Home › Blogs › Skip MacLure's blog ›

Sixty Three Days!!!

Submitted by Skip MacLure on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 10:09
in

In the five day news cycle of politics, that’s the blink of an eye. Liberals got a good look at the real America when Glenn Beck’s call to God and country caused a mere 600,000 or so of you to pay your own way to travel to Washington DC.

I wrote in February 2009 that there was a ‘different’ feel out here… people were visibly, and more importantly audibly, upset at Barack Hussein Obama’s abrupt shift to the left. I said, that in this day and age of instant communication, he wouldn’t be able to hide who he really is for long.

I was gratified to be right, as layer after layer of spin, cover and distortion were stripped from Obama’s public persona, and people were able to see beyond the glitz and canned goodies into the frightening, gray world of deprivation and poverty that would be the inevitable result of the triumph of the left.

The people came together, first in town hall meetings and then at the Tea Parties which sprung up all around the country like mushrooms after a spring rain. Their message was remarkably consistent, though they had no apparent leadership on anything other than a local volunteer level.

Conservative values, the defeat of the Obama agenda and the reversal of health care, smaller government, tax cuts and preservation of the Republic are consistent messages throughout. We The People… we’re coming to take our country back. Then we’re going to be asking some very pointed questions.

The Republican leadership is under scrutiny as well. There are many who think that, if given the opportunity to lead again, they’ll revert to type and be the ‘Democrat light’ party insiders who perpetrated us getting thrown out of the leadership to start with. Just being elected to office is not going to guarantee anything any longer. We’ll monitor every person we elect. We’ll question and criticize and, if our elected representatives don’t toe the line, we’ll replace them.

Constitutional Conservatism is sweeping the country. Americans are rising up against the threat to our freedoms. Support them. Get active in your neighborhood and with your district Tea Party. Urge everyone you know to register. Tell them that this will be the single most important vote of their entire lifetimes.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Can you cite that 600,000 figure?

Submitted by dean2 on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 11:10.

I've seen estimates between 85,000 and 300,000, with the average being closest to 100,000.  600,000 is a HUGE statistical outlier.  I'm not commenting on its truthfulness, but without citation of your source for that figure you'll find persons generally will find it hard to believe.

Aug, DC, under the Trees. Its very crowded in the trees

Submitted by 4speed on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 16:45.

Eyewitnesses, say everyone was preferring the Shade, the most dense population is under the shade, out of view.

But Democrats cannot even count Tea Partiers, the Liberal JournOlist Media cannot Count. Just think about Jobs saved, think Healthcare will Lower HC Insurance rates, etc....., the fruitcakes can't count. 

Liberals cannot even believe their own lying eyes, let alone 200,000 people in the shade they cannot see.

Whatever the final figure, this is without doubt one of the biggest rallies Washington has seen in the 21st Century.

Numbers do not matter now, but these honorable people will be counted in November.

 

The numbers may not matter in this instance...

Submitted by dean2 on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 11:54.

... but honesty always matters, right?  It should be equally as much in the Party of Honest Abe, shouldn't it?  Shade schmade.

Speaking of honesty, did you see the AP fact check on "O" ?

Submitted by 4speed on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 12:05.

The speech on the Iraq War last night, did you see the Associated Press Fact check ?

An excerpt for you......For sure, the costly Iraq and Afghanistan wars have contributed to the nation's budget deficit — but not by as much as Obama suggests. The current annual deficit is now an estimated $1.5 trillion. But as recently as 2007, the budget deficit was just $161.5 billion.

In 2007 (Bush's Term) things started going haywire as Pelosi and the Dems took over.  Congress Spends, Presidents just vacation while Congress is spending.

One term president, and lame duck for the next 2 years.  All those lies, all these years, and he will not be able to Campaign for a 2nd term.  Too many Video's, too many broken promises.

Both you and the AP don't demonstrate the ability to...

Submitted by dean2 on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 15:56.

...understand the difference between the debt and deficit (for the record, most people discussing the budget surplus left by President Clinton are failing to make this distinction, as well).  The Concord Coalition explains it all here quite well:

http://www.afn.org/~concord/coalition/debtdef.htm

So the AP's claim is completely meaningless in that aspect.  But also in another.  It's belied in their comment that you quote, "but not by as much as Obama suggests".  In fact, Obama didn't suggest any amount at all.  He didn't say "we added $X to our nation's annual deficit by borrowing money to fund our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" at any point in his speech.  But we DID borrow money to fund those wars, and that money that we now owe is, in fact, added to the nation's annual deficit.  The budget deficit figure has only a minimally proportionate connection to the nation's annual deficit, and that the AP doesn't make that distinction doesn't speak well for them.  Your trumpeting that mistake doesn't speak well for you.

Bottom line?  Obama wasn't being even a little bit untruthful when he stated that "We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas".  That's a factually accurate and wholly truthful statement.

