Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Monday, November 5, 2012

"Bad Words" like "Mainstream Media"

Image Source
Mainstream Media is not the Devil.

Though parts of it obviously work for him.

We kid...we kid... mostly.

This past year "Mainstream Media" has been a buzz word all around social media.

It's funny "liberals" blame right-wing conservative for being duped by Fox News (a claim that actually holds a lot of water (1)). particularly those bathed in the New Romney/Republican doctrine, that this year seems to be alluding that a baby resulting from rape just might be 'God's Will'(2), or a woman's body has a way of just "shutting that whole [system] down"(3), or, maybe woman who abort a fetus resulted from rape should be incarcerated(4). Let's not forget a woman might just want to leave it up to the government to make the decisions for her uterus and reproductive health(5), and that's not a breech of the constitution at all...
Once you start creating Constitutional amendments taking away the rights of select people...where does it stop.
Somehow denying a whole group of people rights to marry who they love by amending the Constitution and banning same-sex marriage (first attempted by George Bush in 2006(6)), and now on the Republican docket once again, isn't also a breech of the constitution, as if you let gays marry their same-sex partner that somehow means you are gay, or you might become gay, or your child might decide, as if it's a choice who you are attracted to, that they might want to try out the unpopular lifestyle of gay living, so they too can choose to be disowned by family, shunned by society and hated because of who they choose to love sexually, otherwise, why would it be any of their business.

Of course if you don't agree with any of these things, then you might be a "liberal". Eeekk! Quotations used because anybody who does not salute to the tactics of Republican rule and control, anybody who suggests something different  wants something different, is accused of being a "liberal"...another "Bad Word";

So, "liberals" accuse conservatives of getting their (mis)information from Fox News, and everyone else accuses "liberals" of getting theirs from CNN...or so accused a woman in a conversation we read and took brief part in, this morning on Facebook, with a fellow Obama supporter, and a Gary Johnson (The Libertarian Presidential Candidate) supporter. And you can find similar claims across the internet...everybody thinks their preferred source of news and information is better than anybody else's. It's absurd.

People bitch about mainstream media, primarily because of the cooperation's who govern them via funding/advertising, and force heavily bias and controlling hands on how things are reported, which things are reported, and for how long they are reported. For instance, people like Rupert Murdoch, a political activist/media mogul, a naturalized American worth 8.3 Billion dollars (Hard-Right-Wing Republican), who owns Fox Broadcasting Corporation and News Corporation (assets list including film, television, internet, magazine, publishing companies and more: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=newscorp) with investments in news organizations all over the world.  The heavy bias he demands for his media companies, and the kind of misleading information they provide has been reported over years(7)(8); and it's very clear to anyone with half a brain if you watch/read the "information" pumped from some of his top monsters of faux-journalism*.

But then the non-traditional/independent on-line news sources have very little authority to answer to, or be accountable to. On many levels this is true. In a country where lying isn't illegal, even for the news programs (FACT: It Is Not Illegal to Falsify News or Lie http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2012/06/fact-it-is-not-illegal-to-falsify-news.html), and much of what is put on television goes unchecked on a day-to-day basis, the only real risk is someone suing the news organization in the case of libel, or potentially some sort of civil court case. Sure, you could try to go up against a multi-million dollar organization citing them for being liars...or you could just let them lie, because you'll probably lose anyway. Not to mention it's their right lie, after all.

The legal right for media companies to be able to tell you what they want with no consequences actually builds a solid case for researching what you hear or read in the news; but if you do so without critical thinking skills, and a mindset with willingness to read news reports that may not "gel" with your preconceived notions...followed by logic to guide you to some sort of conclusion...well...you're fucked. And woolly.

It's hard to weed through the slosh of bullshit available on the internet, you can literally find information to back up almost any claim - from op-eds, blogs, and "underground media" - which can be misleading as any source, and sometimes outright propaganda lies and made-up news...what news sources are we to trust? A good start is news sources that use citations, reference official documents, use actual archived video and audio footage of what they are talking about, and while you may be able to detect a bias, it's hard sometimes and makes you think for yourself.

An example. We followed a link on Twitter awhile back reporting about how Michigan was becoming a "Muslim State" and were lead to a blog with no real affiliation, which worked to highlight just that premise...that because allegedly when you call automated phone systems in Michigan you get the option for a Muslim language of some sort, along with English and Spanish. The piece went on the cite a recent event where local Muslim were allegedly throwing urine and rocks at Christians who were protesting on the street, and then linked to a video of that day.

