Republicrats and the illusion of dissention

[rhuarch]

Disclaimer: This is addressing American Politics only. Of course everyone is welcome to provide their perspective regardless.

I've been reading a lot of political opinion lately and of course eavesdropping on political based conversations for years. What I have come to realize (certainly not the first) is that there doesn't seem to be much true difference between so-called liberals and so-called conservatives once they are actually in power. I see huge ideological differences in the general population between liberals and conservatives, but the politicians only seem to be giving lip service to their supposed ideologies. Based on that observation I have come to this conclusion; when it comes to our politicians the one truly fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that they disagree on the best way to gain and maintain power.

Agree or disagree? Why or why not?

[BrownBear]

The way Chomsky puts it there is one political party in the united states: The Business Party, with two flavors.

[bass_n_treble]

The way Chomsky puts it there is one political party in the united states: The Business Party, with two flavors.

I believe Nader refers to it as the two-headed monster.

[Huston]

The way Chomsky puts it there is one political party in the united states: The Business Party, with two flavors.


I believe Nader refers to it as the two-headed monster.

Yeah democrats expand the corporate oligarchy (like FDRs new deal), and the republicans use patriotism, and other conservative ideals of some evolved form of divine right that expand the national security state that furthers helps to protect the expanded hegemony of the corporate oligarchy (Bush's War on Terrorism). Sometime they do overlap. It doesn't really matter, both Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin both worked for Goldman Sachs, and merely used the presidential administrations to pad their CVs. Business as usual.

I wonder if Obama answered Nader's question yet? Is he Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom?

[ciphersort]

The political system of the United States and all others I have seen and lived under are so ridiculous that I do my best to ignore them these days. There is no difference between the two parties to me. Come on... two choices??? A whole two? Our super rich overlords are so generous...

[Harion]

only 2 choices to limit possibilities and unforseen consequences

[Curtis24]

Disclaimer: This is addressing American Politics only. Of course everyone is welcome to provide their perspective regardless.

I've been reading a lot of political opinion lately and of course eavesdropping on political based conversations for years. What I have come to realize (certainly not the first) is that there doesn't seem to be much true difference between so-called liberals and so-called conservatives once they are actually in power. I see huge ideological differences in the general population between liberals and conservatives, but the politicians only seem to be giving lip service to their supposed ideologies. Based on that observation I have come to this conclusion; when it comes to our politicians the one truly fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that they disagree on the best way to gain and maintain power.

Agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Agree, history is determined by geography/economic factors, not individual choice.

[agroupofhookers]

No one, except those leaching from in a positive way, wants bigger government (that has a rational thought process). It doesn't make sense in anyway (in that even where it does, there are much better alternatives), yet both parties are focused on expansion? What does this say? Someone has ulterior motives.

That's how I've always seen it anyway, so I typically tend to fall for 'conspiracy' theories, such as the bilderburg group (or something like that) is effectively trying to extend its reach across the globe by systematically increasing government power, which they likely have control of: If there's a group of the most wealthy and influential (thus increasing their effective wealth) who controls more money than any other interest in the world, they are in control. Why else would they be pooling their efforts?

They need to back off my fucking nuts. Paying social security... those fucking cocksuckers.
(they collect the interest off it, btw)

Civil Wars inc next century.

[quantumzero]

No one, except those leaching from in a positive way, wants bigger government (that has a rational thought process). It doesn't make sense in anyway (in that even where it does, there are much better alternatives), yet both parties are focused on expansion? What does this say? Someone has ulterior motives.

That's how I've always seen it anyway, so I typically tend to fall for 'conspiracy' theories, such as the bilderburg group (or something like that) is effectively trying to extend its reach across the globe by systematically increasing government power, which they likely have control of: If there's a group of the most wealthy and influential (thus increasing their effective wealth) who controls more money than any other interest in the world, they are in control. Why else would they be pooling their efforts?

They need to back off my fucking nuts. Paying social security... those fucking cocksuckers.
(they collect the interest off it, btw)

Civil Wars inc next century.

Here here! Political parties are divisive and manipulative. Who's pulling the strings, political parties are not even part of the government... Follow the fuckin' money!

[bass_n_treble]

I wonder if Obama answered Nader's question yet? Is he Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom?

Wow, that's rough. lol... (not touching that one)