The One O’clock Review of the News

political-newsKey news articles, opinion pieces, and reports to improve our understanding of the political landscape:

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2012/11/27/social_conservatives_gop_cant_live_without_them

“Social Conservatives: GOP Can’t Live Without Them: It is no small irony that those urging a remake of the GOP to bring it in line with changing demographics could unwittingly alienate Hispanics and other minority recruits who might be receptive to social conservatism. It is also ironic and a testament to the wholesale ineffectiveness of the Republican Party that it is cowering from potentially winnable social issues: abortion, same-sex marriage, Obama’s assault on religious liberty and his phony war on women. Is there no issue on which the establishment will not cave in the end? The Republican Party can choose to ostracize social conservatives and their issues, or try to purge them altogether from the party and its platform. But they better be careful what they wish for, because if they do, it will be the end of the party as we know it.”

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/where-the-conservative-media-went-wrong/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=e5bc0b9413-email112612&utm_medium=email

“First, the movement for gay rights, which is funded by billionaires like George Soros and rich homosexuals, will not accept a truce. Second, in the four states where gay marriage won on the ballot on November 6, the vote tallies against gay marriage surpassed the vote totals for Romney. In Maryland, Romney was behind the vote for traditional marriage by 12 points. This is telling. It means that a certain number of people voted against Obama’s position on gay marriage, but they did not vote for Romney. This suggests that Romney failed to galvanize social conservatives on his behalf. Although Romney’s position was that he was in favor of traditional marriage, he did not campaign on the issue. What’s more, he had said publicly that the spontaneous public protests in favor of Chick-fil-A over its CEO’s comments in favor of traditional marriage were not part of his campaign. In addition, during the campaign he reiterated his support for opening up the Boy Scouts to homosexuals.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2012/48_think_new_tax_money_will_go_to_new_programs_not_deficit_reduction

“Voters are a little less suspicious of how new tax revenues may be used. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that a plurality (48%) of Likely U.S. Voters continues to believe that if Congress and the president raise taxes to reduce the federal deficit, they are likely to use the money for new government programs instead. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree and believe new tax money raised to reduce the deficit will be used for that purpose. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure.”

Tweet This Post!

13 Comments

  1. Curt says:

    What I find most hysterical about this article is that is written by David Limbaugh, younger brother of three time divorced drug addict Rush Limbaugh.

    “It means that a certain number of people voted against Obama’s position on gay marriage, but they did not vote for Romney. This suggests that Romney failed to galvanize social conservatives on his behalf.”

    Actually what it “suggests” is that people DO NOT CARE whether or not gay people can get married.

    “In addition, during the campaign he reiterated his support for opening up the Boy Scouts to homosexuals.”

    The fact that you guys care more about some gay kid joining the Boy Scouts while the whole country is burning is the reason why you guys got your butts kicked. Again. Keep refusing to learn from your mistakes.

    For all the hysteria about gay rights I see zero mention of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Despite all the previous hysteria. Oh yeah, IT’S A NON ISSUE. GET A LIFE.

  2. truther says:

    For all the hysteria about gay rights I see zero mention of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Despite all the previous hysteria. Oh yeah, IT’S A NON ISSUE. GET A LIFE.

    Life… lives… wait until we lose some in that next war. Because we turned our military into a social experiment. Time will determine whether or not it is a non-issue or, like Israel’s early use of women in the front lines, a costly mistake.

    No good arguing about it now. In time we will know.

  3. truther says:

    the whole country is burning

    Do you live in Syria?

  4. Curt says:

    “No good arguing about it now. In time we will know.”

    Sounds like a pansy way of saying you were wrong.

  5. truther says:

    Look at Curt, Lord of Ass, making the “pansy” joke. LOL!

  6. Curt says:

    Sticks and stones, truther, at least I stand up for the winning and right argument.

