What is the real deal here? Why is it that when there is debate going on about the issues facing this country, we have you people interrupting? I mean there is a discussion going on about healthcare, there are differences yet we have you people breaking in telling us to "stop playing into the right left conspiracy". What are you talking about? You mean if people have defined differences we are playing into some conspiracy? When we have strong opinions and differences with fellow ATSer we are only playing into division? Where did this attitude come from that differences in beliefs are a danger to this country? We are united under our differences. Our differences set us apart from our former communist enemies, the axis nations of world war 2. This notion that everybody should "united under the same belief and not complain anymore" is a highly flawed concept. I would like to ask these NWO-anti left vs right proponents" how is it that your fighting against the "same side of the coin" when you advocate the very same thing?

I mean, I'll agree here one thing. For over a century now we have had only two parties to have govern the path of this nation. I agree that the people need to recognize that there are alternatives to just the "R" and the "D" at the polling stations. What I dont agree on is this notion that we should all vote in one third party to fix everything. Why? Well isnt it obvious? Anybody, and I have noticed one significant thing here, who has advocated everybody to vote for one third party obviously has their own political and ideological bias. Im pritty sure the NWO-proponents here picture a "conservative third party" that everybody should supposedly turn their backs to the two major parties and vote for to "unite the country" when they are themselves blatantly applying hypocritical stances to what they supposedly oppose.

So say we were to, as a majority, vote a third party, and it turned out to be the american "socialist liberation" third party, would the Paulers and the NWOers cut their bickering over the "same side-vote third party" cry?

If we were to all stop fighting, and magically agree on the public option, would the NWOers cut their bickering?

To both of the above I'd say no. Because the bickering regarding the right-left debate as a whole has nothing to do with "the powers to be" and everything to do with personal ideological biasness.

If nobody debated on the basis of their own personal ideological beliefs, right leaning and left leaning, and everybody followed the conservative ideology like sheep, would this solve the two party system issue? By satisfying your own personal ideological bias? If everybody was the same would this solve the mainstream media issue? Tell me, what alternatives are their to debating issues of politics that are not influences some way or another by right and left wing leanings? Can anybody tell me an ideological stance that is alternative to left wing or right wing?

I hope there are others on here that are just as sick of this "same coin" BS that continues to infect reasonable debate and differences on this forum as I am. Because I dont see people concerned with "whats what on what coin". I see people who are only out to promote their third party, their own ideological stances. Individuals who conveniently hide this fact under the disguise of "NWO" conspirators.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]

I think what you don't understand about our side, SG, is the reasoning against the dual party politics.

Yes, everyone will continue to have their political bias based on their beliefs. They will have conservative ideals and they will have liberal ideals. No one is trying to have everyone fit into one uniform code.

However, over the past many years it has become clear that Republican and Democrat aren't really all that different. They appeal to a different demographic and promise so many different things, but in the end it all comes out the same. The majority remains split and thus blames it on the other party for their faults and will continue their support.

When the time comes to vote in a third party, no matter how great it is, the public will still be caught in their D and R dilemma, blaming each other and never giving anything a chance. But at the end of the day - THEY ARE THE SAME THING. They are just wealthy men, put into their position due to special interests, and carrying out legislation and power plays that will HELP THEM.

It is a never ending cycle, whether the Republicans or the Democrats run the white house, the people never benefit regardless. To that end, nothing else really matters.

Uniformed post, my apologies.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Asktheanimals]

Originally posted by gwydionblack
I think what you don't understand about our side, SG, is the reasoning against the dual party politics.

Whats did I not understand? Your against dual party politics, I state I agree. There are other alternatives to the two parties however that isnt my point. My point is, this notion of railing against the differences of people in matters is highly hypocritical to what you stand for. People have their own beliefs, strong beliefs on many topics, and inevitibly its going to be ideological influenced. To argue against people who have differences, and who share it with others is greatly flawed. You are trying say here "we should all agree one one thing and act like clones. You fellas just dont make sense to me sorry.

Yes, everyone will continue to have their political to bias

Bias? I'd agree people have bias but isnt that inevitable to differences? People are split between the paths of this nation, and likewise people feel strongly to advocate the direction of this nation. Essentially your telling us to "stop these differences". I'd like to ask then, what are you advocating for? A society of clones? Isnt this highly contradictory?

SG

SG, normally I read your post and hang my head low in disagreement

But I agree with you here.

I really do not feel like making a hour long post about it, but what many people here talk out against are what they are advocating themselves.

My last point is this. Hypocrisy does not necessarily mean you are wrong. Everything is situational, and it seems that the "hypocrisy" argument is an aged one that is thrown around to gather majority support. Here is an example.

I am against the killing of human beings.

But...someone tried robbing my house and harming my family, so I killed the robber.

I could then go on about "I am against killing human beings unless it is self defense". Then what is self defense?

Then what determines if such actions fall under my definition?

My instinct tells me that many people here on ATS would do the same as any politician if born in their shoes. We are not always born to one side or the other, but raised that way. So in my eyes, I am not right or wrong, yet only fighting for my own belief.

Without term limits the the entrenched become owned (or at least owe) no matter the side of the isle they are on. Therefore left is right & right is left (to a degree) and beholden NOT to the people.
Without a way to recall someone once they get to Washington they the entrenched stay entrenched.
I like your post & YES I have been one of those "same coiners". I have grown not to trust either side so they have become, in a way, the same to me. They have forgotten that there are some things that are vital to keeping a country going:
1. not spending more then you have. (not using social security on other then social security)
2. Finding out the truth of things & letting the people decide on what should be done.
3. Welfare is not a lifestyle but a short term method to lift up people.
etc

When everyone in Washington is acting like an idiot kid, it is time to replace them.
When Health Care Reform is not Health Care Reform:
does it do anything about the bad (for the people) decisions the FDA & FTC are making?
Does it do anything to hold down Insurance & medical costs (besides saying you can't charge that)?

You are right that I should not lump them all together but the generalities hold:
How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
You did a good post to get people thinking.

Originally posted by Doctor G

Isnt this exactly the ideological stance you advocate everybody to be for? You oppose social sercurity for reasons, and those are your reasons and are influenced by ideology whether you refuse to admit it. Thats my point. The same coiners look on everybody else as "sheep or argue upon ideology daily" and yet what are they or you doing? Your ultimately telling everybody else to follow your beliefs and opinions, which is, again, highly contradictory.

3. Welfare is not a lifestyle but a short term method to lift up people.

So somebody born disabled for life, who needs assistance to be looked after. Maybe they are working part time but need the assistance? Yours is an argument over your personal ideological conclusions, and while I may agree with you over many things, to argue against other for merely doing the same thing as you doesnt make sense.