A New Word

Hmmmm... weren't satisfied with the options already available? Not that it applies here, but kakistocracy gets across the point you're trying to make without having to be freshly invented. It just doesn't have the benefit of being immediately recognized for its negative meaning by those who haven't bothered to learn it.

I suppose I should just be glad you haven't adjusted the newly coined word to "Obamocracy."

Still sounds better than a plutocracy.

Conservonics is not a language!

WOW how revealing ! The first words they come up with when using a new word
with a description and those words that reflect the new word are :(kakistocracy) the
next one was : ("Obamocracy.") the third was : (plutocracy) Yet it took the new
word defining what the o's presidency is like ,before the PDLS's were able to see
what the o's ways are !!! lol... Thank you oh swift ones, who point out what a great
leader that follows those 4 words to the letter !!! lol... petey1234 you are a 1%er?
Does your company know that you comment here ? lol...

"Conservonics is not a language!"
:) !!!

I will not respond to disrespectful comments. Happy Thanksgiving.

Garber , SO ?
Petey1234 : How was my question disrespectful ? Your company would cringe if
they knew you were posting like this . Would they not ?

WFB- My name is Peter. Pete is ok, but Petey is a diminutive form which I don't accept from my friends, so I'm certainly not going to accept it from you.

If you choose to address me in a respectful manner, I will respond in kind. The tone of comments on this blog (and most around the Internet) is disrespectful and not conducive to actual discussion. I choose not to take part in that.

I have found over the last couple of years that getting a conservative to see and hear the truth is much like getting Helen Keller see and hear the truth...impossible!

steve lets explore that . In the benghazi incident the the pdls's still do not
acknowledge that the o and his staff lied . What do you think ? In climate change
Conservatives have said that climate constantly changes . Your side thinks that
climate changing is new ! What do you say ? lol...
As for pete : petey is not a diminutive name . to prove my point you may call me
Petey the rest of my time here . I am curious why a name makes you feel diminutive
though . Have you been teased so much as a child ,that you are emotionally scared ?
I am always amused at how such minuscule things seem to make PDLS's shut
down . Unable to operate unless people around them give them high undeserved
respect . I know a Petey , we all liked him and he was respected fully by all . I
should find him and tell him that we made him feel diminutive , but I know that he
would laugh and say ,"what ....... . No I better not say ,if petey bothers you the truth
would make you cry .

WFB- I guess that's as good as I'm going to get. It's a diminutive form of the name, most often used by kids (and even that not too frequently) or by close friends (which we're not). Use outside those conditions is disrespectful. You can call me whatever you want... I just won't respond to it.

Now, as to your questions from earlier: I'm not at 1%er. I'm not a PDLS... I'm progressive and liberal, but not a Democrat or socialist. My employer pays me for the service I provide, which is as an engineer. I disagree with some of their lobbying efforts, but as long as I don't use my position there in a way that makes the company look bad or waste the time they're paying me for, it's none of their business.

With regard to the suggestions of additional terms, just because I hear your complaints doesn't mean they're valid. I know that Amy has suggested President Obama is socialist, anti-American and wants to eliminate success. Recognizing that belief doesn't make it true.

On Benghazi, the messaging was inconsistent and often inaccurate. I listened to the New York Times during the whole affair, so perhaps I didn't get a fair view of it. My impression from the beginning was that terrorists took advantage of the chaos from general discontent with the US (video may have made things worse for a bit) to attack an American diplomatic mission. Did the President's team lie? I wasn't paying close enough attention what he said to know. What he said didn't inform my understanding of the situation. Was that used to push a political agenda? No. My takeaway: Don't trust everything you hear from politicians.

Climate change isn't new. The global warming "conspiracy" is to say we're making it worse. If you don't recognize the argument the opposition is making, how can you argue against it?

My recognition of them changing the terms after they have been proven to be
incorrect is the point that I am discussing .The PDLS's started with "Man made global
warming" ! They changed MMGW to "climate change" . Why ? If the PDLS"s (used
even if you hold one faction of the whole) were correct why did they have to change
their comments,wording,and time line of the Man made Global warming nuts ? Do
you truly believe that we did not have climate change until modern man showed up
on the planet ?
As for the petey comment ,I was not using it as a diminutive form towards you . I
grew up with a Petey and I see it as a endearing term/name .
I do agree that the information that the New York Times spewed from the Benghazi
incident was "inconsistent and often inaccurate" ! There were news organizations
that had it correct from the beginning .
As for being a 1% ,I was mistaken in believing you were a friend of mine that jabs
at each other at times (politically) for fun ! We tend to go out for dinner and drinks
and laugh at how we both view politics.

