The Right/Left illusion...is NOT an illusion

reply to post by NoLoveInFear46and2


If its a hidden agenda, how do you know of it, or that its currently being fulfilled.

Reminds me of the plethora around here of people whom know the ins and outs of secret societies...
not a big secret if every 3rd person know about em. heh


Corporate interests is not hidden...its shrewed and ruthless, but not a big secret.

All these issues you talk about SaturnFX are window dressing nothing more,these are the tools they use to appeal to the people who like to think that their vote actually does count.They don't care about the budget,they don't care about same sex marriage.They care only about themselves and their personal power.

reply to post by SaturnFX


How about issues like:
1) un-Constitutional wars ? No difference
2) bank bailouts and corporate welfare ? No difference
3) police state tactics ? No difference
4) meddling in the affairs of other countries and undermining sovereign nations ? No difference

reply to post by SaturnFX


This is exactly why it's an illusion. The issues you referenced shouldn't even be discussed by the federal government because they have no constitutional business dictating personal affairs. They are state issues at best.

They are issues that have been long politicized to divide the populace to control them better, and they have worked quite well.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

This is exactly why it's an illusion. The issues you referenced shouldn't even be discussed by the federal government because they have no constitutional business dictating personal affairs. They are state issues at best.

They are issues that have been long politicized to divide the populace to control them better, and they have worked quite well.

So, whats your view then on Romney wanting to add a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and woman, thereby eliminating the discussion across the whole union about the rights of homosexual people getting married

Are you for or against this federal intrusion into a state (or more focused, a church) issue?

reply to post by SaturnFX


So, can you agree that the goal of governments is to keep the poor, poor to keep rich getting richer because
that is the agenda. Or do you believe that there's one politician out there seeking to help the people of it's nation?

I'd like to know your stance on that, and secret agenda means that a lot of people who just have it going don't really
get the full extent of what our governments are trying to do since... Ever! C'mon I don't claim I know secret stuff, I agree that it's pretty plain obvious but fact of a matter is a lot of people don't see it, or a lot of people I've met I should say.

Peace

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I get a bit bothered by people whom pop into threads and suggest that the right and left in politics is an illusion, there is no difference, etc etc etc.
These people may have some validity in a few areas (such as fiscal responsibility...laugh loudly when they say one side is and the other isn't...neither of them are. endless history shows this to be true).

But, there are very quantifiable differences between the sides.

Yes and no, as I'll point out:

Do you believe women should be able to get an abortion?
If yes, go left, if no, go right

Are Pro Life Democrats marginalised?
Examples of Pro-Choice Republicans
(And God, how I hate that "waging war on women" phrase.)

Do you believe a constitutional amendment should be set in place to forbid homosexual marriage?
If yes, go right, if no, go left.

Do you know what the Log Cabin Republicans are?
Division in the Democratic ranks.

So, no. The ranks are very much split on what are considered the major positions of the parties involved.

But, I would like actual issues that contrast greatly the left and right...try to be as impartial as you can when laying out the differences.

But:
The bill to challenege the policiy on legal abortions is only supported by 5 Democrats in the HoR
And NONE in the Senate.
I'm not fighting to find the same information on the gay marriage thing. Not as likely to find a unified source for the material.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, there are some differences on policy that makes it so you vote one side or other, but when you have things like the Patriot Act:

1. You're upset at Bush because you voted his butt in because of things like: the Ombnibus Act.

Clinton tried to get the Ombnibus Act passed in 1995 after the WTC bombing in 1993, and it is virtually verbatim the PATRIOT Act.

2.So, you want to vote Democrat to get rid of this traitorous Republican? So, you trust the woman who was married to Clinton? Or do you trust the hope and change? The problem is that Obama voted for the Patriot Act.

This same issue comes up under Bailouts, wars, the size of Government, ect. Yes, one party or other will lean more to 1 direction, and on those stances you can choose a side, but sometimes, they're the same Hydra. We keep cutting off these heads over certain freaky decisions, and then the next head we put in place does the same thing.

