No left/right, only political theater designed to perpetuate unpopular policies and enslave us all!

America, why do you not see the obvious?

They have managed to divide us along lines of left/right, when the true dichotomy is freedom/slavery! Let's take a look at the false dichotomy as represented by the last two administrations as well as the Republican and Democrat controlled congresses of the last few years.

1. The Patriot Act.
Rather than repealing this heinous law, the Obama Administration wasn't in office for three whole months before increasing its powers.

Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald -- who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law -- says the Obama Administration has "invented a brand new claim" of immunity from spying litigation. "In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday.

rawstory.com...

This in contrast to this:

Then-Senatorial candidate Obama in 2003 branded the Patriot Act "shoddy and dangerous" and pledged to dump it. He made the pledge in response to a candidate's survey by the National Organization for Women. Obama reneged on the pledge.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And this:

As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against parts of USA Patriot Act that gave the Bush administration sweeping powers to intercept phone and e-mail communications in the name of fighting terrorism with little judicial or congressional oversight, and Obama pledged to institute "robust" checks and balances if elected.

And just so we get a clear picture of the game being played, here's Harry Reid, who recently successfully blocked Rand Paul's attempts to amend the patriot act and pushed it through to be signed by the hypocrite-in-chief.
From 2005:


And this:

And yet now that a Democrat is in the White House Harry Reid is defending the very legislation that he opposed in 2005 when a Republican was in the White House, and he has the balls to declare that Rand Paul is grandstanding for political reasons? What this should prove to the American people is that it was Democrats such as Harry Reid and Barack Obama who were simply opposing the PATRIOT Act in 2005 for political reasons. The fact that Harry Reid and Barack Obama are now asking for the continuation of a policy they so vehemently opposed a few short years ago should show the American people that it was the Democrats who opposed the PATRIOT Act back in the day who were the ones who were “grandstanding” a few short years ago.

americaswatchtower.com...

Of course the idea of grandstanding for "political purposes" completely misses the point. If something unpopular and blatantly unconstitutional is to manage to survive, it is necessary to its survival that the false left/right dichotomy be the focus of the conflict. If we can be led to believe that this is merely "political" rather than a true bait and switch, we focus our attention upon the hated Republicans/Democrats rather than what is actually being done.

2. War. In particular the "war on terror"

Do you really need links to catch the war game being played? Okay, I guess you do.

Though the administration decided to drop the term "war on terror" he has actually continued Bush's policies.

Or extended them:


Of course Obama never claimed to be anti-war. With exception of his criticism of the Iraq war, (are we out of there yet...I thought not) he was careful to position himself as strong on national security. Groups like MoveOn.org and other anti-war groups supported his campaign with the left/right false dichotomy firmly entrenched in their minds, and simply expected a less war-prone administration through their hatred of Bush.

However, an honest appraisal of his administrations policies would certainly find that it has increased both the actual numbers involved, civilian casualties involved, and theaters of engagement. This is absolutely not what the Democrats and Independents weary of Bush's policies who voted for Obama expected, though it's hard to find many voices of dissent among their ranks...not surprisingly, it's the Republicans who are suddenly
weary of war, and critical of Obama's policies.


Are we beginning to recognize a pattern here? I hope so. Is it political theater? Yes. But not merely to win elections, but to set up a false dichotomy where unpopular policies are seemingly opposed by the "loyal opposition" and then embraced by them when they take power. And then "opposed" by the other side that formerly embraced it. The main point being that the unpopular policies continue....

I won't go into detail about the direction we should go...but it certainly doesn't involve voting any more of these liars and hypocrites into office to replace the last crew of liars and hypocrites. Maybe something a bit more radical?

I never did understand the left/right thing anyway..The constitution and the best interests of the people go right down the middle...as it should.

But it has been useful in fooling the voters into believing they have a choice.
Vote Left or Right...That's your right to choose. It doesn't matter that the 2 are the same.

When I see politicians changing sides midstream, it all becomes clear.

reply to post by joechip


Nice thread. It looks like alot of work went into it. I must respectfully disagree, though.

There are two sides. There are the ones that want a large government and those that want a smaller government.

Now the "sides" may include a variety of parties. Democrat, republican, you name it. The sides aren't traditional any more. You can't determine who is on one side or the other without looking at voting records or platforms.

Just my two cents.

This issue is not about left/right. This is about right/wrong.

The left was wrong about Club Gitmo, wrong about enhanced interrogations, wrong about the Patriot Act, wrong about Afghanistan and Iraq, wrong about pretty much anything having to do with National Security. It wasn't until they actually took power that they realized this.

