reason that the debates stopped asking him questions, there's a reason that the debates don't want him anymore.

He's a joke, no one takes him seriously, not even his own party.

He should just give up the election before he makes a bigger fool of himself.

At 1/6/08 08:58 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Like I said before it's the "private organizations" to choose and dictate what they show and blah blah blah. Just because they 'should' air every point of view doesn't mean the 'will' or 'do'.

Additions-
Let's say I own a private restaurant. It's my obligation to serve you food, but I can choose not to.

At 1/6/08 08:58 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: It's impossible to show and air every point of view, ration or irrational.

The BBC seems to achieve that quite well. I don't see why Americans shouldn't.

At 1/6/08 09:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 1/6/08 08:58 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Like I said before it's the "private organizations" to choose and dictate what they show and blah blah blah. Just because they 'should' air every point of view doesn't mean the 'will' or 'do'.

Additions-
Let's say I own a private restaurant. It's my obligation to serve you food, but I can choose not to.

Ok, but what if the private restaurant was a Soup kitchen for poor people. It's purpose is to feed all members of the community, but they don't have to. Still, it would suck if you refuse to serve certain people.

I see your point.

Corporate media owners are the real kingmakers in politics today, and it's a shame. Democracy should be by the many, not the few. Kucinich should have had a voice in the debate, regardless of what the network thought.

At 1/6/08 09:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Let's say I own a private restaurant. It's my obligation to serve you food, but I can choose not to.

Especially if the person can't even afford any food.

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 feel the same way for bush.
i can't take him seriously if he reminds me od Dumbo the flying elephant. i mean look at his ears!!

Which reminds me.

Shaggy, did anyone tell you that you won the "I, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby" Award for Perjury in the recent awards thread?

=)

At 1/6/08 09:33 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/6/08 08:58 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The BBC seems to achieve that quite well. I don't see why Americans shouldn't.

So the BBC finds every person on the globe that holds a different viewpoint on any issue on any given day.

Which BBC does this air on; BBC1, BBC2 or BBC bullshit.

At 1/6/08 11:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/6/08 09:33 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 1/6/08 08:58 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The BBC seems to achieve that quite well. I don't see why Americans shouldn't.

So the BBC finds every person on the globe that holds a different viewpoint on any issue on any given day.

Which BBC does this air on; BBC1, BBC2 or BBC bullshit.

I watch BBC World. And for a Christian you sure are angry all the time.

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

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

WRONG!

Ron Paul

Time for me to step in, Ron Paul is a good guy by my knowledge, but I believe the one candidate best for president is Dennis Kucinich.

The media is trying to silence him, we will not let that happen.
That is plain and simple, whatever messages appear below mine are worthless unless its other Kucinich supporters with ideas or statements.

Even though this little site holds no value to anyone voting, we will still use it to comunicate with each other and no one will stop us from doing that, I invite any Kucinich supporters to send me an email and I'll tell you where my you tube account page is so we can have a little bit more private conversations, thank you.

All in all, keep it up, keep spreading the word and if some don't like it then shame on them, lets not let these little kids distract us from what needs to be done and discussed in a civil mature manner.

At 1/7/08 03:52 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

All in all, keep it up, keep spreading the word and if some don't like it then shame on them, lets not let these little kids distract us from what needs to be done and discussed in a civil mature manner.

That's pretty ironic since " civil mature manner " is the last thing that would be associated with someone like you.

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

What's the population of the US? 6 million? 60 million? 600 million? I forgot.

But I doubt that he has 6 million or more supporters.

At 1/7/08 05:06 PM, CaptainChip wrote:
What's the population of the US? 6 million? 60 million? 600 million? I forgot.

.

300 million.