So while my pro-life stance will lead me to more Republican candidates than anything else, it does not mean that every view I hold is supported by either side--and at those times, I'm not voting either party line.

There is a difference that exist between your common American Democrat and Republican on many talking points, but insofar as House Democrats and Republicans are concerned...the ones in the Whitehouse that is, they use these talking points in order to appear that they are on each respective side....when the sole purpose is to play divide and conquer. Then at the end of the day, the house Democrats and Republicans laugh and have a drink together.


But when it comes to what really matters and what actions are actually taken, there is not a lick of spit difference in actions between the House Democrats and Republicans. Both house Democrats and Republicans are for Big Government, Big Wars, Big Wall Street, and all with the tax payers footing the bill.



reply to post by SaturnFX

Originally posted by NoLoveInFear46and2
Or do you believe that there's one politician out there seeking to help the people of it's nation?

I think its important to contrast nations that have the highest poverty class with nations that have the lowest poverty class and see what the difference is in governance.
Then look at the politicians in question and see which general guideline they are following. If they seem to push for the high poverty class nations style of leadership, then I deem them destructive.

I look at many parts of Africa and compare them with areas like denmark, holland, etc. Neither fully relate to this nation, but there are some things to be learned by examples across the world and what is working.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

This is exactly why it's an illusion. The issues you referenced shouldn't even be discussed by the federal government because they have no constitutional business dictating personal affairs. They are state issues at best.

They are issues that have been long politicized to divide the populace to control them better, and they have worked quite well.

So, whats your view then on Romney wanting to add a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and woman, thereby eliminating the discussion across the whole union about the rights of homosexual people getting married

Are you for or against this federal intrusion into a state (or more focused, a church) issue?

It's none of the federal government's business who marries who, period. That does not make me a liberal, either. The duties and responsibilities are outlined quite clearly in the constitution. If any government wants to race that horse, it is at the state level.

If you paid any attention to Ron Paul, you'd already know this, and that his position is one of constitutional adherence.

By the way, Romney would never succeed at that empty political promise. That's all it is - political posturing for votes.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I'm really sorry I couldn't have responded to this post earlier.

Differences between the Left and Right? I respectfully disagree 100%. There is about as much difference between my left and and my right hand.

Abortion? I confess, I don't really care. How many people does that affect? Women who are pregnanat who want to terminate their pregnancy. Not really a huge segment of the population. Gay marriage? Again, what is the percentage of the population affected? You just as well be asking whether eskimoes have the right build casinos in Alaska and make that a defining issue between the left and the right.

But let's say for the sake of argument that these are actually defining issues between the left and the right. Let's take abortion. Roe v. Wade happened in 1973. Since that time, both the "left" and the "right" have been in control of the White House and Congress several times. Has either the "left" or the "right" made any significant changes? No, they have not. Why? Because they don't really care about it any more than I do. Abortion is simply a tool they use to divide and conquer us, just like they use race, class, age, sex, and any other difference they can contrive.

When it comes right down to it, the "left" and the "right" work in lock-step against the American people. It scares me to hear the word "bipartisan" coming from Washington, DC because that means that both the "left" and the "right" are about to screw the American people. You want to show me a difference between the two? Tell me which party is in favor of exposing the fraud of the Federal Reserve. Tell me which party is opposed to killing innocent civilians in countries Israel doesn't like. Tell me whether the "left" or the "right" is in favor of using the money we hand out in foreign aid to help people in this country. Convince me that the Waco murders would not have happened under a Republican president. Show me that a Republican president would be opposed to ordering a "hit" on someone like a Mafia don. Provide some documentation deemonstrating that either the "left" or the "right" has done anything of any significance to "Support the Troops" other than send them into some god-forsaken part of the world and then forget about them if they happened to make it back.

