Obama…a "proven president?" Everything about your blog has been flawed and your conclusions are therefore flawed. Clearly an opinion piece, nothing based on facts…therefore absent of logic.

"Mitch McConnell is a master obstructionist in government" is fact?

Give me a break. Your entire list is nothing but rehashed left wing rhetoric.

My conclusion: Obama is the second worst president ever and the country cannot afford (literally) another four years of his disastrous leadership.

My reasoning: My interest would be better served by anyone over Obama. Romney is certainly no Jefferson and definitely wouldn't be my first choice, but being a better option than Obama is a pretty low bar!

Chet: The real republicans (of which I am not one) have a name for people like you: RINO. And I don't think they'll mind if you go the way of Luger and Specter.

Some items on the list are facts, some are opinion, some conjecture, a few fall into two or three of these categories.

A syllogism's logic follows a simple pattern with two facts, A=B and B=C, leading to the logical conclusion of A=C.

Your Conclusion following the list where we should draw our own conclusion is We cannot afford a business president or business party? From which two facts was this arrived from I wonder.

How about this for a try.

In 2008 B. Obama said amassing more than 4 trillion in additional Debt was Unpatriotic.
In 2012 Under B. Obama the Debt has grown and more than an additional 4 Trillion since 2008.
B. Obama is unpatriotic.

This type of pseudo intellectualism is amusing.

There is blame enough to go around without the need for more partisanship.

Lol, you should know better then to try to change the minds of "tea baggers" with the facts, lol I am with you and hope that all the voters are too....the President represents ALL the people and they want one who just does what they want them to do....and so it goes! Great article :)

That was a brave piece to write, especially given the carefully considered responses to other Patch blogs on political matters.

I thought I would attract someone who could present a logical opposing argument. Not yet. Rhetoric?-Hardly. Old facts?-certainly. Conjecture?-Not that I can see. Maybe the single term of a non-essential war. BUT, the hind-sight facts seem to support that there are not enough documentation that Iraq as a realistic threat.

Opinion: I would suggest that President Obama has not been a forceful leader and could have stepped up to the point more often. That is one style of leadership. His, though debatable, seems to be to listen to a lot of input then to quietly make a decision. There are points to support that such as taking out Bin Laden. I like that he listens and accepts all manner of input then decides.

I tend to consider strongly what choices were available when I am evaluating a leader. I would like to have had some different outcomes but not sure that anyone could have done better. My business is recovering rather well. I see the economy coming back gradually with each week. We had too much fluff in business and needed to get a little leaner. We also need to shift to some income producing in addition to home building. Obama will still get my vote.

Quietly awarded a contract = conjecture = the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. Since thousands of contracts are awarded by the government every year, tell how you determine which are quiet and which are loud. Without that evidence it is conjecture.

Same for "The war in Iraq was entered without a method of paying for the cost. It was a non-essential, non-budgeted war that provided profits to many smart businessmen." The DoD has budget for contingencies, this would fund the initial portions of the Iraq War. From that point Congress made appropriations to pay for the war. As far as profits go, is your recovering business pro-bono, or do you make a profit? And since we live in a state where the Government Services are a major industry, and a large portion of the population works for the government, is it any wonder we have been insulated to an extent from the economic down turn?

Open your eyes, or at least take off your blinders, you may see better.

Chet,

I stand corrected, the premise is partially false then. The original statement was this.

"The war in Iraq was entered without a method of paying for the cost. It was a non-essential, non-budgeted war that provided profits to many smart businessmen."

There was a method to pay for it, contingency funding within the DoD budget followed by supplemental defense bills beyond the normal annual DoD budgets. There was no statement about whether the method was cash or credit so to speak. I do not support or defend the justification of the war spending as stimulus, that is foolish, the spending was necessary because our congress and President passed into law a military action to remove Saddam Hussein. That is another area of contention beyond paying for it. Thank you for the correction.

OK, I considered that creating debt to cover war expense was not a valid method of budgeting. I was not aware that the Bush tax covered the war debt nor that it is designated to remain until the war is over. I do recall that a suit was filed to challenge the president's right to wage war of this magnitude (Due to the cost) without the approval of Congress. It my memory is correct, the judge (Might have been Griffin or Griffith) did rule that it was NOT legal BUT stopped short of calling it to a stop. He instead referred the issue to stop (or continue) to Congress. I believe that both inept sides of Congress procrastinated thus allowing the war to continue. At the expense of technology, drones, manpower, support, and our just beginning medical coverage of the injured, it would seem to me that those are unplanned expenses mounting into the $Trillions. Perhaps someone has some facts to support or refute this supposition.

