A New Word

First I will say that Clinton and the o came out and lied about it all pertaining to a
Movie ! They did so for over 2 weeks .
As for climate change the various factors not to mention better temperature guages
plus not being able or having no information on such things on various points of time
. All effect the out come of proper studying of the temperature change . Plus there
are many Climate Scientists who disagree that man has any effect on over all temp
changes . Another point is that most of the CO2 does not come from man !! Even if
man could reduce his additional amount to zero . It would not have an effect on
green house gases to warrant temp changes .
As for the auto industry , give it more time to see if it actually save GM !!! For the
Auto industry was fine but various companies were in trouble . I find it funny that we
claim that GM is saved yet we only see it after a boost of money was shot in to its
coffers . So give it 3 years yet then I will give you my opinion if GM is saved .

Peter123...after these comments from you, I suggest you back away from debating the Benghazi incident. "I listened to the New York Times during the whole affair, so perhaps I didn't get a fair view of it (you are correct Peter!). Did the President's team lie? I wasn't paying close enough attention what he said to know (Yes Peter, it sounds that way).

Stevol...what Peter123 is showing you is how to debate without knowing the truth by allowing yourself to be brainwashed by an ultra-bias MSM sources like the NY Times. I call that lying since you refused to not get educated with the facts and took on only a bias source for your info. Many liberals like you don’t even know you may be lying while debating. That’s because you have no way of learning how to balance your political and world news away from the liberal and dishonest MSM (please read Goldberg’s “Bias.”). Too many libs debate an issue you either know too little about or your source is only the dishonest and bias MSM. Like the NY Times

Jim,

Congratulations. You've missed the entire point of what I've been saying. I perhaps wasn't detailed enough in my statement - I read the Times and also pieces from other sources (but I got news from the Times throughout). I was interested in what happened in Benghazi, not what the Obama team was saying. As such, I don't know exactly what the Obama team was saying, just the rough outline. I just know they were sending mixed messages. One day the President mentioned "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden. That weekend it was back to the video being the cause. What was the overall story from the White House? Again, I don't know because it's not healthy to hang on their every word.

Of course, you're too busy attacking some of my sources and picking out parts of statements (I get my news from the news, not from the President) to address the general framework I mentioned (protests ostensibly about the video made it easier to make a real attack). Which, again, is the story I was getting from the Times and other sources from the beginning.

WFB-

Fair point about GM not being out of the woods yet. I still assert that other companies, such as suppliers, were largely boosted by not having a huge part of their customer base gone.

Climate change, the majority of climate scientists agree. Attempts of media outlets to be fair lead to those opposed getting a larger voice than their actual numbers would dictate. You're right that there's a significant number who disagree with that consensus.

Peter123...I understand what you are saying and yes, I have attacked your sources. And rightfully so if I may. Those sources so happen to be what is killing our free nation. Yet you have no idea why or how. The NY Times lack of the truth, or even any reporting over Benghazi, is the classic example of bias and dishonest liberal journalism. Yet you seem to keep bringing up the fact that you watched (how do you “watch” a newspaper?) the NY Times with regard to the scandal regarding the WH and Benghazi. If this were a Republican admin???

The NY Times is another in a long line of dying liberal, bias, MSM outlets. They not only fired all their top brass from their own dishonest journalism (during the Bush admin), their own liberal peers had to let them go! How bad was that! Had some wealthy Mexican not loaned them money just to stay afloat, you wouldn’t be reading or “watching” the NY Times.

This is a case where the liberal MSM knows they are wrong. Here’s the simple reason why. All Americans should demand answers about the obvious cover-up and who started its. Yet our MSM has failed to report most of this if any at all. I begged the Milw JS to please report this Benghazi scandal or at least do what an honest, unbiased journalist should do: investigate! Yet very few liberal MSM journalists did this. Why? Obama and the fact they pretty much all endorsed him and his cronies once again.

I don’t care who you voted for. All Americans should want to know the truth and all the facts surrounding Benghazi. Including brining Hillary out from hiding to testify. Just like Watergate Pete!

Peter123...sorry, correction. You said "listened" to the NY Times. Not "watched."