What nobody mentioned (it took research to find out) was that the group being "attacked" were protesting an ethnic festival, much like a German, or Hispanic, or Indian festival. And that a group of large white Christian males congregated at it, yelled derogatory remarks over a bullhorn, wearing t-shirts we can only imagine said derogatory things in a Muslim script. They were there to incite violence at a peaceful festival. They made a big deal about the local police trying to control them, even though they were interfering with an otherwise peaceful event, and breaking a city law with use of the bullhorn. There was part of a clip where it was clear the person holding the camera reached out and tried to grab at a young woman dressed in Middle Eastern garb, and by young, we mean under the age of 18. She pulled away and told the person behind the camera to "get the fuck off of her". In addition most of the camera work was quick moving at best, so you were not able to view clearly who was all involved in throwing things. By the time we got to the video and checked out what other sources they used, which turned out to be nothing from an actual verifiable source, just going from blog, to blog, to blog...we discredited the whole thing as being propaganda by someone who hated Muslims and wanted to paint them in a poor light. We call that misleading hate-inciting propaganda, because believe it are not, all Muslims are not terrorists, and they are not all violent, anymore than you are.

This kind of stuff is literally ALL over the internet.

Another example, an independent/liberal news source, on the day of the first presidential debate, apparently claimed that all of the questions for debate were submitted by the Romney and Obama (or their teams) and were agreed on days in advance. We heard this piece of information second-hand, and were never able to local the referenced source; something leads us to believe it was claimed to have come from Democratic Underground, a liberal news source that we find generally questionable. Even if it had been true, it didn't seem to accomplish anything other than Jim Lehrer (the moderator) having to make a statement about when the questions were formed, saying "Thousands of people offered suggestions on segment subjects or questions via the Internet and other means, but I made the final selections. And for the record, they were not submitted for approval to the commission or the candidates."(9)

It really wouldn't have mattered either way, Romney would have just had different lies or the same lies, who knows, and President Obama would have looked just as exhausted by being proverbially blown by  a windbag of hot air. (Big Bird On The Brink of Extinction...and Other Debate Foibles http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2012/10/big-bird-on-brink-of-extinctionand.html)

Even when the truth comes out people are okay with supporting lies, and the liars who tell them, if they think it's in their best interest. Perfect example, even though they say his campaign may be suffering from his big Chrysler Lie(10), flocks will be out in droves supporting him. Mitt Romney has been lying for months, if not longer. His flip-flopping, and out-right lying is well documented, all over the internet, by countless sources, and you can even see videos of him saying one thing, and the next day claiming another. "Flip-flopping" is just another word for liar. Americans voting for Romney want to support a liar. That's not bias, that's a fact. If you are okay with Romney, you are okay with a smug liar. That's your business though, not ours.

In any case, most mainstream media outlets start by getting their news prompts from people like the Associated Press, a place where a high volume of news organizations get their news. Then each organization expands on it by doing research, sending a reporter out into the field, gathering first-hand reports, compiling sources to back of what they want to say (if they are a news source worth their salt, anyway) and then on occasion they interject personal bias. A quality news source will provide far more tangible information, and far less leading questions...if they want you to make up your own mind about what you are reading. Those news sources are out there...they really are.

"Reliable" mainstream media, or "traditional" media, has it's place in the life of the busy person on the go, who doesn't have much time to research, cross reference and dig deeper. Mainstream media is a good way to get blurbs on what's happening, and in most cases are accurate, do not offer "over the top" bias talking points, or create outright lies. The only exception is the "popular" Fox News (dubbed Faux News by people who are no stranger to research and reference and reality). Faux News is term more notably used for the cable TV Fox News channel, though local syndicates are heavy with bias if you put it into terms of equal coverage across, say, political candidates. For instance, last night they covered political news, and in the short time they mentioned the State Senator race, the Republican candidate got 30 seconds, at least, of talking time in the clip, whereas the Democratic candidate got less than 15 seconds and the clip was cut-off mid sentence. Paul Ryan's jaunts of the day were mentioned, with full clips of his speech in in some Midwestern state. Bill Clinton did an apparent appearance somewhere, with no clip of him talking. Apparently we didn't need to hear what he has to say. A small, but noticeable, difference. It was probably our mistake for tuning into the local news anyway.

At the end of the day Mainstream Media is just as much bullshit as any other media if you want it to be, and if you don't want it to be, then it's as irrefutable as...the Bible, probably. There's probably a correlation.