Nevertheless, in intelligent business today there would be all effort to avoid the semblance of conflict of interest. If the same person(s) who has the ability to cause war also has the most to gain financially AND that cash cow has an infinite life (no scheduled limit), it smacks of a financial war, not one whose primary focus is to keep our country safe.

As an FYI: The long-term consequences of financing these wars has mostly been by borrowing. These wars have been financed like no other war has been financed in U.S. history. In every other war we increased taxes, sold war bonds—we paid for those wars in relatively short order. But these wars began in a time when tax cuts just went into effect. By borrowing to pay for them, that means not just having an increased deficit, but having to pay interest on the debt. If you pay interest for 5, 10, 20, and more years, it adds up to a sum so enormous never thought about. It was put off to the side because it would overwhelm every other thing. Other ripple effects were never anticipated. For example, veterans need to replace prosthetic devices for limbs: rehab for TBI's, mental health, etc. these are ongoing costs. Also the costs incurred by the Red Cross, NGOs, the hospitals.

And as Rusty said, the advisors to Mr. Romney are -for lack of a better way of saying it- are unapologetic war hawks. John Bolton: has always been a proponent of an Israeli attack on Iran. Robert Kagan: wants to place a missle defense system in Europe, increase the # of naval warships built/year ( 5 more then the service requested): Robert Joseph- the man who gave us the infamous 16 words inserted into Bush's SOTU regarding Iraq buying uranium from Niger: Eric Edelman- who wants military intervention in Syria and is Romney's link to Dick Cheney: Dan Senor- best known for the disasterous dismantling of the Iraqi army under Paul Bremer and now is aligned with the Israeli -right. Yes...I agree with Mr. Vaughan. I do not want these people calling the shots for the next 4 years.

I thought Brian's Wednesday comment about there being plenty of blame to go around had some merit. The better question is which of these two candidates has a chance of making real improvements. On that basis you have someone with a proven track record in the White House right now -- the economy is getting better under his leadership, despite intense obstructionism from Congress. The other candidate might have more credibility (having served as Governor in a tough state for a Republican to govern) if he had not spent his entire campaign systematically repudiating every even remotely good thing that he accomplished in Massachusetts. Does he actually have any good ideas about how to improve the economy -- any new ones? Listen closely -- there's nothing there.

"...you have someone with a proven track record in the White House right now -- the economy is getting better under his leadership..."

That's either the funniest or the dumbest thing I've read all day! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Bill, thanks for the laugh!

Unemployment of 8.2%....3 years after they spent nearly a trillion dollars that was guaranteed to keep it under 8%. Proven track record. Yeah, that was a good one Bill.

The Tea Party is about as good for this country as Ticks are to a Dog.

I'd like to catch up a couple of comments here:
"So, does this mean you're going to take a stand against the enormous amounts of debt .....?"
We have to finance a war, strengthen our economy, and reduce debt. There is history to show that a war created in a down economy brings us back to employment and sound growth. The Iraq war was created in a robust economy without a line item in the budget to finance it. I don't know the effects of a troop supported army compared to an outsourced support. I am very uneasy that the Halliburton corporation and all its divisions profited so much rather than a like number of troops who supported families back in the states supporting themselves. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the Bush tax cuts, will account for almost half of the projected $20 trillion debt in 2019.

Yes, Tea Party has every right to exist and. BUT, if the Tea Party were more into negotiating toward their goal rather than obstructing the government operations and holding only to their precise demand we COULD move forward, I would offer that a resulting less partisan form of government would contribute to confidence and growth in the economy. There are several Tea Party issues I could favor but not to an extreme. When John Boehner can't speak for his party, negotiate a bill, and deliver, That embarrassment is counter productive.
Obama is showing progress in the right direction.

Rusty I find this obsession with the Iraq war a little tiresome. When the current resident in the White House is starting wars in other middle eastern countries WITHOUT the approval of Congress (Syria, Libya, Pakistan) not to mention he's signed an agreement with Afghanistan that we will supply troops for the next decade WITHOUT the approval of Congress. He's now sending our young people over there to support a drug industry led by a corrupt president in that country and they must abide by these ridiculous rules of engagement that put them in harms way, sending them home either in body bags or with limbs blown off. I have more of a problem with that than whether Halliburton was getting paid money to support our troops in Iraq.

