That's what you would think, but somehow people always end up thinking the next one will be different.

I find it particularly unsettling when people off the street justify Obama in their own words.

They've truly been brainwashed--no other way to put it. Scary.

If someone disagrees with you, perhaps they were paying attention (to different things) and not simply brainwashed.

Otherwise, everyone can accuse everyone of being brainwashed any time an opinion they don't like is expressed

When you're convinced that fundamental concepts like freedom, due process, and privacy are worth violating--for any reason--you've been brainwashed. No excuses. Everyone knows better.

I didn't intend my comment to apply to politics at-large, just the privacy and civil liberties topics currently at hand.

I think it's possible to make a case for the broader political spectrum, but I won't attempt that here.

Vilifying "politicians" is a convenient way to let We The People off the hook for tolerating broken democratic and electoral processes.

then what's the point of politicians?

To lie to the populous in a way that prevents revolution while consolidating the true power in as few hands as possible.

What a bunch of sophomoric horse shit this thread is.

Obama is a disappointment on this issue, and other things too. But there are differences between politicians, and all this blah blah about how they are all the same is a great way to get apathetic and do nothing to improve things. It can be hard work trying to pick out the good ones from the bad ones, and maybe sometimes none of them are that good. And you may feel let down when you misjudge one. But that doesn't mean you just give up and spout platitudes about woe-is-us as an excuse for not doing anything, or no longer attempting to vote for good people.

Two politicians: Nelson Mandela and Joe McCarthy. No difference?

There surely are differences among politicians. You're totally right.

For example: Obama versus Paul. Hell, for the sake of a well-rounded argument, let's throw in Romney.

Look back at the campaign speeches. Regardless of what you think about either Obama or Romney or Paul, Paul's arguments follow logically. They're consistent with history. The other guys' arguments just don't. It's simple.

You could see RIGHT THROUGH Obama and Romney, even back then.

Can you name a "good" politician from the USA? Active since 1960?

Carter.

What he said is true. Heck, it might have even prevented people from (re-)electing Obama if more people realized this. I have no idea what your problem is.