The "Commission on Presidential Debates" is a non-profit organization
run by the Democratic and Republican parties and funded by corporate
sponsors.

Hmm, wonder why they won't let independent candidates participate?

So much for "democracy" . . . which of course is nothing more than a
buzzword -- a concept that people like to attach themselves too. In
reality, politicians and their followers (yes, that's you folks, with
your bumper stickers, signs, flags, talking points, and voting) are
only interested in control, at whatever cost, all the while in the
name of "democracy".

Come on people, grow up.

http://satyagraha.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/the-commission-on-presidential-debates.../

padlrnc@nc.rr.com (ta) wrote in
news:9cf80abb-a74b-4a0a-baf0-fa51e8cb387b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

Are you saying that the CPD doesn't follow it's own rules for
selecting candidates to appear in the debates?

http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html

It's a 501(c)(3) corporation; if you think it's partisan or corrupt,
you should contact the IRS.

On Aug 20, 4:47 pm, Bert Hyman iphouse.com> wrote:

Hmmm, let me think some more . . . why would an organization created
by the two parties that control the nation's political system create
requirements that make it nearly impossible for third party candidates
to join the "debate".

How would you expect minority parties to ever gain enough popularity
to join the debates if they are basically shut out by the media?

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:53:57 -0500, Hans Metterling wrote:

No need for this.

He's absolutely right. Even if not right, it is a reasonable position and
worthy of discussion. It would be unreasonable not to.

There can be all kinds of pretty rules and regs just like there can be
all kinds of pretty political promises that spew forth this time of the
year. End result being they mean next to nothing.

Rules and regs need to be enforced. What is absolutely independent of the
two major parties and their sponsors inside the federal court system? By
independent, I mean being invulnerable to political attack. Or, is that
some nutty idea? A politically motivated attack?

Or does it stand up to reason that in the United States the entire scope
of political opinion is represented by two parties.

Is it reasonable that ONE party makes for a totalitarian government but
TWO makes for 'democracy' at it's very best.

In reading: "Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility"

On Aug 21, 10:09 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

In news:0bc8e898-bce9-4e24-ac7d-62376db7d69f@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
ta nc.rr.com> wrote:

So, you'll be taking the needed steps tomorrow morning, right?

Or do you prefer to just whine in newsgroups?