Do you ZOMBIE's actually believe there is a difference between Democrat and Republican?

Question

Bush was Scull and Bones

Kerry was Scull and Bones

Clinton was Scull and Bones

Bush 1 was Scull and Bones

Reagan was Scull and Bones

Carter was Scull and Bones

etc... for the last 120 years...

Answer 1

I believe that infowars. . . is full of himself and is a paranoid delusional psychopath.

But then again, I am just a zombie. So I don't know what all that means. But I bet infowars. . . will tell me.

Answer 2

very good question.....personally I'm Independent.

Is the Two-Party System Good for America?

The Democrats recently won the majority in both houses of Congress. They now have the power to do what they have been trying to do for the past 6 years: Stop the war in Iraq. They have taken extreme actions to stop the war they see as wrong and a waste of the lives of our soldiers; they have signed a non-binding resolution. The two-party system is inefficient, if not corrupt, and America would be better off if our representatives were independent.

One of the reasons that the two-party system in its current state isn’’t practical is partisanship. One side believes that they always have to believe the opposite of the other, and vice versa. There is an, ““If the other side believes it then it must be wrong,”” mentality that makes it impossible to get anything done. An example is a bill that was rejected this summer. This bill was intended to raise the minimum wage. The Republicans, however attached a tax cut to the bill, and it was dropped

completely. The Democrats, who are known for caring for the poor, were so worried about not letting the Republicans get their way that they shot down their own bill. The political parties are no longer focused on what is best for America, but on defeating the other party. While we need differing opinions for Democracy to work, there is no need at all for a pre-defined set of differing opinions.

Modern politicians have lost sight of the point of their job: to pass laws to improve the United States and make it better. The parties that they had originally formed to advance their ideas are now no more than unions to keep them in office. They are also worried so much about offending anyone that barely anything gets done.
The founding fathers didn’t plan on the two-party system. There is no mention of political parties as formal entities in the Constitution. The founding fathers were trying to create a unified country, not one that bickers over petty little policies.

The Nation shouldn’t be divided on everything. America needs to come together and get things done.

Recently, there has been a trend called Bipartisanship. This is a step in the right direction, but not a big enough one. Bipartisanship is the working of both parties for the accomplishment of a single goal, but it generally only used in order to provide objective reports. It is not used nearly enough in the writing of laws. The very term bipartisan reveals its main weakness. There are still two different parties, and though they may be working together, they still have their own interests in mind. We need something even more drastic than Bipartisanship.

We need to get rid of political parties altogether. With the political parties out of the way, politicians will have to please the people, rather than their party. Candidates can think freely without the fear of losing the support of their party. The people can easily unseat a candidate that has ignored their wishes.

The common man can easily gain support and make his way into the political realm with little or no connections.

The two party system is no longer functioning as a tool for furthering America. It has become clumsy and inefficient. America needs a drastic change to counteract the polarization the political world. The country would be better off with a no-party political system.

Answer 3

of course there is a difference one starts with a D and the other starts with a R, but, sadly it ends there, what most of our people don't know is that they are both owned by the Zionist and unless they pledge their allegiance to Israel they will not be elected, nor reelected, that has been proven time and time again, as the Zionist own the new's media T,V, stations and 98% of Americans get their new;s and information from one or both as they don't have time to check out the candidates, so they trust the new's media as they think it is honest and will give them the straight scoop,
what they don't realize is that the new's media can and do elect our politicians, by building him up and destroying the other and of course they do it professionally and pretty much unseen, they also have enough control over who is nominated that it don't make a lot of difference to them which one wins as they will own both party's, if you will go back in history and get history before the fifty's you will see that this is the same way they did Germany, they gained control of their new's media and monetary system and had the Germans on their knee's and starving then Hitler came into the picture and every one knows the rest,

Answer 4

Interesting. I knew that Junior and Kerry were both Skull & Bones but not all the others. I wondered at the time of the last Presidential election whether Kerry cared if he won or lost. He wasn't particularly caring or emotional about it. In other words if he had won there would have been no discernible change in policy. So Bush would not have been particularly concerned if he had lost. Conspiracy theory? Maybe but it is interesting food for thought.

Answer 5

exact, traditionally Republicans are for inner optimal accountability, small & smart government, a great protection rigidity and coffee taxes. Democrats have traditionally been for extra useful government, entitlement / social classes, heavy government regulation on employer, and extra useful taxation costs. those are a good number of the extra effective obtrusive & classic variations. regrettably the two events have grown closer in lots of respects over the previous few some years. Now it form of sounds like the two events % to take us down the line of extra useful taxes, extra useful spending and larger government classes with the Republicans only taking us there relatively slower than what the Democrats might like.

Answer 6

there is a difference. the differences however are not numerous and not far-reaching enough.

also, there is a big difference between what differences there are 'in theory' and what differences will actually be passed into policy, which would require the democrats to actually publically stand for something and be bold enough to take positions on it and enact it into law. there are much more theoretical differences than there are "functional" differences.

Answer 7

skull and bones or not. YES there is a HUGE difference between democrats and repuglicans.

Answer 8

You watched the Masonic Right show in Discovery too.


Brains.......Brains.......

Answer 9

No difference, same soup warmed over. They are all criminals and tyrants.