Anybody who doesn't agree with what the news is saying, even if it's true unbiased, will be inclined to label it "liberal" and claw for any hint of bias. The point is, you should seek out "the rest of the story", and think critically, work your way around the idea in your head, look at it from different angles, stretch your limits. Or, just be told how to think. It's none of our business.

For expanding on your news sources, if you are interested, we recommend checking out the following:
'BBC' http://www.bbc.com/
'Center for Media and Democracy' http://www.prwatch.org/cmd
'The Raw Story' http://www.rawstory.com/rs/
'Media Matters' http://mediamatters.org/
'Talking Points Memo' http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
'Think Progress' http://thinkprogress.org

In the end, the biggest controversy, the thing people have a problem with, is large media conglomerates controlling the news, like having big GMO companies controlling the food source ('From Lab to Field, And On Your Knees' http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2012/09/from-lab-to-field-and-on-your-knees.html), Big Business and SuperPac's buying elections, and Corporations having the same rights as a person(11), as the road to corporate fascism is paved right over the country they love, before their very eyes. It's going to become the America we don't know, and the one we don't want to know.

The corporate mainstream media lies to you, and so does everyone else.
The corporate mainstream media has bias, and so does everyone else.
You have a brain, use it.

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

*A little funny...

Nonstop Libya-Gate Questions

Why didn't the consulate have more security, why was the intelligence so slow to come out, and if you put a statement in the form of a question, is that journalism?


Resources and Citation:
1. Yet Another Survey: Fox News Viewers Worst-Informed, NPR Listeners Best-Informed, Andrew Kirell, Mediaite, LLC, May 23, 2012 http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-another-survey-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed-npr-listeners-best-informed/

2. Richard Mourdock: God at Work if Rape Causes Pregnancy, Associated Press, Washington Post, October 24, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/richard-mourdock-god-at-work-if-rape-causes-pregnancy/2012/10/24/dc81932f-480d-468d-bae5-5c8dea35e97c_video.html

3. Rep. Todd Akin: The Statement and the Reaction, Lori Moore, New York Times, August 20, 2012

4. GOP Senate Candidate Supports Life Sentences For Rape Victims Who Obtain Abortions, Annie-Rose Strasser, Think Progress, September 4, 2012

5. Obama and Romney on Women's Issues, Janel Davis, PolitiFact, October 30, 2012 http://www.politifact.com/georgia/article/2012/oct/30/obama-and-romney-womens-issues/

6. The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage: Amending The Constitution, PBS Newshour Online, June 20, 2006 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/amending.html

7. The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt, Seth Ackerman, FAIR: Fair Accuracy In Reporting. July/August 2001 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067'

8. Rupert Murdoch Has Gamed American Politics Every Bit as Thoroughly as Britain's, John Nichols, The Nation, July 16, 2011 http://www.thenation.com/blog/162083/rupert-murdoch-has-gamed-american-politics-every-bit-thoroughly-britains#

9. October 3, 2012 Debate Transcript, Commission On Presidential Debates http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-3-2012-debate-transcript

10. Mitt Romney Has Been Telling A Huge Whopper About The Auto Industry, And His Campaign Is Finally Paying For It, Grace Wyler, Business Insider, October 29, 2012 http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-lies-auto-chrysler-jobs-2012-10

11. Romney in Iowa: 'Corporations are people' too, James Oliphant, LA Times, August 11, 2011 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/11/news/la-pn-romney-state-fair-20110811 and
Mitt Romney- Corporations Are People!, C-Span News Clip via YouTube, September 11, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Why Watching the Vice-Presidential Debate is Important


The Vice Presidential Debate is tomorrow night.

The debates are important, even if you are already a decided voter (if you're not a voter at all, well, we have nothing to say to you today). The debates are an important way to get the information from "the horses mouth", so to speak. Remembering of course that you have to check out even what you hear from the trusted horse. It's common knowledge a week later that Romney's side of the debate from last week was packed with lies or "fibs", if you prefer. (Allegedly, 27 or more myth/lies in 35 minutes (1)). It's important to be an informed voter, in a society where people stick to party-line voting, often you could be voting for someone who's not at all interested in your best interests. Party line voters vote for a party, and not a platform, no matter how much it might hurt them in the future, no matter what the party stands for today (for example, since the 1950's the Republican party is almost completely opposite on many topics); party line voters would benefit from being more informed as to the similarities and differences between the candidates. Not only that, but what the opposition plans to do for your future, if elected, should be a concern. Raise taxes, lower taxes. Cut funding to important programs, not cutting funding. Improving education. Not improving it. Healthcare. Restrictive healthcare. The issues go on and on.

