Buddhism on We are all one As explained here Buddhism does no belong into pantheism because God can be interpreted no as oneness but a creation of the mind as the fourth aggregate explains (eg. "an invisible man who lives in the sky who is separated from you etc") that implies something separated from you.  Nevertheless the third mark of existence "Anatta" tells you that there is no self that is to say the idea of you (ego) is illusory.  

Is is right from a Buddhistic point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing different minds(egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"
OP: Is it right from a Buddhist point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing
  different minds (egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of
  all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving
  all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"


No. That's a classic teaching of Hinduism.

According to the Hindu text Shvetashvatara Upanishad:


  God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings.
  He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures.
  He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him.
  He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness


According to the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 13.14:


  Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears
  everything. In this way the Supersoul exists.


What did the Buddha teach?
(from the Theravada perspective)

From MN 38:


  "Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye &amp; forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear &amp; sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  &amp; aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue &amp; flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body &amp; tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect &amp; ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.


Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.

Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It does not exist independently connecting all beings. The consciousness in every being may be of a similar type, but it's not the same consciousness.

For example, I can say that every candle has a similar flame, but it's not the exact same flame that appears on every candle. Each flame is different.

From Sabba Sutta (also see this question):


  "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen &amp; pay close attention. I will
  speak."
  
  "As you say, lord," the monks responded.
  
  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye &amp; forms, ear &amp;
  sounds, nose &amp; aromas, tongue &amp; flavors, body &amp; tactile sensations,
  intellect &amp; ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
  say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
  what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
  to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
  lies beyond range.