Still not sure how you “listen” to a newspaper.

Peter123 states: "I'm not a PDLS... I'm progressive and liberal, but not a Democrat or socialist." LOL. Sorry, Peter "progressive" is just another nicer-sounding term for "liberal." And liberals these days appear to be more of the socialist ilk than in years past...

As for Benghazi: Obama lied and four Americans died. Period. This from the so-called "Commander-In-Chief" whose main job is to keep Americans safe. Rather than do that - and have to admit al-Qaeda is making a comeback - Obama and his administration chose to blame a little-viewed video as being responsible, even though they all knew that was not true. They ran with that falsehood for weeks prior to the presidential elections. In addition, Obama - who has stated that it is his duty to protect American lives - let four people die on his watch solely for political purposes that benefited him. That in itself should be grounds for removing this narcisstic, arrogant, and dangerous little man-child from office. Too bad that Republicans in Washington D.C. are so afraid to do so for fear their political careers may then be on the line - rather than doing the right thing and getting Obama impeached.

Jim,

You're right. I said I listened to the Times. Once. As in paid attention to with some level of trust. The other terms I used were "got information from" and "read." Again, you're attacking things that aren't the point.

Benghazi was covered as it happened. I've told you what the Times led me to believe, and you (again) haven't disputed that. If you want to accuse the Times of being complicit in some coverup, dispute my source or dispute my conclusion. If I got my information from the source and the information is correct, then what's the problem? I'm not asking you to praise the New York Times or retract your overall claims of bias, as that's not at issue here.

Why hasn't the Journal Sentinel covered this in more detail? Because they're a regional newspaper. They don't do international news. That comes from the AP, Reuters, or other wire services. That's not a coverup. That's the paper you're reading. Once again, the Times did cover it. They're an international newspaper. Look to the Washington Post for further coverage. I trust they have it, as they're a newspaper that covers international news.

Through the discussion here, I do want an investigation. President Obama signed an executive order closing the secret CIA prisons in 2009. Yert said yesterday that the reason for the attacks was breaking terrorists out of secret CIA prisons. This came up after the election from a Fox News reporter. These prisons shouldn't exist, and if they do we should have a firewall between them and consulates/embassies/diplomatic missions. Ambassadors shouldn't be put at risk by the intelligence services. If that's this is the coverup you're talking about, I agree that a thorough investigation is warranted. If it's about the alleged charade that this wasn't by prepared militants/terrorists, it's a distraction from the real problems facing the country.

Way to go Pert123 - Hemmer puts up a humorous blog about Obama's established policy/goal of wealth redistribution and you employ the old standby tactic of the left of shallow denial and then try to change the topic to, of all things, Global Warming (errr - "climate change")

You are a real gem. Please keep it up.

To hemmer's topic - The affirmation of the status quo of Ineptocracy is unfortunate. All the talk of the "tipping point" where democracies on the decline, accelerate their demise because the masses vote to extend welfare over jobs is bad for the country. The concentration of wealth will not be affected, unlike the proliferation of poverty that Obama has a 4 year solid record of achieving.

As for your global warming distraction. Read up. Reputable scientists across the globe have been predicting and studying the impending ice age for years. Spending millions to prevent Global Warming is a knee jerk reaction by the ignorant masses that will freeze us all earlier than predicted since 1890's: http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336

Before I can pass any judgement on Bengazi,I need to if there was a secret CIA
prison there or not since that completly changes the situation.

Peter,the rules here for using liberal sources is they can only be used by a
conservative when it backs up a conservative viewpoint to convince a liberal of
something. When you are told you need balance it means watch FOX news.
Anything liberal is socialism, I have been told here that a social liberal is a
socialist.

Peter123…busted!!! Here’s Peter’s defense as to why the liberal MSM refused to report the Obama/Benghazi scandal: “Why hasn't the Journal Sentinel covered this in more detail? Because they're a regional newspaper. They don't do international news. That comes from the AP, Reuters, or other wire services. That's not a coverup. That's the paper you're reading. Once again, the Times did cover it.” Your total defense of the liberal MSM and the ultra-liberal Milw JS is hilarious. But you are about to be exposed!