Saturn, if you want to believe there is any significant difference between the "left" and the "right", you do that. One of the few freedoms left in this country is that you can believe whatever you want. But there is no need to get upset if people like myself believe differently. Our world view is based on our observations. My belief that there is no significant difference between "left" and "right" lets me make a few predictions:

1. Obama gets a second term. That way he can pass legislation he couldn't have if he had to worry about re-election. If Romney gets too close in the polls near November, he will sabotage his own campaign with some stupid remark like McCain's, "The economy is not my strong suit ... ". After Obama's second term, Americans will be so fed up that they will elect whomever the Republicans offer; that candidate will continue Obama's policies.

2. Obama, through NATO, will attack Syria, just like any Republican president would do. This will occur before the election in November.

3. After November, but before Fall 2013, the US will have troops fighting in Iran.

4. Before December 2014, the US will experience a second "recession."

Mark my words. If I'm right, perhaps you'll have cause to reconsider your position.

Did you all know that during presidential election years only around 60% of registered voters actually vote? And during midterms that number drops to the low 40s. I just wrote a 11 page paper for my political science class about the effects of low voter turnout and one effect is that only the zealots within each party seems to be showing up to vote.

For primaries especially, it is the most radical of the bunches that can outweigh moderate voices. It is why you see many former Republican senators talking about how the radicals have hijacked their party, and that compromise is no longer possible. It is how Obama defeated Hillary, and how we are becoming increasingly polarized to the left and right. It goes all the way down to individual state representatives, with the more moderate ones being picked off by primary challenges.

You think recent voter registration laws is about beating the other party? It is about lowering turnout so that they can ensure that only the radicals will make it through all the hoops. It is about ensuring this polarization continues because if moderates had a true voice there is no way such polarizing candidates would make it.

It just so happens to be a coincidence that republicans have taken this to a further extreme than democrats, but it occurs in both parties right now. And as it relates to the let/right issue, once could say that limiting moderate voices is making this gap appear even bigger than it is.

Just think about it for a moment guys, tea party support has been polled slightly above 10% nationally for a while now. If, during a midterm election, only 40% of registered voters turn out, and the majority wins by 51%, then less than 15% of the country decided the election (registered voters are in itself only a fraction of the country). And of those who do vote, extreme partisans are FAR more likely to show up.

If you want to have less polarizing candidates then we need to re-engage the moderate voices that have left politics.

Just food for thought.

People who don't believe in left and right or say it's an illusion are the biggest idiots on the planet. That's my opinion of it.

Anyone who thinks that a communist and a free market capitalist are the same, and that their distinction is an illusion, is a fool

and anyone who promotes this idea of being apolitical where everyone works together and agrees is also an idiot

basically the whole "the left right is an illusion" crowd are just fake intelligent people who are playing the middle ground and engaging in the golden mean fallacy. A group of fence sitters who think they're supersmart and fair because they're on a fence, when really it just shows they've never read a book and don't have the basic knowledge to form their own opinions

as someone else said most people who say this sort of thing are just dumb socialists. That's my opinion as a socialist. They're clearly left, they're just so anti-establishment that they believe the left - right paradigm is bunk

reply to post by SaturnFX


It's not about whether they actually believe different things. It's their actions not their words. When you get right down to the core of the matter, left or right doesn't matter, the same intrusive status quo corpocracy bull# will prevail. That's what they mean when they talk about the illusion of choice.

reply to post by JailTales


As I'm stating both are true, I guess I'll do as a response:

In most cases where I'd state that they are the same monster, the difference in the choices are either 1. we're going to hell-in-a-hand-basket sedately, or 2. we're going to hell-in-a-hand-basket with side trips for the eager. In a lot of cases the choice is like choosing between Gingrich (flaming warmonger, instigator in all sorts of arguments) or Obama (lying warmonger, that drags out existing wars and toys with Libya in his spare time). Some differences only are a matter of how fast we take this country down.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by JailTales

 

As I'm stating both are true, I guess I'll do as a response:

In most cases where I'd state that they are the same monster, the difference in the choices are either 1. we're going to hell-in-a-hand-basket sedately, or 2. we're going to hell-in-a-hand-basket with side trips for the eager. In a lot of cases the choice is like choosing between Gingrich (flaming warmonger, instigator in all sorts of arguments) or Obama (lying warmonger, that drags out existing wars and toys with Libya in his spare time). Some differences only are a matter of how fast we take this country down.