Originally posted by Carseller4
This issue is not about left/right. This is about right/wrong.

The left was wrong about Club Gitmo, wrong about enhanced interrogations, wrong about the Patriot Act, wrong about Afghanistan and Iraq, wrong about pretty much anything having to do with National Security. It wasn't until they actually took power that they realized this.

Your whole post is wrong.
2nd

reply to post by beezzer


Okay then, back that up with some voting records (I hope not platforms as we all know what happens to those once elected).

Besides Ron Paul of course, I can't think of one principled politician who hasn't sold us down the river when their party is in power. Can you?

Even Dennis Kucinich, who I once thought a principled man cannot be held up as such. His support for an unconstitutional healthcare reform bill puts that notion to rest for good.

"I have doubts about the bill. This is not the bill I wanted to support," Kucinich said even as he promised that he would vote "yes" on the proposal.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Unless we think the exception proves the rule...my thesis stands. Who are these principled politicians? Can you name them and their voting records?

Many thanks.

reply to post by beezzer


Yup, I find myself meeting the Devil in 'the crossroads' with government. For example, my mom is on Social Security retirement, & a sibling on SSI for Autism. But once government is big enough to provide those things for people, it is big enough to be completely out of control like it is today.
So I have pondered, "What if there was no government and everyone grew their own food, defended themselves (no police) basically lived like the Amish. Maybe everyone would ------- fare much better. I wonder how people would be doing if there was no Great Depression before the government social safety nets? Because, sometimes I heard people say, "Look at how the elderly fared, during the Great Depression before the social safety nets." But that was because of the Illuminatti-Bank caused depression. Not lack of social safety nets.

So, I am groping (not to use a "pat down"ism) my way out of a 'two card monty' mindset, yall. A hard-ingrained one. So bear with me. It's been a slow Awakening in it's own right. It takes a lot of uncovering of things, it seems. Like, "you told me this works because of that, but that was in place, cuz you guys pulled such and such." Aye?

How am I doing?

reply to post by joechip


Nice post.

I'm of the same mind. "We the People" are being played by both sides. And unless people start to realize that the policy doesn't change, just the administration does, this REPUBLIC we live in will be lost forever.

I am one of those who detested Bush, and voted for Obama. Just to quickly realize, after Obama re-issued the "all seeing eye" referred to as the Patriot Act, his policy was the same. The only difference I see is that this, Oxy Moron in Motion administration, is getting the job of ruining America done in a much more dictatorship manner. Which means, get it through, push it through and slam it through the House of Representatives.

The entitlement that politicians must feel, to do this to the American citizens, is disgusting. There is no intelligent discussion, no transparency and no worry about what the citizens of this Country think about what "they" are doing.

reply to post by joechip


Voting records only indicate where they stand on the issues. What issues do you esouse?
Paul
Christy
Paul (Jr)

They are good guys. Bachmann? Not so sure anymore.

Just don't fall for the "they are all the same" meme. Good people still exist.

reply to post by pagan_night


I hear you, about the voting mistake, and why. Maybe a benevolent kind of Socialism, run by an intelligent articulate non psychopath. With transparent government reversing the Bush Neocon stuff. (And the Clinton Neocon stuff.) And maybe everyone would get their own real live flying pink pony, a zero point free energy device, and a chicken in every pot. While a rainbow outside shined. Okay, I'm making fun of myself.
Then I saw Obama immediately bail out the Banksters, while people were leaving their upper middle class foreclosed houses for tent cities. Remember the tent cities??!! Around that time, I watched the President say something on TV during some national address, about all that, can't recall exactly, but it was total narcissistic callousness, like a "Let them eat cake" remark. Just like yet another psychopath. Again.

reply to post by simone50m


Just as long as you don't trust anyone blindly. The biggest problem politicians have is that they forget that they are "public servants" not ruling elite.

To futher illustrate the disconnect between the will of the people and what actually happens:
On patriot act renewal:
www.guardian.co.uk...

And even the polls that have tighter results do not show a clear majority of support (and never have) though the recent ones DO support my left/right brainwashing thesis in that more Democrats support the law now than during the Bush administration.

pewresearch.org...

And the war:

www.pollingreport.com...

Polls are often misleading, but is it really acceptable that on matters without a clear majority of support, indeed with a very strong opposition, our elected leaders push through these policies without debate, and in direct contradiction to their earlier stated positions when out of power? Can we not see the obvious bait and switch?

You are right on OP. The right/left belief is a falsehood. A bird has a right wing and a left wing but is controlled by one central body and head ! People need to wake the bloody hell up and grow up bloody fast !

