Artful Dodger: Clinton pressured someone into making an illegal loan, in a land deal that didn't work out. That person and her husband got into trouble because of it, but the Clintons didn't. So I guess the answer would be they slipped out of the Whitewater scandal by appearing to not be directly involved... even though they were directly involved, and were in fact the reason for the illegal loan in the first place.

Obama does the same, he influences people to "take action" but manages to keep his distance from the action, so his name doesn't appear on anything later. Although that doesn't apply to the lies we were treated to with the Benghazi cover up, because it's pretty obvious who the key players were in that mess. It's more of a mystery (than Whitewater) how that got swept under the rug.

Whitewater wasn't the only scandal the Clintons managed to slip out from under. There was Travelgate, Filegate, and the circumstances surrounding Vince Foster's death. Some people would have us believe the sex scandals were Bill Clintons only "indiscretions". Wow, talk about selective memory!

OK, so how did the Clintons slip out of the Whitewater scandal????

Iamon lyme: I'm afraid to look any further

(V): Ball of yarn?

Artful Dodger: Just for fun I googled my brainking ID. Turns out Iamon is a surname and lyme is a disease.

Iamon lyme: Most people don't know my true identity. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jameshenry/2012/07/17/mitt-romney-the-artful-dodger/

They are kinda like the Tea Party for the UK's Conservatives.

UKIP has become the new darling for Daily Mail readers.

... less controversial then voting for the BNP!! eheheheheh

Iamon lyme: Yes. Not to be confused with the infinite improbability drive.

You've never heard of the ship "Heart of Gold"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_Drive#Infinite_Improbability_Drive

finite improbability machine?

Iamon lyme: Yep... right there next to a finite improbability machine.

Great for parties!! ;)

The Col: Nooooo, but I can drive a reach forklift ;)

Quantum weighting?

The Col: Likely one with gold lining too!

(V): maybe if you hum a few bars

The Col: He's not heard of cherry pickers!!

Artful Dodger: or having an elevator built

Funny.... all the papers in the UK who took part in phone hacking and other media related scandals are objecting to the new media royal charter.

.... because they were not allowed to interfere with the set up of the charter, and the laws and rules that they will have to abide by.

Awwwwwwwwwwww did ums!!

Iamon lyme: So Rick Perry walks around with lead weights in his shoes, or does he need quantum weighting??? ;P

Iamon lyme:

The Col: probably waiting for his turn to take a peek!

The Col: Gore doesn't need a ladder. He's so full of hot air he needs to hold onto something so he doesn't float away.

Artful Dodger: Is Romney holding the ladder for Gore?

rod03801: Yeah, that one is a funny pic and says it all!

Artful Dodger:

"Two Harvard economists on Wednesday acknowledged errors in a study that has been cited by policymakers around the world as justification for government austerity campaigns, but said the "central message" of their research was still valid.

The 2010 study by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff found economic growth throughout modern history has slowed dramatically when a government's debt exceeds 90 percent of a country's annual economic output.

But in a study made public this week, researchers from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst found spreadsheet coding errors in Reinhart and Rogoff's work.

The two Harvard economists said the mistake was an accident.

Speaking to Today business presenter Simon Jack, Professor Robert Pollin explained that research methods become more inaccurate the more recently you apply their test.

"The relationship evaporates entirely," he said. "

Mistakes that mean....

"First off, the researchers made a major error in their Excel spreadsheet's formula: they skipped 5 rows of data. Oops.

Second, they inexplicably (or maybe intentionally - no explanation has been presented) excluded post-WWII data for countries whose growth was positive while debt was above 90% of GDP from the spreadsheet.

Third, if a country had positive growth for multiple years while debt was above 90% of GDP, they averaged all those positive years together into a single number, then gave the multi-year aggregate result the exact same weight as a single year from a country that had negative growth.

The flawed (faked?) study concluded that economic growth in countries with debt greater than 90% of GDP is always negative at -0.1%.

But if you include the data that was left out of the spreadsheet, add in the rows of data that were skipped, and give each year's data the same weight, the actual historic growth rate when the debt exceeds 90% of GDP is 2.2%. "

http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/diary/9855/austerity-study-was-100-completely-and-totally-wrong.

Artful Dodger: No. She messed up lots. As someone said she had to wear the trousers of a man to be PM.... but she wore them roughly. Certain policies she made, while to a degree they were right... She was crass about how they were enacted.

She deliberately used a boom and bust economic policy that did make the country look great until the bubble burst.

