Ah yes, so let's reject the actual arguments in hand because of the other things he's said. Strawman attack anyone? Also see the CNBC article.
If you're going to play the intellectual and claim logical fallacy, you could at least have the courtesy to accuse me of the right one. It was an ad hominem attack, not a strawman.
Of course, this assumes that I was really arguing against the meat and potatoes. I honestly stopped being interested in what the blogging individual had to say when I read the opening lines that stated that "Democrats are demon-possessed-liars" and concludes with some crap about the beast from Revelations finishing what Obama started. Sorry, but credibility is important to me. Broken clocks may be right twice a day, but I don't plan to ever use them as a reference.
I had nothing to refute about the CNBC article, because I don't dispute the article. If you think I'm part of the Obama defense force, you're sadly mistaken. You might want to take a step back and reassess.