What isn't a monster?

The "illusion" is the idea that ideas can be grouped neatly into "left" and "right," when in reality individuals hold diverse opinions and place differing levels of importance on specific issues.

Left and right are essentially unproductive slurs used to generalize beliefs. The paradigm allows the populace to be easily divided into equal and (supposedly) opposite camps such that entrenchment of illogical ideology feeds back upon itself and effective policies can no longer be implemented by either side. The result is our current political climate, where money is the only true motivator because all other positions are deadlocked against their counterparts.

I should add that extreme left and extreme right are essentially indistinguishable. On most political spectrum charts, you'll find fascism at the extreme right end and communism on the extreme left. I challenge anyone to find a meaningful difference in their historical implementation. Totalitarianism is the outcome on either side of the aisle.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You make some valid points but given that most politicians in the States have shown no difference in their records on traditionally "left/right" issues, what is one supposed to think?

When you have a politician that campaigns on bringing an end to the war....yet expands it; a politician who calls for civil justice, but has a hit-list; a politician who says they are for X but always plays the Y hand....what is one supposed to think?

Are there clear divides in the ends to the means? Absolutely! I believe people can think for themselves, can operate for themselves and live life for themselves. They don't need Government to tell them what is bad and what isn't. They can decide for themselves on what will kill them, what will make them sick and what will make them wealthy.

They can decide how to spend that wealth, how to dictate their children's upbringing and can decide how discipline their children.

In the end, we the People may have differing views but the Left/Right paradigm is strong in the political scene and is honed to a tee on how to manipulate the people it is supposed to serve to obtain more power.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Nice thread SaturnFX....and you certainly make valid points. The difference between right wing and left wing political ideology is distinct to be sure, as many have already pointed out.

The idea that there is a lack of difference between right/left has mostly to do with our political system and that the "viable" candidates are unwilling to address the important, underlying systemic problems in any meaningful way. Can you really blame people who just don't see any difference between having a Kenyan born Muslim, or a Mexican born Morman, for President?

Any cited "difference" is basically attempts at social engineering which are by default non-issues being that society cannot be engineered. As recently as the "Civil Rights Era" we can see governments inability to engineer society. It tried on all levels to maintain divisive practices through segregation and it failed. Society "engineered" the government.

Abortion? Non-issue. Regardless of legality people will do it anyway. In time the zealots will all die off and it will cease to be a topic of discussion.

Gay marriage? Complete non-issue. Government has no business in marriage at any level. It's a personal venture. Again, in time, the zealots on both sides who cry for government acceptance of or government denouncement of any form of marriage whatsoever will cease to exist.

Prohibition? Should have never began. Complete waste of time. There isnt a damn thing government could ever do about it. Still waiting for the zealots to die.

The heart of Conservatism is supposed to be ending government intervention in the lives of people.
The heart of Liberalism is supposed to be liberty.

Those two things are one in the same. The gross failure of either group to follow through is identical.

there is no difference. and if you're one of those non-issue thumping zealots standing in the way of real progress (not progressive progress) and standing in the way of liberty for all then you can't die off soon enough.

There are too many dinosaurs from the dark ages running around of all ages. Twenty year-olds who are so ruled by superstition and fear they sound like geriatric bigots. Old-time hippies who have distorted their once legitimate libertarian ideals into left-leaning tyrannical positions.

Politics and the supporters of need to die off. My life isnt a game for you to play. My liberty isnt a thing for anyone to be arguing over, discussing, restricting and regulating but me.

Just once I'd like to see a congress that doesnt pass a single piece of legislation. Just once. They dont even have to repeal anything. Just go one session without passing a bill and watch how the sky doesnt fall. Watch how the world doesnt revert to some paleolithic cannibalism. Then next year you can try out repealing one or two.