This Vice Presidential debate will be important because some people, like us, are still waiting to hear about those tax cuts and loopholes the Romney/Ryan ticket said they were going to offer, then said they weren't going to offer. Not sure what they are saying this week. They seem to be going back on almost every platform they started off the year with.

What about topics like abortion? No, Romney says doesn't "know of any abortion-related legislation" he would pursue as president. Even though it's been part of campaigning for months leading up to the first Presidential Debates.

While he knows not of "abortion-related legislation", his party/campaign has said he plans on cutting Planned Parenthood funding, which is detrimental to many low income women for simple things like exams and pap smears. We've personally used Planned Parenthood in our younger days for affordable birth control (still paid a fee for it though), and yearly female exams to check for breast cancer, and other female cancers (still paid a fee on a sliding income-based scale). Men are even welcome for basic low-cost STD testing at Planned Parenthood clinics, an important service to maintaining a healthy society. Just because you cut the funding doesn't mean people will stop having sex. To think so would be idiotic.

The Romney/Ryan ticket has said more than once they plan to cut the funding for Planned Parenthood because some of the centres provide services like abortion. Cutting funding will in turn make it harder for women to get birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby increasingly unwanted pregnancies, which, with no abortion services, will lead to more unwanted babies/children to low-income women, and will equal more people using welfare services, meaning you will have to pay more. Oh, you don't want to, so you'll cut all the services to people in need? The "blood" from the infant deaths can be on your hands then. Making abortions harder to get will also revive "back-alley" abortions, which were common prior to Roe vs. Wade (1973), and caused many women to die, be ill, and sterile, for life.

But Romney has come out this week and said his platform does not include support abortion legislation (despite the walk back on the comments by his campaign (2)). So maybe Ryan will have more to say about that tomorrow night at the debates. It'll be interesting to see if they flip-flop on it overnight, but it's unlikely to even come up.

Then there's the 47%.

Maybe Ryan, who seems to have stuck to his 30% comment (3), will have something to say on behalf of Romney who said this week in an interview with Wolf Blitzer that he was "wrong" about the 47% (4); even though after the release of the infamous video, and weeks after, he "doubled down" and stood by his words. Now he says he was wrong, meaning people who supported the conflated accusation that people, 47% of them, who at some point in their life needed a government service (under-employed, retired people, disabled people, and military veterans among them) are lazy or refuse take responsibility for their life; if you supported that statement by Romney, he told you this last week that you were wrong.

But who knows, he might jump back to your side any day.

In countless interviews over the past few weeks were both Romney and Ryan have refused to talk about real plans for reducing the deficit, refused to supply real numbers and real descriptions of the loopholes he plans to close; Romney and Ryan want you to trust they can reduce the deficit while also giving you tax cuts, which they say they are both planning, and not planning, depending on the day. They want you to believe they can fix the deficit by increasing military spending, which is already 20% of the budget. Many professionals, from both sides of the political center line, speculate over the plausibility of all of it.


We'd like to hear more about everything the Romney/Ryan ticket has flipped-flopped on, just to see where they stand as Romney edges towards a more moderate platform, turning on everything that he's said he strongly stood for and has since become soft on.


So, we're watching the Vice Presidential Debate tomorrow night to hear concrete information about the Romney/Ryan plan to reduce the deficit, as well as other things dear to us in this election: namely human rights, education, and the environment; because no matter the outcome of the election, something will have a personal effect on us, though far less when compared to the impact it will have on other people. Like we've said in the past, our choice in the election has very little to do with us personally (the only way it effects us is whether or not we can get health insurance or not. Uninsured pre-exiting conditions under Romneycare are not eligible for his plan), rather it has more to do with people we care about.

Read our review on the First Presidential Debate here: 'Big Bird On The Brink of Extinction...and Other Debate Foibles' http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2012/10/big-bird-on-brink-of-extinctionand.html
------------------------------

Listen to some interesting words from Franklin D. Roosevelt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RHnKYNvx8 (sorry, embedding has been turned off, otherwise we wouldn't ask you to follow a YouTube link)
The transcript:
"Let me warn you, and let me warn the nation, against the smooth evasion that says 'Of course we believe these things. We believe in social security. We believe in work for the unemployed. We believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die.