    Its a shame you don’t have even enough character to admit you were wrong. Keep sticking with your sniveling “No good arguing about it now.” BS. Glad you losers are taking your rightful place on the wrong side of history.

  7. truther says:

    Poor Curt threw a stick and got beaned with a stone. Funny thing about history. . . you have to wait for it.

    Throughout history there have been fools like you who forgot what armies are for in the first place. They are not playgrounds of experimentation in LGBTXYZ “rights”.

    Wait until the next war. Events will write the history and determine (what was that cliche you used?) who is on the “wrong side of history”.

  8. Curt says:

    “Funny thing about history. . . you have to wait for it”

    LMAO, you know what is else great about history? Watching those who are too arrogant to learn from it make the same mistakes.

    You keep waiting for it buddy. Considering every civilized county in the free world allows gays to serve openly tells you that you are going to be waiting for a long, long time.

    Change your name from “truther”. I would suggest “denial”, “pathological” and “pathetic”, much like your arguments.

  9. truther says:

    you know what is else great about history? Watching those who are too arrogant to learn from it make the same mistakes.

    My point exactly.

    You want to change the military to suit your sexual desires. It isn’t about you and your ass. That isn’t what the military is about. Until recently, the Code of Military Conduct frowned on any outward exibit of affection. Understandable, when your primary role is killing other human beings.

    every civilized county in the free world allows gays to serve openly

    Do you mean the hollowed out military “units” of the European Union? Most have been over since the 1970’s. If it hadn’t been for the threat of our nukes, they would have been invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union.

    Look at the morale problems in the British Army and then read the report on how that once great military institution was defeated and driven out of Iraq. That’s what happens when you concentrate on ass instead of the military disciplines.

    Wait Curt, open your eyes, open your mind and wait. War is not about fairness for sexual minorities. War is brutal. Never more so than to the silly.

  10. Curt says:

    “That isn’t what the military is about. Until recently, the Code of Military Conduct frowned on any outward exibit of affection. Understandable, when your primary role is killing other human beings.”

    And who says gay soldiers aren’t capable of killing other human beings in combat. To kick a fully qualified person out of the military because they happen to be gay is absurd. The stupidity of your argument is that you use your own prejudice against gay people to make up your own logic.

    “Look at the morale problems in the British Army and then read the report on how that once great military institution was defeated and driven out of Iraq.”

    What does that have to do with gay soldiers? Give me an example. You are trying to paint with a broad brush and use gay soldiers as a scapegoat.

    “Wait Curt, open your eyes, open your mind and wait.”

    Yeah, I have opened my eyes. I see the absurdity of someone who names himself “truther” and lives in a fantasy world.

    I see someone who has still not given me one concrete example and has only resorted to name calling, “wait and see” and scapegoating.

    Anyone with their eyes open can see what that it is and it is pathetic. Get over your homophobia and move on.

  11. truther says:

    Poor Curt, you cannot see beyond the tip of your penis.

    To kick a fully qualified person out of the military because they happen to be gay is absurd.

    The military should not concern itself with the sexuality of its soldiers and soldiers should not “identify” with anything beyond unit and mission. The fact that you have pushed your sexual desires into the process so that you define some soldeirs as “gay” will not, in my opinion, make for positive future outcomes.

    Neither of us can be sure, so we both must be humble enough to wait for the future. You seem to be frightened by that. No matter, there is nothing you or I can do about it. It will come.

    That said, it does not bode well that the first act of this new model army is to withdraw from the field in the face of a resurgent Taliban. Not well at all.

    To phrase it in the crude sexual terms that you appear to place everything: In Afghanistan, the “pro-gay” army has left the field to the “anti-gay” army.

  12. Curt says:

    “The military should not concern itself with the sexuality of its soldiers and soldiers should not “identify” with anything beyond unit and mission.”

    Uh yeah, thats been the whole point all along.

    “Neither of us can be sure, so we both must be humble enough to wait for the future. You seem to be frightened by that.”

