It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You do know that Democrats are no different than Republicans right?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Democrats, are part of the same small percentage of people that hold power, and they act accordingly to money. You do know that they are no different than them, right?




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Oh, they’re plenty different.

But you’re right; in that respect, they’re the same.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NRen2k5
 

They are no different. I know that I am right. We should have other party candidates run for power, so that we have fair elections.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
its totally clear that having a "choice of 2" is no choice at all. thats like opening my closet in the morning and having the choice of light-grey t-shirt or dark-grey t-shirt.

enlightened politics, based on variety and diversity would give me a list of 20 interesting candidates of all flavours and let me vote based on a ranking of them.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
reply to post by NRen2k5
 

They are no different.

They do have their differences.



I know that I am right.

Well then by god you MUST BE RIGHT!




We should have other party candidates run for power, so that we have fair elections.

Agreed.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I think the word for which Maverickhunter is searching is "Dialectic."

THe usage of this term implys two groups in conflict which appear to be on opposite sides but whose real purpose is to steer those they intend to rule in a certain direction by managed conflict..or the appearence of managed conflict. Thoese they intend to rule are caught in the middle of this apparent conflict.

This does not appear to be a new concept but only more refined since the days of public means/access to better transportation and communications.

I have come to the same conclusion about the two political partys.

This dialectic appeared to be used or managed in the Cold War days by the fear generated through the apparent conflict between the Communists and the Western Democracys. This fear kept both sides in line and under the thumb of thier governments.

In certain circles it became obvoius that Communism could not be sustained much longer as part of the dialectic and that the truth of the inertness/deadness of Communism was getting out to the west. The facade of Communism was allowed to drop. The walls came down.

Communism has been allowed to drop and it appears that Terrorism is the new dialectic to keep people in line/afraid and control resources.
By Control resources I mean keep them off the market and out of the hands of competitors...ie..in storage.

These appear to be managed international politics...managed wars and our two political partys in this country are in on it...up to thier necks. The function of the two political partys appears to be by dialectic manipulation and fear techniques to keep the public on the treadmill...running ,running, and running to who knows where. To some preconcieved goal.

Just some additional information for identifying the fingerprint/fingerprints.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 30-8-2007 by orangetom1999]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
i do wish we would just get rid of political parties. why does someone need to know if a candidate is a republican or democrat before deciding to cast their vote? why can't people think for themselves and look at each individual issue that the candidate feels either liberal or conservative about rather than voting for someone simply because he/she is in their same political party. By labeling a candidate as a republican or democrat, biased votes are cast.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by curiousbeliever]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It's the same in most western or "democratic" nations. A choice of two big parties and a bunch of lowly small parties who will never actually hold any power but are there simply to give the illusion of choice.
The two main parties follow the pretense of conflict, baiting and opposing each other but look closely and the same backers appear bankrolling both sides.
The pretense is needed to keep the status quo. If scrutinised enough the people would be lynching them from the nearest flagpoles.
Behind the two main parties are the powerful old boy networks. People who have never been voted for and remain in the background but wield enormous influence and power.
Conservative or Labour, Democrat or Republican, it doesn't really matter as they are all staffed by career politicians interested only in their own power games and social standing than us lowly serfs. I have always had a distinct distrust of anyone who would be arrogant enough to tell me how I should live and expect me to pay them for the privilege



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The two party system is an utter failure. You "have a choice" without really having a choices. Until some one form an independent party breaks the strangle hold that the Republipukes and the Demopukes have, things aren't going to get better.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Third party. If you do have a third party chances are that it is a placebo managed by one or both of the other two partys.

Textbook of this is that party begun by Ross Perot. As I recall it was called the Reform Party. This party appeared to be for the purpose of minimizing the effectiveness of one of the two major partys. A placebo...to shuttle off votes from one of the other two. As I recall when a Reform party candidate won in Minnesota the party was quickly split so as to keep it ineffective and you havent heard much about them since. This is what makes me think the party was a placebo all along. Jesse Ventura was not supposed to win in that election in Minnesota. The voters were so disgusted with the two party system they were willing to try anything.

Same thing in California with Howard Jarvis and the Proposition 13 and lowering of their property taxes. The state governments were having none of it. They were determined to keep the tax payers on the string with thier two party system. Proposition 13 was a state initiative to bypass the state governments when it became obvious that state government was ineffective and unresponsive to the public's desires and wants.
Very few states have such a voting initiative ability ...the ability to vote law into effect by placing it on a ballot and the public voting it into law thereby bypassing professional politicians and the two party system. Professional politicians entrenched in state governments have fought this tooth and nail.
This initiative does not exist on the federal level.

This was the danger of Proposition 13....which was never allowed to come to the forefront of the media....That a public understood its own needs and could bypass a government that was ineffective and unresponsive to the public needs.

This is an extremely dangerous precident in politics...that the public actually would be able to determine what it need and wants with thier time labor and moneys. Not to automatically forefit this to the body politic by some default or dialectic manipulation.

Imagine how awful this concept and practice would be to a professional political system parasiting off the public ignorance.

What do some of you think public education is for and continues to educate you through your boob tube fear and emotional stroking??
By the way..who pays for public education...professional politicians right??? Understand the connection yet..?? They will never teach you to put light on themselves and their activities. Neither will a willing media who shill for thier respective political partys in this dialectic process.

Any change would require maneuvering at the local level first to hold the governments accountable or ineffective...chained....ie..limited.

Limited governments..state local and federal..means a free people.

It means you must think and be able to observe outside the shell game being played on you by the major partys and the media+public education.

I hold little hope for this next election. It will be continued stroking and dialectic on the public. A continuation of what has always been going on.

THe two party system here in this country has in effect become a tool to hijack the public will on all levels..local, state, and federal.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
^
Excellent posts, OT!

There is a distinction between the two parties, but no real difference outside of the rhetoric. I see the R’s as moderate globalist/socialists, and the D’s as slightly more leftist globalist/socialists. Some choice huh? From what I’ve seen on CSPAN, it seems to be much the same in the UK. The only solution to the dialectic control is education of the average citizen to what is being done to them. A daunting prospect considering the control exerted over the mainstream media.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join