'We believe in all these things. But we do not like the way that the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything'"

Sources and Citation:
(1) At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes, Igor Volsky, Think Progress, October 4, 2012 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

(2) Romney promises no abortion legislation will be part of presidential agenda, Associated Press, Washington Post, October 9, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-promises-no-abortion-legislation-will-be-part-of-presidential-agenda/2012/10/09/e318e74e-1273-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html

(3) Rep. Paul Ryan Claims 30% Of Americans "Want Welfare State", Michael Allen, Opposing Views, October 3, 2012, http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-rep-paul-ryan-claims-30-americans-want-welfare-state

(4) Mitt Romney CNN Interview: The 47% Comment Is 'Not What I Meant', Sam Stein, Huffington Post, October 9, 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-cnn-interview_n_1952708.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Big Bird On The Brink of Extinction...and Other Debate Foibles

What a debate, hey?

In an attempt to lower the deficite Mitt came up with "firing Big Bird". You know that already though, it's all over the web, all over TV. It's the biggest meme to hit the internet since 'Eastwood's Empty Chair'

People are saying, wait "This is what you're taking from the debate?!"

Well, not exactly.

First, his big idea to cut PBS, and other programs likes it, seems a little...off. And how it would help the economy is a little illusive in the grand scheme of the federal budget.

PBS is .012%...yes, there is a decimal point AND a zero before the 1 and the 2...

He wants to CUT the .012% budget funding for PBS, but RAISE military/war spending this is already 20% of the budget...1


It's really a joke that writes itself.

There's a lot of reports from all over about how "he won" the debate, but then in turn they talk about how he did it with lies. He was a slicked up and 'smooth criminal' on-stage, what with the disingenuous smarmy look on his face half the time, forcing himself to appear the "caring" candidate, while re-branding the 47% as "less fortunate" and saying he's going to fire Big Bird. How sweet, right?

Anyway, our take on what details he actually provided, and our take on the night.

He wants to lower your taxes, but remove itemized deductions; deductions which LOWER your taxable income rate (if you file using itemized deductions), deductions like:

Child deductions
Home owners deductions
Classroom expenses for teachers and educators
Qualified performing artists and other professions
Traditional IRA deduction
Student loan interest deduction
Tuition and fees deduction
Health savings account deduction
Moving expenses
Self-employment tax deduction
Self-employment health insurance
SEP-IRA, SIMPLE IRA and 401(k) deductions for the self-employed
Early withdrawal penalty
Alimony paid
Domestic production activities deduction


Removing deductions potentially increases your taxable rate. He also wants to but a cap on deductions to the tune of $17000, which we understand, for household with children, you can hit the ceiling of that cap pretty fast.

Of course he won't tell anyone which of these deductions he's planning to cut, or which "loopholes" he will close...guess you'll just have to wait.

We also wish Obama would have brought up that in March, when he implored the GOP-dominated Congress to eliminate the $4 Billion in Big Oil subsidies (handouts), they said 'no' to the suggestions while simultaneously requesting to end tax credits for wind power development.2 Which actually caused a wind turbine manufacturing company in North Dakota to lay-off 345 this past week, and opt for moving those jobs to Brazil.3 We would have liked Obama to ask Romney how "his people" think that that means funding renewable energy, like he says he plans to do.

It's essential to fund renewable energy sources while raping the earth for it's non-renewable resources, because one day their won't be anything left to take. It also creates jobs, which is essential to fixing the economy.

The other thing we have an issue with is Romney's healthcare claim that those with pre-existing conditions WON'T be denied medical insurance under his plan, when the truth is that those who already have, or have had insurance in the last 3 months, are the ones who are protected, not those currently uninsured, as stated by Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's own advisor 4 ;and instead funding for them will have to come from the individual states.

Uninsured people with pre-existing conditions, like us...and over 50 million other Americans.5

Anyway. We're not sure if we'll be able to watch the other two Presidential debates in "real time", we're 18 days from closing on our new property and have inspections to arrange, moving to do, and we just found out last night that while they have finally gotten the well pump replaced, and the water running...the plumbing in the house isn't working. Just another thing we have to figure out and fix before the snow hits and stays.

In any case, hopefully you've done your election research, looked into claims by both sides, and continue to stay informed and un-biased as you can muster.

There's much fact checking to have a crack at.

Visit:
FactCheck.org - http://www.factcheck.org/ to read about who said what, and how much truth were in the words. Don't worry, "righties", it's actually a fair and balanced fact checking website.