    No we won’t. its a settled matter and I’m confidant of that. You just won’t admit you were wrong.

    “That said, it does not bode well that the first act of this new model army is to withdraw from the field in the face of a resurgent Taliban.”

    You are trying to convince me this a direct result of gays allowing to serve in the military while calling yourself truther. I find that highly amusing.

    “To phrase it in the crude sexual terms that you appear to place everything: In Afghanistan, the “pro-gay” army has left the field to the “anti-gay” army.”

    Lol, first of all, scroll up read the crude terms you use. Sounds like you have a little too much gay sex on your brain there. Which side of the closet are you on, truther?

    Second, you still have not given any concrete examples of how letting openly gay soldiers impacted the British army. Looks like you have more in common with the “anti-gay” army over there, why don’t you go join them?

  13. truther says:

    “The military should not concern itself with the sexuality of its soldiers and soldiers should not “identify” with anything beyond unit and mission.”

    Uh yeah, thats been the whole point all along.

    Then why have you made sexual identification a concern of the military? Why are there members of the military speaking at “gay” forums? Of course, you know why, you seek to promote your sexual desires above all else. Your ass comes first.

    “Neither of us can be sure, so we both must be humble enough to wait for the future. You seem to be frightened by that.”

    No we won’t. its a settled matter and I’m confidant of that.

    Well, this just shows the kind of arrogant fool you are. Let me remind you that the Communists and Fascists were once confident that their futures were settled matters too.

    Your sexual desires do not represent progress as they were commonplace in the ancient world. With the advent of Christianity it became the fashion to temper the appetite (you call it “the closet”). Now the fashion has gone back to what it was. Not progress but a circle. The fashion will change again.

    “That said, it does not bode well that the first act of this new model army is to withdraw from the field in the face of a resurgent Taliban.”

    You are trying to convince me this a direct result of gays allowing to serve in the military

    I am trying to convince you of nothing. I suspect that you are dependent solely on the impulses of your loins for direction.

    That said, the focus of the military on non-military concerns, like the acceptance of celebratory “gays” in their ranks (as opposed to people who keep their private lives private) does take its mind off winning a war. Unfortunately, it is a fact that the first act of your new model army was to march off the field and leave it in the hands of a foe that does focus on winning.

    first of all, scroll up read the crude terms you use.

    I did not use the term “crude” in the way you think I meant it. No matter. Fashion dictates what is crude and what isn’t. For instance, the fashionable use the term “homophobe” today in the same way that it was once fashionable to use the term “faggot”.

    It is always fashionable to hate. All that changes are the objects of that hate and, of course, the “cool crowd” who set the terms of that hate. Before they were the oppressors, the Nazis fancied themselves victims. The same with the Marxists.

    Christians were oppressed in the ancient libertine world. Fashion changed. It was once illegal to be “gay”, now it will soon be illegal to be Christian. Not progress, but a circle.

    You probably don’t consider yourself to be a hater, but you are. You just don’t recognize it because you hate in line with the fashion of your day.

    Second, you still have not given any concrete examples of how letting openly gay soldiers impacted the British army.

    The British Army’s defeat in Iraq was due to many factors. A major factor was morale and the loss of the will to win. Because they are about killing and being killed, military units do not function like other places of employment. Some European armies have actually gone as far as unionizing, but all have been softened by concerns like “how do we make our tank corps accepting of openly gay soldiers”.

    If you have not been a member of the military, you cannot know the life or death importance of morale, unit cohesion, and mission focus. When the mission is “not to offend the gay guy” it tends to distract from the killing.

    Talk to some career British noncoms. They will tell you that it is not their army anymore. Many have already left to seek careers as “contractors”.

    Looks like you have more in common with the “anti-gay” army over there, why don’t you go join them?

    Smug, but you raise a point. That is my concern. I would hate for our new model soldiers to come up against some of those “contractors” or a unit trained by them.

    The future is ahead of us. Wait for it.