Common Sense: Not so Common!

Jim let's take all three steps. One what the speaker of the house said was disgusting, BUT not the same as associating your self with policies an practices such as lynch mobs and hatefull discrimination that Mr. Thurman prefered, not only that but the man, in thus case President Obama, publicly accepted his apology. It is ignorant and wrong of anyone to presume to speak for some one who has been wronged an accepted the perpatrators apology. Your second point I really do not understand I would argue that his bold public comment regarding the horable supreme court decision was appropriate. All three branches of government are equal. The most efective way to counter a treasionous act such as the one passed down from the court is through legislation, that is exactly what Mr. Obama did and he did it when presidents typically lay out their domestic and foriegn agendas before the public. Thirdly, the majority of anger directed at Mr.Bush had more to do with WHAT he was spending his money on and WHO was recieving it and HOW it was being awarded. On to of that he was trying to privatize Social Security and turn it into a Corperate hand out just like the Iraq war and the war in Afganistan. Mr. Bush was givven a PROJECTED surpluss and rather than wait and see if it really happened he gave away money that did not exist to his cronies and the threw in a small tax break for the " comon folk" Mr Obamas spending is to fix the mess created by Bush and company and may have been the only thing that held off depression.

Proud Progressive…most of what you say is true but has nothing to do with the facts in this blog. The most glaring inaccuracy is your debating common sense #2 about Bush’s spending. In case you haven’t heard, Bush’s SS privatization didn’t get passed. So none of your opinion or data is accurate since Bush didn’t spend wildly after SS privatization because there was none! And then you said turn it(ss?) into a “corporate handout like Iran and Afghanistan.” I don’t think anyone has a clue what you are trying to imply or say. Sorry.

Bush did NOT have a debt surplus. This is where the MSM is so dishonest. They even have you believing in that. Budget deficit is totally different than our national debt. Which will be nearly 90% of our GDP in a few years under Obama and his spending. Bush spent 3% to GDP, Obama is at 20%. That deficit goes towards our national debt and Obama has taken it to a level that can destroy America unless we vote him and his cronies out of Washington.

Your analogy to Obama accepting Reid’s apology (we can only assume that’s your analogy?) only makes my point clearer. Reid did apologize as did Lott. That’s a fact. Both apologies were accepted even though Reid’s were point blank and racist. However, the big difference is the democrats still insisted Lott be removed and Reid not to be removed from his position. That’s a fact and is called hypocrisy.

I never said nor implyed that privatization took place however I used it, perhaps poorly as an example of Mr. Bush's agenda if distroying government insteadbof Turing to run it. As far as the Corperate hand outs I dub not say Iran since we are not at war with them, I was refering to the no bud contracts and " private armies" that we paid large amounts of money to for thier services in both wars, clearer?as to the surpluss, smart move add or word to my statemet and you can twist what I said. Mr. Bush recieved a PROJECTED BUDJET surpluss and apentnit in tax cuts before they could happen. Not a deficit surpluss, I never said that nor implied that.

Jim who exaclty "accepted" thurmands appoligy? And what makes them a spoksman for all of oppressed, discriminated people of the segragationist movement, I never met them not have I ever given them consent to speak on
my behalf an I find Thurmans policies repulsive as do I any one who defends them.

Proudpro...though I don't agree and the historical facts also prove my point, your former comment still has no bearing on Obama's spending and his raising that to 20% GDP and near 90% debt to GDP. If what you say about Bush, no-bid contracts (if you look at Halliburton’s balance sheets, they lost $ in 02 and didn’t get back to their pre-level until 04. Those so-called "no bid" contracts didn't help HAL), and money spent on a war are 100% true, than Obama’s spending and increasing our national debt to levels that destroys free economies (witness Japan for the past 10 plus years), only prove my point in that we must stop Obama and the democrats.

Your comment about who accepted Strom Thurmond’s apology? Lott was the one who apologized and was then kicked out, not Thurmond. And Lott apologized and accepted by both parties. If not, then that makes your liberal democrats even worse and more hypocritical (and I haven’t even brought up democrat, KKK member Sen Byrd who still gets a free pass by the liberals). Lott’s apology was accepted as was Reid’s but Reid gets a pass and is allowed to stay on as house majority but Lot is not. Hmmm, something stinks and most Americans can see right through all this. Too bad you can’t

I had read at a CBO site a few weeks back that the 09 budget written in October of 08 projested a raise to 25.7 % of GDP and the actual was 24.9 %.

President Obama’s job approval rating on the economy (36%) is at its lowest point to date; his rating on foreign affairs (51%) is up slightly from last month. Americans give Obama his highest rating on education (54%), and his lowest on the deficit (32%).
Read more at GALLUP.com.

Carl...the way Obama and the democrat are changing the numbers for spending and our debt, I would have to say any numbers more than six months old (CBO projections too) would be obsolete.

Well, at least we know where Obama got the idea to spend, spend, spend from!

Andy? I think you need a little history lesson. This is an email I just got from my friend Steve that explains how all this spending became. You need to educate yourself. I know you are young, and many of us were fooled or duped like you when we were in school, but falling over anyone that's in a political party will spell doom for you. Become balanced.

Here's the scoop on what Obama inherited: I'm Sick of "Inherited"


The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush, blah blah blah. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, I'll try a short civics lesson. Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since November 2006 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

Andy Part II: And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.


Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:


If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.


WAKE UP, AMERICA , BEFORE ITS TOO LATE