Do Republicans and Demarcates both want more governments and control?

Question

1. Big brother, I.D. cards, chipping us, Corporate control, Fear... ...
2. How to eat, live, transportation ... ...


Are they both out for the same agenda in the long run? Good cop bad cop? Deceptively separate us by moral differences on a few key issues.
1. abortion
2. war
3. Gay marriage
4. death penalty

I am sure you could think of more and better examples. It is not important, the point is clear.

global warming How could I have forgot lol
O yea I never even touched that one.

Answer 1

Why do people always think this is about the size or amount of government. It is about the EFFECT of government.

Answer 2

Your key issues can delete gay marriage. That is not an issue for the government to get involved in. Neither, for that matter, is abortion. In fact, the only issue the government would be concerned with is war, which is waged in defense of the nation.

Real I.D. cards are intended to weed out illegals and terrorists, who both pose a threat to us in different ways. It became an issue because of the islamic jihad that wants to destroy America and an illegal issue that has been too long ignored by our elected representatives.

Abortion is a medical and personal choice for a woman but a contitutional issue for the fetus. Why anyone supports the murder of an unborn child as a birth control measure is just as detestable as the abortion itself. Now, if a mother's life is in danger, that is another matter.

The death penalty is supported by a majority of citizens because we recognize that you cannot rehabilitate a disease, you must eradicate it.

Gay marriage is an overblown crock of sh*t being advocated by a small percentage of people who think they are special because they are homosexual. They have no more reverence for the state of matrimony than they do for monogamy. However, it is a state's rights issue. If its okay in Vermont or Massachusetts or California, then that is up to the voters in those states. If the people in Idaho, Nevada, or Montana say NO, then the ACLU and other homosexual groups need to accept the voice of the people. There is NO clause in the Constitution that protects or supports homosexual marriage.

The jury on global warming and what we, as human beings can do about it, is still out. There is a need to reduce greenhouse gases that are decimating the ozone that is a real concern with ultraviolet rays streaming through because of the increased cancer threat. However, global warming, in my opinion, is just another "hot button" issue in an election year environment. There are paid advocates on either side of the issue. Besides, most climatologists suggest that we are more likely to experience another ice age than a Waterworld.

Now, to answer your question if Repubs and Dems want more power over the people.
That is up to the people. When you cast your vote, make sure that the person you are voting for best represents your views on how the country should be run and not what his political party is. Keep in mind that the party platform should be the candidate's platform as well, so that will determine your political points of view. Both parties have good and bad points, so it is perfectly fine to vote across party lines. We have examples of people who have bucked the party line. Know the candidate and his/her voting record and pay less attention to advertisements, slogans, and internet blogs.

Answer 3

Those who support the Republican Party in the U.S. seek absolute governmental control via taxation of the lower and middle class citizens of the United States. The agenda of the Republican Party also extends to demoralizing the American public education system. The No Child Left Behind Act, promoted by Queen Laura Bush, and signed into law by her paramour, George, is one of the most heinous acts ever perpetuated upon the American public education system since the American government forced Native Americans to attend government schools, punished by beatings and starvation if they spoke their native language.

Laura and George want me, a Native American, to accept millions of Hispanics, who refuse to learn English into my country! I will not!

The Democratic party may not be perfect; but, I pray their representatives stand up for the "rights" of the people who are "legal citizens", and not those who are "illegally" usurping my, and my children's "rights".

My grandmother graduated from the Cherokee National Female Seminary in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, taught in Indian Territory before Oklahoma became a state. My father was born before the Cherokee in Oklahoma were even citizens of that state. We assimilated; we learned English, we became doctors, lawyers, teachers. I expect no less from Hispanics, Russians, Chinese, or any other nationality who want to live in my country!

Will I be prejudiced toward those who come to live in the U.S. and refuse to learn the English language? You bet I will! Learn the language of the country you live in.

As a teacher, I have many students who are of Hispanic origin, and I can tell you, I resent those students who purposefully speak in a language I do not understand. The responsibility of the American government is to "ban" any language other than English in public schools; to do otherwise is denigrating the the American public school system.

Answer 4

Reagan Republicans most certainly DO NOT want more government.

Can you give an example of corporate control? I have no idea what you mean by that. And, to my knowledge, no republican wants the government to "control" anything more than they do. Could you give me an example of Republicans desiring more control of Americans? How?

But Conservatives do, frequently, favor stricter border control, and stronger policing for crime and criminals. Some of the tools many of us conservatives are willing to give law enforcement in this endeavor are wire taps (your voice travels over public property right-of-way) and easier warrants (requiring about as much evidence as an officer now needs to pull your car over, which isn't much). A lot of us support more cameras in public areas as well.

However, nothing in that makes anyone less secure in their own homes or person. Additionally, no one who is law abiding has anything to fear from more advanced "patrolling" by law enforcement.

And, we all elect the lawmakers to begin (and end) with. No one can be charged or convicted of any crime our own elected representatives didn't place into law.

Answer 5

yeah, as long as there is some controversy ie global warming/cooling hysteria, immigration,,, people are so focused on issues that are extremely simplistic, yet instead of doing what is needed and getting it done they want to waste money doing studies and spin in circles doing half measures that never accomplish anything, then after doing that they replace the half measure with another half measure that is just as worthless as the first attempt...another trick they enjoy is pass some huge momentous bill that is actually beneficial but fail to fund it or underfund it so it is useless as well... then they pass pay raises for all the good work they don't dooooooo

Answer 6

if we go with the three big parties we basicly get this:

republicans- they want the gov to tell people how to live and what is best for them.
they don't want any government responcibilty for citizens though. they don't want to give anyone welfare, regulate public schools, fund county hospitals, or any other forms of responcibilty to citizens

democrats- they want to give people more freedom, but still think they can tell people what's best for them- like what things they can make their own choices on and what things the government must rule on

libertarians- they think citizens should have all the responcibilty. they offer maximum freedoms because its up to people to make good choices and live in moderation. they expect people to take care of their own economic issues and are for privatizing things. they want no governement responcibilty and believe the police and laws should only protect people and property from other people. (not themselves)

Answer 7

while some things need regulation, it should be given at local levels where people have ACTUAL and not merely REPRESENTED influence over these things.

a small fed (as originally intended) would create such an environment. retaining the basic structure of the 3 branches while doing away with pretty much every govt funded department, agency and bureacracy besides defense, state, and treasury sounds good to me.

Answer 8

Currently we have 1 party of Zionists with 2 faces.

AIPAC buys the current congress. The entire fiasco is similar to what a famous person said of the moneymongers, warmongers, and whoremongers 2,000 years ago, before he cast them out.

Answer 9

The whole point of a political party is to control the government through elections.

Answer 10

when the Republicans clean the riff-raff nixonians out of their party, that are currently dominating it, and the Democrats clean the riff-raff that are "Democrats in name only", out of their party, then there might be a difference.

a good place to start would be to send all career politicians and fringe group members to Cuba.