Just don't fall for the "they are all the same" meme. Good people still exist.

reply to post by beezzer


Okay, you named two members of congress (and a governor which is non-topical since we're discussing the federal government) out of 535.
Father and son.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the status quo. Hardly defensible and certainly not a refutation of my main point. FAIL. Thanks for playing.

reply to post by simone50m


Same Page. It's disgusting, like Washington D.C. is the new platform for Hollywood. Lies, lies, and more lies. They should have a type of Tony Awards Ceremony for politicians. They can call it the Phony Awards...

And to my tea party friends who think this is about "smaller government" let's not forget how far the rhetoric about this diverges from what happens when power is attained.


The real Reagan:

"No. 1—according to the resolution—was “smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes.” Let’s take those from the top. Smaller government: Federal employment grew by 61,000 during Reagan’s presidency—in part because Reagan created a whole new cabinet department, the department of veterans affairs. (Under Bill Clinton, by contrast, federal employment dropped by 373,000). Smaller deficits and debt: Both nearly tripled on Reagan’s watch. Lower taxes: Although Reagan muscled through a major tax cut in 1981, he followed up by raising taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1986. In 1983, in fact, he not only raised payroll taxes; he raised them to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Let’s put this in language today’s tea-baggers can understand: Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care." www.sodahead.com...

And truly interestingly, the public has such a short memory, or indeed none whatsoever, that Reagan is still lauded as a champion of smaller government. It would be laughable if it were not so dire.

Originally posted by joechip

Just don't fall for the "they are all the same" meme. Good people still exist.

reply to post by beezzer

 

Okay, you named two members of congress (and a governor which is non-topical since we're discussing the federal government) out of 535.
Father and son.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the status quo. Hardly defensible and certainly not a refutation of my main point. FAIL. Thanks for playing.

Cute. Well, won't look for you at the polls during election then. Just sit in your room and gripe about the PTB and be bitter on the intrawebz.
Me?
I still believe in the system and will try to change it the best I can.

You folks gripe and whine and complain about the corpoate powers and one sided elites, yet you do NOTHING! Just gripe on line and don't DARE to try to find solutions.

Pity.

reply to post by beezzer


That you still believe in the "system" means you haven't been paying attention IMO. If spelling out the obvious in painstaking detail so that others may come to realize the game being played is sitting in my room and whining, guilty as charged. However, I don't view it that way.

You folks gripe and whine and complain about the corpoate powers and one sided elites, yet you do NOTHING! Just gripe on line and don't DARE to try to find solutions.

You don't know me. And simply because I don't accept your solutions doesn't mean I don't "try to find them".
As a matter of fact, I have been very involved in third party politics throughout the years, have given both my time and money in an attempt to unseat the Republicrats. Interestingly, I contributed to the moneybomb for Ron Paul's campaign that was the initial seed of todays' Tea Party. Did you?

But this thread isn't about "solutions." It's about deconstructing the false dichotomy of right and left, and I think I did a fair job of that.

The difference between us may be that I clearly saw that the Tea Party movement had been co-opted by social conservatives and billionaire interests and fox news. You clearly didn't see that and still don't.

Good luck with your faith in the system. Faith is "evidence of things not seen" according to the Bible. Evidence of things not seen, indeed. When you see things change because of your "vote" let me know...

I'd like to add, that when you fail to address the main point of a thesis, it can hardly be considered a refutation.

reply to post by joechip


You failed to address my assertation that there IS a 2-sided approach to those who want to govern. I just didn't put in the classic republican-democrat terms.

Again, those that want big government and all the entitlements it has to offer
or
Small government and personal responsibility.

You wanted names and voting records that are easy to find by anyone with half a brain yet you still cling to a position that there is no differece.
Yet
You claim to support 3rd party candidates. So there IS a two-sided system accrding to you.

The republican/democrat vs 3rd party.

Your title suggests enslavement, yet only those willing to alow themselves to be saves WILL be slaves.

So what is your point?
Is there a 2 sided system or isn't there?

Do you want to spend your time complaining or are you going to do something about it?

You mock my faith in the system and yet you support third party candidates?

Might I suggest a more focused approach? You're really all over the place with this.

reply to post by beezzer


This is the biggest lie ever told. The party of small government actually works to increase the size of the parts of government they support, namely the military / security industrial complex. Government got bigger under Reagan. It got a LOT bigger under Bush 2.

I keep hearing about these so called small government conservatives, but I have never seen one in the wild. They spend the same way their opponents spend. This just spend it on different things, and we don't "need" those things any more then we need the big Nanny state the liberals are selling.