On a personal note, I'm glad that you've raised the level of your debate by providing relevant citation for your argument.  As can happen, your citation wasn't accurate, and that's not uncommon for anyone, typically.  So what you (and anyone citing data to support their argument) need to do is read through your cited piece, make sure it's properly cited, make sure any calculations within actually stand up, and only then should you trust it enough to cite it.

You complain a great deal about the MSM, claiming that they have a liberal bias and that, essentially, their reporting is largely inaccurate.  So I'm surprised that one who so vociferously makes such an argument would then be so quick to rely on an MSM article that fails on its face to prove its argument.

You're wrong again (for the record)

Submitted by 4speed on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 20:15.

you said "The budget deficit figure has only a minimally proportionate connection to the nation's annual deficit"
Gee, pushing 40 % is minimal ?
The main driver of budget deficits has been a 38% increase in federal spending from Democratic Congresses since they took power in January 2007.
This years Government Deficit is at 1.5 Trillion.
Keep spinning, this is entertaining.

It's funny because...

Submitted by dean2 on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 23:56.

...you still don't understand the difference between the nation's annual deficit and our budget deficit.   :snicker:

Word smithing in the Obama tradition are we ?

Submitted by 4speed on Thu, 09/02/2010 - 10:03.

What Budget ?   We don't have a 2011 Budget, we have a continuing resolution. 

Ya better go defend your last bogus post on the "Stimulous success" from the Whitehouse exiting Economic advisor, you'll find NEW information on the "Failed Stimulous" from the WH Economic Team.  

Unless the Whitehouse Economic Team is NOT a reputable source on the Stimulous ?  

Or does it depend upon what "Failed" means ? 

Again...

Submitted by dean2 on Thu, 09/02/2010 - 12:10.

...we await the substantive response that ever fails to materialize from you.  Not sure why I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt.  What's clear is that you still don't understand the difference between the budget debt and the national annual deficit.  Until you do, there's no point in continuing this discussion (and that assumes, probably wrongly, that there was a point to attempting discussion with you in any event).

Budgets (if "O" had one) when exceeded, create deficit spending

Submitted by 4speed on Thu, 09/02/2010 - 13:22.

At no time, in my previous posts did the word "debt" appear, until just now. You mentioned "Budget debt" above, not sure what you mean.

Back to Deficits, which you evidently think has several flavors. Sort of like the way you think of CBO reports, some flavors you like, some you don't.

Here is some CBO numbers you still don't like.......

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.

The U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be $1.3 trillion, according to CBO. That compares to a 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion and a 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion, according to data provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

At the end of a budget year, the deficits (if any) become Debt. That must be what you meant above when you wrote "Budget Debt".

I guess you were really confused when "O" said "Transparent Administration", as he really meant something totally different. 

I'll quote you

Submitted by dean2 on Thu, 09/02/2010 - 13:40.

"You mentioned 'Budget debt' above, not sure what you mean".

Yes, 4speed, that's precisely my point.  You don't understand the difference and therefore have no idea what's even being discussed. 

I'm out.

So Dean2 is OUT, and so is Sestak, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer etc...

Submitted by 4speed on Thu, 09/02/2010 - 20:17.

So Dean2 is OUT, and is soon to be joined by Sestak, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer (after last nights debate), Alex Sink, etc….its becoming a very long list of Democrats who are going for the OUT option.

Just play dodgeball by complaining about spelling, complain about the definitions of terms, focus on anything but the steady 10%+ real unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and the conservative tidal wave forming offshore.

The self proclaimed elite intellectuals just don’t get the common mans approach to how the country should be run, how Government money should NOT be spent, the illegal immigration problem,  how Public Unions like SEIU are bankrupting the State/Federal budgets with Pensions, and no Democrats will mention Health Care or dare campaign on the Stimulus "success".

Krauthammer describes it best, in his Last refuge of the Liberal article.

Its a wonderful "summer of recovery", after all.

Those AP deficit numbers are from the CBO, Deanie

Submitted by 4speed on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 19:14.

For you, one set of CBO numbers are God's honest truth as Dean wrote it.
Next set of CBO numbers that do not fit your narrative are propaganda, and suddenly there is a better source for deficit numbers than the CBO numbers AP is quoting.
You need to read my post / link at the end of your Stimulous success post, there you will see the same CBO numbers the AP is quoting.
Bush's Deficit in 2007 is a historical fact, as is the failure of the Stimulous, and the fantasy of "Jobs Saved".
You're just like the Ideologue in Chief, you can't see beyond your Liberal mindset, and you see CBO numbers thru the prism of your Liberal progressive bias.
Kiss Pelosi and her Keynesian deficit spending goodbye.
You're a hypocrite, you have no credibility, just like Obama.