RNC document mocks donors, plays on 'fear'
- Thread starter hermit
- Start date
I did review the site you referenced. Obviously trendlover, we all have a bias, we cant be a participant in this world and not latch on to a bias or two.
The site you referenced states "..for progressives, by progressives....", so I would assume the contributors to the site are "progressives", which according to my bias, a "progressive" is another label for socialist.
The Senators and Representatives who live at "C street" should face the same questioning by the liberal media, that Van Jones (an admitted, self proclaimed communist) did from conservative media outlets. Bring the matter to the light of day, and let the voters make a decision.
I will say, that the alledged "religious" theology of the "family" is not christian in the orthodox sense, and I would reject their legitimacy as a "christian" organization.
The author of the article you sent me too, Mr. Nicholas Kozloff, seems to be a "progressive" also, so that is his bias. His works have been showcased on Marxist web sites, such as the one below:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/9302/
The article referenced above is page three of a three page work which describes the socialist history in western politics, and closes with the following statement:
".....Giddens was correct in his call for a renewal of social democratic thinking and policy formulation. The left, whether in Britain, the United States, or anywhere else, has to take up the challenge of finding new pathways to social reform that are pregmatic and embody the traditional socialist values of freedom, justice, and solidarity. Though he would of course not describe himself as a socialist, we might find helpful advice in the words of the new American president, who reminds us that people are waiting for a politics "with the maturity to balance idealism and realism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be compromised" (Obama 2006,51). As the current economic crisis so clearly demonstartes, neoliberal fundamentalism is worn out. But the Third Way solutions that were put forward in the 1990s seemed to lose sight of the difference between a compromise of tactics and a compromise of principles.[/I] It was thus unable to craft a progressive consensus that could move beyond market fundamentalism. We cannot romanticize old methods, but neither can we forget the values which have for more than one hundred years motivated the struggle to build a better world. History is presenting us with one of those moments when a fundamental political realignment becomes a realistic possibility. Let's hope we do not let the opportunity pass us by.
This from a Marxist website !
In like a fox, changing the established political order, step by step, year after year................
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Barth Vader for the time to write so much. That is alot of information to read, so I need time to understand that. But I will read your post again, and the link.
I didn't, I quoted part of the article that said : "rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms." Which of course isn't even true. My quote was intended to show BOTH sides do it, which you seem all to willing to ignore.
Oh I didn't attack you because I have a weak argument. It was because you keep making shit up as you and putting words in my mouth.
I don't see this in your original quote anywhere. But even if it is written somewhere, wouldn't you need to ask them?
MY only real "argument" is that BOTH sides: "Manipulate donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC â Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms..."
Ofcourse both sides do it, but this is the worse of it all, how many times has this to be repeated. And again how is this an excuse for mocking your own donors? You must be one of the true believers mentioned in the presentation, they have contempt for you and yet you cant see straight.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. - Matthew 7:1-6
