What is the most over-rated "issue/crisis"?

So, since the liberals say we were lied to by Bush (and that is evil they say) it is then ok for them to lie about Bhenghazi? http://wsws.org/en/articles/2012/10/syri-o16.html [i]Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, appearing on the NBC news program “Face the Nation,” argued that the description of the fatal attack in Benghazi as a spontaneous event was politically motivated. The Obama reelection campaign, he charged, is “trying to sell a narrative that… Al Qaeda has been dismantled—and to admit that our embassy was attacked by Al Qaeda operatives undercuts that narrative.” What is involved, however, is not merely the disruption of an election campaign “narrative.” The events in Benghazi blew apart the entire US policy both in Libya and Syria, opening up a tremendous crisis for American foreign policy in the region. The forces that attacked the US consulate and CIA outpost in Benghazi were not merely affiliates of Al Qaeda, they were the same forces that Washington and its allies had armed, trained and supported with an intense air war in the campaign for regime-change that ended with the brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi one year ago.[/i]

Taskr, we KNOW we were lied to about WMD's, we KNOW we were lied to by the Vice President that Saddam had connections to 9/11, we KNOW that we were lied to by the department of Homeland Security when they raised the terrorist threat level, when there was no threat. We don't have a CLUE about Benghazi, and we may never know about it. Can you answer what the CIA was doing there? Do you know if they had prisoners there? Our government lies to us everyday, and it has since the country began.

Taskr, didn't the Chinese make it rain before the Olympics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

I live in northern Ohio, we have gone 290 days without measurable snow fall. Last year we had the least amount of snow in decades, we had a drought, record temperatures. When I was kid we use to play in the snow on Thanksgiving, we haven't had snow for two years on Christmas. If you think that climate change is overrated, talking to some of the snow plow companies up here, and you will get an entirely different idea.

Deb, one of the problems that scientist have is that there are not very good records going back thousands of years. The one thing that I think we all can understand is that our climate is changing, if you can't see that then you need more help than I can provide. The cause of this may be normal, or it may be man made. I find it hard to believe that we as an intelligent life form can't come to grips with the fact that our own existence could be hurting our own plant. Do you have any idea what the carbon out put was in the 1800's? How about the 1600's? We realize that the number of people on this plant as gone up, do we think this hasn't change the make of the plant? Have you ever been in a room by yourself, and then put 30 more people in that room. Do you know what happens? It gets hotter because you have more people in the same area. I am not saying that the world is getting hotter because we have more of us, but I am saying that the average person consumes more energy than we ever have in the history of the world. If you think this wouldn't change the make up, than again you would be ignorant.

In the early 1970's there was a hysteria about the next ice age created by man made pollution and it was on the cover of most of the major publications. You are aware I suppose, of Climategate, the scandal that revealed missing data and a cover up when asked for the data? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/ The problem I have with this "debunk" is the way scientists continually ignore the medieval warm period, and overlook strong evidence that global temperatures were hotter in the 1st century BCE that they are today. There is a monotonous barrage of pronouncements that "this year is hotter than last year if you look at the statistics just so". The fact that the fraction of a degree change indicated between the 19th century readings and the readings of today falls well within the margin of error for instruments used in the 19th century is disturbingly ignored as well. Yes, there are signs of melting ice caps, and thawing tundra. But what about those warm eras of the past? If heat was the sole cause of this, why isn't there evidence for similar signs then? Or has that evidence been conveniently overlooked or ignored or modified the way tree-ring data for the medieval warm period is "corrected". I believe that sKepticism about climate change exists because scientists involved in its study are less than forthcoming about the raw data they use, and abuse statstics to support their views. And prevent dissenting scientific studies from being published. IT IS BY NO MEANS PROVEN THAT THE CURRENT WARMING CYCLE WE ARE OBSERVING ON EARTH IS MAN MADE. IN FACT, THERE ARE MANY SCIENTISTS WHO SAY IT IS SUN SPOT ACTIVITY. BUT YOU CAN'T TAX SUN SPOT ACTIVITY CAN YOU? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/ http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm

"Lobbying for higher minimum wages hasn't helped the poor" Raising minimum wage kills jobs, plain and simple. If you want an example, go to any popular grocery store. Count the number of baggers at the check out aisle. Many stores have completely eliminated the bagger job because, while it was a great way to please customers in the 90's, while also providing jobs to young high school students, it's no longer cost effective because minimum wage has skyrocketed from $4.25/hour when I bagged groceries, to $7.25 an hour. It's just more cost effective to have the cashiers do both checkout and bagging because very few 16 year olds are worth $7.25/hour because they have no job experience, no marketable skills, and many have little to no work ethic. "How do you expect these students to get hired when the majority of the employers you are saying are so great DON'T: (please remember to put "Don't" or "Do not" before each part labeled A-E) A. Want to pay for the degrees people get?" Well you need to learn the value of your degree before you get it. "B. Want to pay for the experience people have?" You need to apply for a job and, if offered that job, demand the pay you feel is appropriate to your skills, experience, and education. It's only natural for an employer to want the best possible employee at the lowest price. If you're the best applicant, you have the power to ask for more than the lowest price. Most people, especially women, don't have the guts to ask for more than the minimum. That's their own fault. "C. Want to pay for the degree + experience?" Same answer as B. "D. Want to offer as many internships for these students to get the experience they need for entry level jobs? And to clarify for you I am talking about at least one or two at their company not hundreds." The government is making it extremely difficult for companies to offer internships. There are literally skilled people who want to work free internships, companies who want to give them free internships, and yet the government threatens to fine companies if they actually benefit from the work of interns because of federal labor laws. I can tell you that everytime I've needed a job, I offer to volunteer at prospective employers. It's been a great way to showcase my skills and puts me at the top of the list when jobs open up. Fortunately, I work for libraries who are exempt from federal labor laws. "E. Want to hire Americans because well face it they have to pay them more than some poor person who doesn't mind working pennies on the dollar?" Once again, that's the government's fault for raising minimum wage, taxing job creators, and artificially inflating the cost of living. Have you noticed that those northern states, where workers are supposedly paid better, cost far more to live in? That's why I'm back in Florida. Sure, I'm making a little less, but there are no state taxes aside from sales and property tax. The property taxes here are literally a fraction of what they were in New Jersey. I'm also making 20% more than the pay listed for my job because I convinced my employer that my masters degree and 8 years of experience made me worth more than what they initially offered. Unlike most people in this country, I had the guts to demand more money. In this economy, far more people foolishly take what they're offered without even asking for more as though their potential employer would say "Sure, you're the best for the job, and that's why we offered it to you, but now that you've asked for more money, we're just going to take a less qualified person."

Working smarter: "Lobbying to lower minimum wages" Working smarter: "Outsource jobs to desparate countries." Working smarter: "Lobbying against workers rights." Working smarter: "Lobby against safety nets when those on a minimum wage can't afford decent housing or schooling." I really don't call that working smart. I call that exploitation and downright dirty.

I am not playing a victim by any means. In fact, I am in the 53% supporting those on welfare on the red states. I am just showing simple cause and effect. How exactly do the poor afford an education when they can not afford food?