Here Peter is where you come in disappointing. The reason the whole Benghazi
affair is such a blatant lie is that this group of murderers where trying to spring one
of their Al Queda brethren from the on site prison. ( You know, the one full of
prisoners from the now defunct, since he is dead, Osama bin laden wing). As
Commander -in-Chief, the President's number one duty is to protect the citizens of
these United States. So when 4 people die after seven hours of calculated
indifference, in other words, it was time to go to his political fund raiser in Las
Vegas. We people who believe that actions by the President are accountable to
the people are dismayed and shocked that:
1). The president tried to Blame this on some stumblebum in California who
releases a video.
2). Has his Sec. Of State go out on not one, but four Sunday programs, and lie
thru her teeth about events in Libya.
3). Watch in dismay as our joke of a media wanders around like a deaf, blind,
mute' in the weeks before the election hoping they can get Obama across the
Finnish line without actually telling the truth of a story that was, is, and forever will
be a political calculation that left 4 American heroes dead, bodies desecrated,
because Obama had to stick to his story. Bin laden was dead. Al Queda was dead
too!

And you wonder why conservatives are upset? You ought to be ashamed of
yourself. It's your indifference to reality that got those men killed.

Yert,

Did Hillary Clinton go on four Sunday morning programs to cover the official talking points? My understanding was that Susan Rice, the Ambassador to the United Nations did. She's reported to be on the short list to replace Clinton for the second term, but that's a very different thing. And the gamesmanship about Rice is unproductive - it's just trying to make the President look weak if he doesn't nominate her or careless if he does. Responsible opposition would raise these concerns quietly, but the current media environment doesn't reward responsible governance.

I don't wonder why conservatives are upset about Benghazi. There was an attack on those serving the United States.

I knew there were CIA facilities in the area, including CIA agents on staff at the consulate (although it wasn't at the top of my mind). I was unaware that there was a prison where al Qaida members were being held. If so, and that's the reason for the attack, then that's the biggest problem. If we're going to have CIA prisons, they shouldn't be mixed up with diplomatic missions. It's already dangerous operating in countries like Libya without risking being targeted due to prisoner escape attempts which have nothing to do with the consulate.

There were a lot of factors which contributed to their deaths. Labeling the attacks as caused by a video aren't among them. Denial of requests for additional security forces may have contributed. How much more would it have taken to protect them? At what cost to other consulates and embassies? Congress had cut funding for diplomatic security.

WFB- I posted an in-depth response to you which looks like it was caught up in the filter. It's probably coming through eventually, but until then let me just repeat (from the lost comment) that no offense was taken about Petey or 1% comments. You made a few assumptions. I made a few different assumptions. We clarified and moved on.

Peter,
Your correct about Ms. Rice. Got ahead of myself. However, the biggest factor in
the deaths of these 4 was the inaction of the U.S Government. They certainly had
the chance to take action. But then to unleash the video whopper on the American
people smelled from the get go. And add insult to death, the media just could not
find the time to get to the truth. Even though most educated people knew the
administration's pronouncements on this whole affair we're a total pile.

And if congress cut the funding, then don't send them to begin with. We do not
send our people into harms way to lose. You'd think Barry would know that by now!

WFB- That comment still hasn't come in, and it's possible I went over the character limit, so I'll hit the high points again.

For climate change, it's a matter of refining the model. The climatological models show that the increased CO2, methane, and other gases being emitted by industry and modern life have a substantial effect on the world climate. As I understand it, the first step of this is reducing the radiative losses into space, which increases the overall temperature. This model has been refined as it also has large effects on wind patterns, ocean currents, and other factors which shift the rainfall and other weather patterns much more quickly than would otherwise happen. The faster changes mean we have less time to respond as the Great Plains and sub-Saharan Africa have more and more severe droughts. The story changes as the models become more accurate with increased computational power and more data to put into the models. The basic story is still the same, but the Earth is a complex system.

On Benghazi, the Times and other sources gave me enough information to know the general story (possibly by reading between the lines... can't trust the media as complete truth, but I believe the problem is journalists taking the easy story and chasing sensationalism, not a pervasive bias). The big question is whether the attackers seeded the protests to provide cover for the attacks or took the opportunity when the protests happened. Because the video is a credible reason for demonstrations outside the embassies and consulates.

But this is not on topic for the blog, as Amy will probably drop in to tell us when she doesn't have better things to do.

Now, back to the blog topic...

President Obama isn't the worst possible. The auto bailout saved industry in and around Michigan, plus a lot of jobs in the rest of the country both in the companies which took the bailout and in others (competitors and suppliers, mostly). It also preserved a large section of tax base and reduced the amount of unemployment and other safety net programs needed in those areas. Could it have been done better? Possibly. But leaving them be would certainly be worse.

Sanctions on Iran are much more effective because his diplomatic team was able to get the rest of the world to agree to harsh sanctions. Without that diplomacy, India, China, and Italy (among others) would still be buying oil from Iran.

This isn't to say that Obama's performance has been perfect or even close to it. Benghazi and Fast and Furious jump to mind, while humanitarian crises continue in places like Syria.

I also don't accept the claims about taxes being confiscated wealth of producers (we're not near that level of taxation) or votes being bought with the social safety net. But that will be another comment for another day.