Articles of Interest:
Mitt Romney wants to cap tax deductions. Here are five ways to do it, Dylan Matthews, Washington Post, October 3, 2012  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/03/mitt-romney-wants-to-cap-tax-deductions-here-are-five-ways-to-do-it/

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes, Igor Volsky, Think Progress, Oct 4, 2012 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

Sources and Citation:
1) Does Washington have a spending problem or an income problem? We offer some key facts, Fiscal FactCheck, FactCheck.org, July 15, 2011 http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

2) 46 Republicans Claim Wind Credits Are Too ‘Costly’ After Voting To Retain Billions In Big Oil Subsidies, Rebecca Leber, September 26, 2012 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/26/909151/46-republicans-claim-wind-credits-are-too-costly-after-voting-to-retain-billions-in-big-oil-subsidies/

3) LM Wind Power Eliminates 345 Workers In New Round Of Layoffs, NAW Staff, North American WindPower, September 27, 2012 http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.10464

4) Top Romney Adviser: States Will Have To Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions Under President Romney, Brian Beutler, October 3, 2012 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php

5) Healthcare Reform: Help For Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions, Families USA, May 2010 http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/health-reform/pre-ex-conditions-findings.html


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Drinking In The Presidential Debate

That's right, a drinking game based on the first Presidential debate of 2012.

It's tonight, by the way.

You should know that, if you are American.

The debate starts tonight, October 3rd, 2012, at 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on your local channels. (Click for Time zone map for the time-zone-challenged) Tonight's debate focuses on DOMESTIC policy, that means things that will effect you and your fellow Americans on the home front. Social and economic issues: Equal rights (women's reproductive rights and fair pay, gay marriage rights, healthcare, ect.), economy (jobs, stock market, small business, big business, etc.) and education. From watching the weeks leading up to this debate, it's going to be sloppy, entertaining and, hopefully, informative. The Republican debate trainers has been touting it's "bag of zingers" for days...that Romney has been practicing some for months (maybe that's why he has no idea how to define his economic plan in specific numbers, to busy memorizing "zingers") - clueless as to how childish and petty that seems. The debate isn't about personal jabs and zingers, it's about the information people need to make an informed decision at the poles. There will likely be a couple heated moments. American people love theatrical drama, how else can you explain the "reality television" craze.

(Note: The Foreign Policy debate is October 22, 2012)

Yes. We're trying to make politic seem fun, because it's important. Some might disagree the importance of the government, but at this point in America, if we didn't have a government like we do we would surely be attacked by increasing amounts of "enemies" on our homeland.
If you don't think we have something that other countries want, you're kidding yourself.
And no, that thing they want it NOT freedom. There is actually a lot of freedom in a lot of countries, and a growing amount at that; it's narrow-minded, false-nationalistic, and xenophobic people who don't educate themselves that don't understand that. Who don't understand the atrocities and violence that are carried out each day in our own country, the ever increasing limit on personal freedom; who focus on the sensationalization of limited and targeted coverage of other countries by the television news organizations to juxtapose their own country. That thing that other countries want is land. Not the people, not the freedom.

BACK TO THE DRINKING GAME!

You should watch the debate, because word is the Mitt Romney is finally going to tell you what his plan it to help America, not simply that they have a "framework" that you should blindly trust. It's all well and good to claim you are going to help, but a growing number of people want to hear exactly how. Tonight has to be the night he tells us. It's a month until the election. (November 6, 2012)

Speaking of framework, that's one of the key, or buzz, words.

The list, in no particular order:
Economy
Jobs
Framework
Middle Class
Numbers

The "rules":
So, you take a drink when you hear these words. Simple as.
(For a get-you-drunk-faster-game, scroll down).

ALSO: No harassment if you are playing along on-line (we will be on-line with our usual snark). That's it. Don't be a fucking dick to people on Twitter (or Facebook, or G+, or whatever social media entity you use), try to be an adult, encourage discourse...and pay attention. Try to refrain from name-calling. Swearing is obviously okay, because we're all adults here, in theory.

REMEMBER: Tomorrow (Thursday), when you wake up... research things you've heard..and keep researching, keep reading, be informed, it's a few hours out of your life in the grand scheme of things. Ask questions, demand answers. Be informed.

RECOMMENDED FACT ✓CHECKING RESOURCES
Fact Check.org
Media Matters Action Network
Media Matters for America
Open Secrets - Center for Responsive Politics
PolitiFact

OR, alternatively you could play by this guideline, it's far more involved and you won't make it off the floor at the end of the night:

Thanks goes to @IAmTheCrew for sharing this today on Facebook!

Have fun, be safe, watch the debates.