Besides, when I say “Glenn Beck fanboy” I was making an allusion to how consistently throughout your entry you just attacked Obama not on the basis of what he said, but you thought he meant. You say Obama supported the same points of views as Glenn Beck says he supports (ie Big Government, Americans feed on hope alone, Obama can't fix the economy, etc), when in reality, there's little textual basis (from the speech) for your argument.

Next I've never sd my life has become a living hell. Those were your words. I'm also not paid to write any of this.

Next – When you link to Repub Presidents vs Democrat Presidents you should understand something. Congress writes the laws. Go ahead and take a look at when Dems & Repubs had control of Congress. A different picture emerges than the false one ur trying to paint.

You see things improving? LMAO!! Based on what projections? The deficit being tripled by Obama in 1 year? Or perhaps the the Debt growing exponentially. Get real.

Next – I can see your Bush Derangement Syndrome very clearly like all the rest of your posts here. Nice try. Hmmm let's see, who's the Secretary of Treasury? Why it's Timmy G!

Next – I've been banning a lot of spammers lately. You have access to my site statistics? Nope. So again you're talking out of your butt.

I knew I recognized you from the past. You're a blog troller. Instead of talking directly and discussing the post directly you come after me personally. You're a stalker. That's why you were banned before.

Obviously you changed your email and ip address to get back in here and do more of the same.

You're right, this is your last post and you are banned.

You're also wrong. Joe is not banned.

Go stalk someone else Spuds.

I noticed your blog started almost immediately after Obama took office. Is it just a personal beef against the Democratic Party? Are you a sore loser? Are you paid to do this? What? I just can't understand how people can be so negative about things, even before they have a chance to happen. You may not agree with their policies. But believe it or not the Democratic party is not as bad as you think it is. Yes, they spend money on things you may not like. Yes, they do not lower taxes like the Republican party. But, if you look at history, they are somewhat successful at lower are national debt, at least as a percentage of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_publ...). A better graph is here, broken down by presidency (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html).

And they are somewhat successful at creating jobs:
Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year

This was taken from an article at politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/stateme...). I know you don't like them, but they are non-partison.

And, regarding your little blurb on AIG. The AIG bailout was initiated under George W. Bush's administration, by Henry Paulson (Bush's Secretary of Treasury) and Timothy Geithner (the Federal Reserve President at the time). So, I wouldn't exactly be calling out Obama on this.

As for the tax cuts, or more specifically, the expiration of the tax cuts for people of $250,000. Doesn't personally matter to me, I don't make that much. I think it's fiscally responsible to let them retire. I also think it's good that they are extending the cuts to the middle class. The middle class feeds the economy. In fact, Bush himself, should have repealed the tax cuts as soon as the war started. You don't start an expensive war in cut taxes! That's stupid. How did he plan on paying for it. This simple fact is, he didn't care. Let the next administration handle it. He knew a Democrat would probably get elected, history shows this. He know taxes would have to be raised, all of them do. So the Democrats come in, raise taxes, get the debt under control, and then get thrown out because they raised taxes. It's a never ending cycle. And, it's a shame. You keep speaking about the Dems spending too much, but, in fact, over the last couple of decades its the Republicans who have been increasing our debt. Look at “Pay as You Go”. It was working, our debt was declining, and then Bush let it expire and immediately we had budget deficits again, and the debt started to increase. Congress voted on this yesterday, and guess what, it was a party line vote 60-39. The party line vote, may have been because of the spending limit increase, but who knows. And before you say a-ha, the spending limit increases have historically been part line. During Bush administration the spending limit was raised 7 times, 5 by the Republican congress, 2 by the Democrat congress, each time by a party line vote. I do think, however, that if the bill did not include the spending increase it still would have been a party line vote. Why the Republicans can't stand pay-as-you go is beyond me. I would figure requiring spending to be budge-neutral would be a good thing.

Anyway, last post for me. I don't have the time for it, after all I get “paid” to do a different job. I'm probably going to get banned again anyway. By the way, I've noticed that you have been banning alot of people, including myself once. Why is this?

Anyway, I beg all of you reading this stuff, please, please, do research. Don't just watch FOX News. Don't listen just to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, et all. Watch CNN, gasp, I know it's liberal, but does offer a counter argument. Read non-conservative fact checking sites, like factcheck.org or politifact.com. It's not anywhere remotely as bad as this guy is making it sound. Calm down. Remember, this is a Democracy. Things will change if you don't like it. It always has. Balance of power is a good thing. We should expect and accept and even hope for party changes in Washington. It keeps things in check. We would all be better off if anger and hate (and racism) didn't take over our politics too. Remember, this is the 21st century not the 19th century. We should be better than this. Learn from our past. Move forward.

And Joe, bravo, good reply. You're a much better orator than I. I tend to rant incoherently. You'll probably get banned though.

I'll respond to your entire comment with a quote from you:

“… but now I am beginning to see you as simply a Glenn Beck fanboy”

So much for juvenile huh Joe?

However, I found this post to be too biased and unwarranted for me to pass up a chance to comment. To take a look at most of your points one by one:

When you attack his introduction:
This is attack is, in my opinion, completely out of the blue. I find nothing really wrong in his introduction, he's just talking about how there can be uncertainty in times of crises, where people may question the likelihood of a positive outcome, but we as Americans can always pull through.
Try this: pretend Glenn Beck said those very same lines and ask yourself how you would interpret them if Beck had said them.

On Obama's “whining”:
Where does Obama whine? I see this as a counter to many of the pundits who blame all of the economic problems on Obama, and now Obama's saying he has the drive to try and fix the country.
Also, on jobs: unemployment in general lags behind other figures that try and evaluate the state of an economy. That's why Bernanke can say that “the worst is over” while still looking at record high unemployment rates. (of course, whether Bernanke is correct is a different story, but I'm just pointing out how economists see it, most of whom have spent a lot more time studying markets and whatnot more than you or I ever will)

On what Americans want:
First, not all Americans want limited government. Some people want to have a “safety net” provided by the government.
Second, “The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life,” sounds very much like something an average American would want, or do some not want to give their children a better life?
Third, America is a Republic. The people don't make laws, they choose people to make laws for them. But you always could propose an idea for nationwide propositions or something.
Forth: “pea-head brain” is just juvenile. One of the reasons why I like your blog is that it can express its view with cold anger, but with that the anger just becomes hot.
Fifth: If you think Obama is infringing the Constitution and your rights, you could always sue. It's the American way!

On the bank bailouts:
Yeah, I didn't like the bank bailouts either, and all of Congress is being very hypocritical about them.
However, I do think they need to be regulated. The OTC Derivative market is larger than the world wealth, and such exchanges are done completely behind closed doors. Even though I'd rather the government not be the one to regulate this market, someone still should. Even Alan Greenspan cited non-regulation of the OTC Derivative market as one of the main reasons for the recent economic collapse.
Finally, I'm not too sure what you're referring to with the “ex post facto” law… neither regulations nor taxation qualifies as an ex post facto law…

On the tax cuts:
As someone who is a proponent of small government, I can't believe you're attacking tax cuts of any form. You just label it with a buzzword: “redistribution of wealth.”
I typed many different arguments to fill this space, but I realized each was just as futile as the last.

No matter how much evidence I provide, or how logical my arguments are, for this topic and many others, you will stubbornly cling to your statements that all that Obama does is bad. I have disagreed and agreed with a multitude of the policy decisions by many different presidents, but never have I thought that one single person had only malicious intent.

I used to think of your blog as a forum for one man's opinions, giving a new perspective on the way the world works, but now I am beginning to see you as simply a Glenn Beck fanboy.