Nobody reads and finds more bias in our state newspaper than me. Maybe some equal, but none more than me. So don’t try to disguise your bias or your lack of knowledge with the actual facts surrounding Benghazi or where you get your news from. Look in today’s JS. Page 3A to 19A and tell me what sections are in those pages. WORLD, NATION, and POLITICS! Yet you told me “They (Milw JS) don't do international news.” LOL!!

BTW Pete, I read the same article. One of only a few that made the NY Times or front page. This was reported on Sept 12 and then the NY Times stood by this again in late Oct!!! “On Sept. 12, The New York Times reported having spoken with "fighters involved in the assault," who told the paper "in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video." And from one of your best sources know doubt. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/new-york-times-libya_n_1962397.html

"Page 3A to 19A...WORLD, NATION, and POLITICS!. Yet you told me "They (Milw JS) don't do international news" LOL!!". Hayett read the bylines. Except for the article about the elevation to Cardinal for someone with Milwaukee roots, there isn't a single article with a Journal Sentinel byline. They are all stories written by others and picked up by the JS for use in the paper.

Exactly how many people have died chasing after the Weapons of Mass destruction lie?

Jim,

You got me - the first reports were flawed. How about this one from September 15? "The organization and firepower used in the assault, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, has raised alarm in Washington about the possibility of links to Al Qaeda and a premeditated conspiracy that found a pretext in anger over an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/attack-by-fringe-group-highlights-the-problem-of-libya-militias.html?pagewanted=all

How about this one from September 20th? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/world/middleeast/assault-on-consulate-in-libya-a-terrorist-attack-white-house-says.html Here it's the White House Press Secretary saying it's a terrorist attack about a week after the attacks.

I just went and read the Huffington Post piece. It says that some people at the protests cited that video as a cause. Near the beginning of the quote from the foreign editor of the Times, he says "it was clear that at least some of the people involved in the incident were informed and motivated by the video." I also have never claimed that the Huffington Post is a neutral news source. It's not.

Referee33 already made my point about the international coverage in the Journal Sentinel. They won't investigate Benghazi for the same reason the Lake Country Reporter doesn't investigate the state government.

Amy, people died, then Obama hemmed and hawed. Even if we assume that the alleged requests of the Director of National Intelligence to avoid discussing terrorism are false, his statements were after the fact. Although irresponsible, that's a very different situation than than the statements or actions which cause deaths you claim.

Peter123...after reading your posts, under another fake name I see, I think you know very well the definition and the meaning of "ineptocracy"

Jim, I promise, there are a lot of people who disagree with you. You can feel free to think I'm whoever you think I am. Unless it's someone who was posting here about a year and a half ago under the same name I'm using now, it's not me.

I'm pretty sure I do know what "ineptocracy" means. I'm pretty sure it applies to government in India. Actually works for the government of Italy under Berlusconi, particularly southern Italy (although like Greece, people weren't paying their taxes). Not so much here, where we have budget problems because we're spending so much being the world's police and our health care costs much, much more than anywhere else in the world. Are there people gaming the system and voting for that opportunity? Certainly. It's a big country. But that's not where most of President Obama's votes came from, nor is it a big segment of the population.

"Nobody reads and finds more bias in our state newspaper than me. Maybe some
equal, but none more than me."

I love the hubris of that statement, though at the same time it is safe to say that
Jim knows all about bias.

"So don't try to disguise your bias or lack of knowledge with the actual facts
surrounding Benghazi or where you get your news from."

Yea!! That's Jim's job!

Extoes...struggling with my facts again I see. You're a hoot!

Does Peter realize he's arguing "bias" with a person who was eating up everything Jerome Corsi served up regarding Omaba not being a US born citizen?

Dont feel special, Peter. Jim at one time or another has accused everyone who has ever taken him to task of actually being someone else.

Peter123...majority of Americans agree with me with liberal bias. Especially with the NY Times.

MGarber, yup. Soon we'll be accused of being off-topic. Once in a while, it just seems worth fighting the good fight.