There's his freakin' proven track record for you.

Amy, I dwell on that because it makes my point of concern with the collective group supporting Romney, their business history, and what we should expect to continue if they are elected. The facts I listed above that you referred to as rhetoric are a great concern to me and an indication of a trend among a group of power holders in our country. I am sorry it is tiresome to you, (Grin) but it happens to be the subject of this thread.

I too would like to be out of Afghanistan. See, we agree. I too agree that their government is corrupt and to work with them we have to pay them. That is their way. If you have a way out, let's hear some details. Let's hear your specifics on how you would suggest we wind down and how you would like to change the rules of engagement. Amy, you could be constructive with facts and specific alternatives to those you are criticizing.

Hertz, I am happy to back up what I refer to as fact. Just let me know specifically which statement you consider to be false. OR, It would be fine to tell us which statement, if found to be true, would not be of concern to you or which would be of most concern to you. BUT, it is not good debate to tell me they are all false and that I am a lefty. Those are empty labels. If you just don't like the man, call it what it is and be against Obama. I still don't see on this thread anything that gives me reason to go for Romney.

I apologize to Amy. I kept asking for specifics. Perhaps you gave them. Should I infer from your general comments that none of the bullets above are of concern to you. What, if it were shown to be true, would not be of concern.

Richard, I am in favor of tax cuts. Please don't mistake that. I am having difficulty finding what I think we can do without that I would stand up and say cut. What would you suggest and how much would that affect the economy. I would suggest cutting tax for the middle class to help and put that loss on a small tax to individuals or corporations who have excessive income after expenses. There are a lot of ear marks by both sides we could eliminate. Or scale down the wars but Mitch is again it.

Amy, it looks like this discussion bores you. I can see why. If I sound like a broken record, try some other points for my choice of President at this posting. http://odenton.patch.com/blog_posts/stand-up-and-step-out-for-our-freedoms

Just as an FYI:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/01/barack-obama/obama-says-taxes-lower-middle-class/

Here's where to start cutting the budget:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/KV-RqPtT2PU

Great. Another left-wing bomb thrower with the shallow comments from the peanut gallery referring to their fellow Americans, who genuinely disagree with the direction of their nation in derogatory manner ("teabaggers"). How old are you people? The left crapped on Bush (and continue) for his spending. Even Republicans had issues with Bush and his "liberal" ways. The left then turns around and outspends Bush by a long mile and you say nothing. Richard...you are right. The left and progressives don't care about long term spending. I'm convinced they simply want to kick the can down the road, retire with as much as they can get their hands on, all the while screwing our kids with the bill. They don't care. While WWII produced the "greatest" generation, I'm convinced we are now witnessing the behavior of the most "selfish" generation. Don't touch my Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, pension, etc. Do you people run your household budgets like the federal government? The Dem senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1100 days, but that salient FACT seems to be clouded by the Left's mantra that the Republicans are the party of NO and those "teabggers" are to blame for tainting the Republican party and preventing a budget from passing. This back and forth is juvenile and everyone appears to simply want to demonstrate how great of an orator he or she is without saying anything of importance. But continue. What ever makes you feel better. In the meantime your country burns.

Patrick, your words don't fit the topic. I shall ask that of the 8 statements of fact above. 1. If these are all true, is that of any concern to you that they are? 2. How can we ensure that if Romney is elected, this does not occur again. 3. If you do not believe they are true, which one would concern you the most if it could be proven?

Many posts here like to paint with a broad brush of labels. "left-wing bomb thrower", "peanut-gallery", "teabaggers", "you people", "left", "crapped on", "out spends", "selfish generation", This does not help a discussion? Pick a specific budget item, a specific bill, or people who are in congress and open to discussion to solve the issues. I'll suggest that Boehner had all but negotiated a bi-partisan agreement but was not backed by his party. That surely should have been an embarrassment to him and to the majority of the Republicans. How would you propose we move forward. Democracy is a blend of ideas, beliefs, and, by necessity, compromise. Is that not what we must have to have a working government?

I am not as smart as you, Richard, Hawkeye and Amy but you already realize that by the way you are talking down to me. I'll try to find a copy of the constitution somewhere and learn what it means. I grew up in the South. My education was not as good as I am sure yours must have been. We were just taught to think things through and to speak thoughtfully. I hope that by reading more of these posts I'll learn to think more intelligently.