Debating the Debates...Part II

Debate #1 on 10-3-12 was nothing short of fantastic.....until they spoke.  Jim, the moderator, was overcome with overrun.  Hardly in control.  Incumbent, at certain points, looked as lost as a Chevy man at a Yugo dealership.  Contender...reminiscent of previous contenders...just a different face.  Non-stop salvos of accusation fly across the stage, causing me to ask, "If each candidate were guilty of half the charges, why the h--- do we vote for ANY of them?"
If you watched the debate on democracynow.org, you learned how the 2 major(?) parties formed a commission which ultimately forced the League of Women Voters out of the process and prevented any alternative party contenders from participating.  You also would have learned how the debates are controlled and what questions would be allowed.  Do the words, rehearsal and choreograph come to mind?  Speaking of come to mind, have you noticed the TV/Radio/Newspaper lack of coverage given to any other candidate?  Have you taken the time to wonder why?
The next few weeks will be filled with ads ad infinitum, ad nauseum, causing you to thank the remote gods for a "Mute" button.  Regardless of what you are promised, know that if the White House gets a new occupant, the true 1st priority will be redecorating.  Then, and ONLY then, will the task of business as usual begin.  If the incumbent incumbs, well, you pretty much know what's in store.  (I wonder if any of these people ever watched, "The West Wing?")
Now that I've upset the apple cart, again, I leave you something to consider.  Since Mr. Eisenhower departed the White House, are you REALLY satisfied that YOUR well-being has been at the forefront?

Debating the Debates

Without going into a lengthy diatribe, I'll say that we have been slowly conditioned into believing that there should be ONLY a 2 party system. Why? It's what has been designed by those with money and power. It's called "control." Allowing at least 1 more party threatens the comfortable existence they now enjoy, paid for by we the people. I therefore encourage you to watch what is explained below and give consideration to write-ins. Yes, a write-in dilutes the vote for the 2 main candidates, (My, how convenient), but...done enough times, more people will exercise this option and cause incumbents to do what we voted them to do, as opposed to doing what they can/will get away with.  (You might have to copy/paste the below noted site)


From my great friend in Georgia: Yesterday I found out that democracynow.org is going to be live for the debate tonight and doing something no other channel will (as far as I know). They will pause between the questions to allow both the candidates for the Green Party and Justice Party to answer. This is important to me because I am considering writing in Jill Stein of the Green Party in on my ballot in November and casting my vote for her. Both her and the Justice party are legal write in on the GA ballot.
I think it is important for people to "tune in" online for another reason too. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic and Republican Party are both being run by the corporations and money holders. Although they scream their differences neither stray far from the beliefs of those handing out the cash. In many ways they are casting the vote for the same old same old no matter which way they talk. So, I think it is important for third, fourth and more parties to become a part of the scene. How many people even realize that there are other parties in this country? Not since Perot (Did I spell that right?) I would imagine and only because he was allowed to be present in the debate. So, if enough people watch on democracy now tonight just maybe the media and the Giants of decision making will see that it would be beneficial to their pockets to add variety to the debates. Even if you watch via tv on a media station perhaps you could tune in via computer on to democracynow.com? En joy.