Has the American public become the victim of divide and conquer by our leaders?

Question

Have we allowed the party leaders to cause us all to battle each other's views when they aren't really practicing what our individual parties represent anyway??

Clinton's administration has a long list of people in the government who were caught up in corruption and tried.
Bush's administration also has a long list as well!
I understand everyone wants lists and names but I don't have it all listed off the top of my head--but a small easy search and there is many people lately.
Halliburton has been charged and fined 3 times that I have discovered while employed with both administrations.

We are all backstabbing and calling each other disgusting names at whose expense---our own!
Most of the people who are in high branches of government today are Zionists and Globalists who could give a Damn about "average or below average" Americans--except for their vote!!!

We need to take our country back!
Any suggestions??

Answer 1

Impose short term limits for the house and senate. enact strict anti lobbying laws. Revise campaign contributions.

Just a start, I am sure there is much more that can be done.

Answer 2

Yes. A slight change in the numbers & someone has gotten way too big for her britches then the fight is own. A lot of time is being spent on a piece of paper that not only has no power but it has already been decided it will be vetoed. What is the point of a useless vote? Now we are going to have Nancy get the minmum wage bill vetoed by adding it to a bill the President has already said he would veto. I guess that tells us how important the common man is. Fix my taxes or get rid of illegals.

Voting for real issues backed by a voting record & not a
commerical or what CNN or Fox said. The media has driven the hate between parties & the misinformation from the Internet. Most voters can not tell you how their canidates voted in the past.

Answer 3

I agree with you. I fully blame the President for not uniting us in our mission. Seriously, have we been lead at all or have we simply been kept informed of the goings on in the White House? Our next President must bring heal and cross party lines. I am shocked to this day that Bush is President...even more shocked that he is in his 2nd term. It is a sign of weakness, and the world sees it, to have that fella out front.

Rant off. A third party is needed to break up the reds and blues and the guys in the sunglasses behind each party. That's the only way we can reform and move forward.

Answer 4

On February 16, 2007, the United States House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution “rebuking” the “new” G.W. Bush regime policy in Iraq: a troop “surge” of 21,000. This so-called symbolic rejection of the latest Bush Iraq war escalation is a ploy for people's 2008 presidential votes, rather than any real imposition of justice upon the orchestrators of the illegal war in Iraq. The Democrats would like the us to believe that they (Democrats) are opposed to the war in Iraq while continuing to support the infrastructure necessary to continue it. They verbally condemn the administration and the war, continuing to pass legislation and funding that makes it possible. After passage of the non-binding resolution on February 16, 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, “The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.” Sure it will, Nancy.

On April 23, 2006, a Newsweek headline declared, “Balad Air Base in Iraq Evidence That U.S. Planning to Stay For a Long Time; 15-Square-Mile Mini-City One of Four 'Superbases' Where The Pentagon Will Consolidate U.S. Forces”. The article stated that, “There is ample evidence elsewhere of America's long-term plans. The new $592 million U.S. embassy being built at the heart of Baghdad's 'international zone.'“ Newsweek quotes, Barry Johnson, a spokesman for CENTCOM in Baghdad, saying. "What we have in Iraq are 'contingency bases,' intended to support our operations in Iraq on a temporary basis until OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) is complete." The Pentagon has learned much from George Orwell's doublespeak. So has the Democratic Party which wants us to believe that supporting the war effort is not the same as supporting the war, that supporting the troops is not the same as supporting the killing death and destruction. Yes it is.

The Democrats in the U.S. House know full well what the war in Iraq is all about. They know that victory is what comes out of the ground for access to that oil is what controls the global economy.

Put simply, the Bush Family and their allies and cronies represent the confluence of three long-established power factions in the American elite: oil, arms and investments. These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation - indeed, the world - as a whole. And they pursue these interests with every weapon at their command, including war, torture, deceit and corruption.

By continuing to fund the war, by supporting the mechanisms that make the war possible, the Democratic Party is supporting war, torture, deceit and corruption. They are guilty of the same murder and crimes against humanity that the Bush crime family is guilty of. Supporting the troops is making those crimes possible.

Many liberals who make the claim of being anti-war distinguish between supporting the troops and not supporting the war. This door doesn't swing both ways. Knowing the Iraq war to be illegal and immoral, how can liberals support those who willingly participate in carrying it out?

Those who rationalize the morality of supporting the troops make the immoral possible. We are either opposed to the illegal war in Iraq, or we are not. We can support the victims of war on all sides, without supporting the killers, and without encouraging the killing. To do otherwise is to lack the conviction that the Iraq war is illegal and a crime against humanity.

War is murder. We cannot be in support of murderers while opposing murder. I will not honor that which makes murder and war possible. Liberals and Democrats want to condemn war and then honor or commemorate those who make war. Those who kill are killers no matter what the cause or ideology, or what the flag, or what the religion, or what the reason. If, as Nancy Pelosi says, “There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them”, then she, and we, have honored the killing in our name and at our request. I will not honor that.

The recent non-binding resolution passed in Congress against the escalation in Iraq has the Democrats having it both ways, again. Those in Congress who oppose war should shed the G.W. Bush avoidance complex of not taking responsibility. They should offer the proof of their convictions for ending the war by defunding it. U.S. Representative, Dennis Kucinich, stated,

The Federal Court has made it abundantly clear that once a war is well underway, Congress' real power is to cut off funds. Funding the war is approval of the war.

Answer 5

America has always been divided. This notion that we were somehow all of a like mind in the past, happened very seldom and only during times of great struggle. Even there there was the loyal opposition.

Politicians and media historically have been quite vitriolic towards their opposition.

I would say the only difference today is there is an active element that actively wants to see America fail. They want us to fail militarily and economically, because they hate our president so much they want him ruined and his policies discredited.

Answer 6

This is a great question Kelly, and as usual, dstr gave an outstanding answer!!!! You are right, we do need to take our country back, before it is too, late!!!

Answer 7

Good sentiment. Compromise in this country may come from this vein.

I think anti-corruption should be the one position both sides agree on.

Answer 8

Yes, If we are fighting with each other we aren't paying attention to the "Under the table dealings that are going on".

Answer 9

You are making a serious claim without any proof. I think this is referred to as mudslinging.

The new anti-Semitism masquerades as anti-Zionism, and I fear that is what motivates you.

So the answer to your question is a resounding NO.

Answer 10

There is a section of 149,999,999 that are divided from America.

But they are happy about being RedsStaters.

Go big Red Go