And then there is Hillsborough. You know 'The Sun' paper is boycotted by most in the city of Liverpool because of it's reporting on the disaster.

The Col: No... because it was like that before hand, but I think people only paid 90% if they had no advice from a good accountant.

(V): I think she was one of the greatest PM ever

(V): Maybe the musician who mentioned the 90% rate was being a little over zealous

The Col: Not quite true. She dropped the highest rate from 83% to 60% in her governments first budget of 1980.

While the lowest earners got a 3% rate cut in the same year from 33% to 30%

... Regardless, most of the top earners while being British officially live in tax haven countries to avoid paying UK income tax. Or if they are rich enough like the Barclay brothers... buy an island. In their case the island of Brecqhou just off Sark (one of the channel islands).

(V): I remember lots of musicians left GB when she jacked the highest tax rate to around 90%

Artful Dodger: She was so great her party dumped her, as her popularity within the UK had dropped to a level where she could not be a PM to lead her party through another General election.

She destroyed communities and helped the police cover up the Hillsborough mess. Plus many suspect she knew about Jimmy Saville and how much of a paedophile he was. It's very unlikely that all the rumours about him did not reach her.

... but he was a 'hero' at the time.

"Ding Dong the Witch is dead" got to number two in the charts yesterday!!

Iamon lyme: More or less than when when you keep on going on about how democrats and liberals are destroying the USA?

Seriously, CO2 is just one of the gasses as I have stated. It is a relatively easy one for us to control the output off by man... that's all.

"You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2? No one needed to tell me this either because it's kind of obvious. Care to guess?"

No. Just who is stating it's gonna happen apart from some wrong scientists from the 80's... or about that time who's views were used by the press to sell papers.

(V): I think she was a great leader and stats showed she made some positive differences.

"You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2?"

[ Okay Lemon Lime, assuming an abundance of CO2 always follows global warming instead of preceding it, why ARE they still saying CO2 causes global warming? ]

Because it wouldn't look good to change their story now, after years of beating it into our heads about an upcoming global warming crisis.

[ So what? Science is about learning the truth. What could they gain by not telling us the truth? ]

Nothing, but that's the point. It's what they risk losing by telling us the truth that has them worried. All of the time and effort to make us afraid of global warming would go down the drain.

[ Again, so what? ]

So they would have to switch gears and then tell us all about the horrors of global cooling.

[ Why would they do that? ]

To keep the fear factor in place. Remember, it doesn't matter if the earth is warming or cooling, all that matters is to make people afraid of CO2 so they will reject oil and and coal and throw their money into renewable resources. They can't afford to start telling the truth now, because it would cause many of the people who fell for the global warming hoax to begin doubting environmental scientists... environmental scientists like Al Gore for instance. If an environmental scientist like Al Gore was wrong about global warming, then who is to say he can't be wrong again?

[ I don't believe you! Al Gore is NOT an environmental scientist! ]

You got me on that one. By the way, who are you?

[ I'm your alter ego. ]

Impossible! You can't be MY alter ego, because I'm ADs alter ego... well, at least I was for awhile.

[ That's right, you were... but not anymore. Now I am. ]

NoooooOooOOooooOoooo... okay, yes.

(V): "Uhhhh no. Just you've been told they are."

Uhhhhh, no. No one needed to tell me. I'd have to be pretty stupid not to notice that it's almost all you ever hear about in the news. Carbon this and carbon that, CO2 here and CO2 there and everywhere, the evil carbon will kill you and your children... be afraid, be very afraid. Bwa ha ha ha ha...

"For decades they have been fighting against deforestation."

And for decades I would hear about that almost every day as well. So, is the fuel used to burn those forests down the problem or is it something else?
(just kidding)


You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2? No one needed to tell me this either because it's kind of obvious. Care to guess?

Iamon lyme: Uhhhh no. Just you've been told they are. For decades they have been fighting against deforestation. The removal of great areas of the likes of the Amazon Rain Forest.. Such is, that toilet paper makers proudly present that they plant new trees.

CO2 is just one of the gases. The real nasty ones will start to 'melt' from perma frost if temps keep rising.

"and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas."

CO2 they absorb during daylight and give off O. At night they absorb O and give off CO2.

Two parts to the photosynthesis equation... apart from sunlight, nitrogen and other bits.

.... never eat vegetation near a radioactive leak, it absorbs the heavy elements easily.

"Animals and insects only take in oxygen and give off CO2"

A certain percentage of oxygen. We don't absorb it all, that's why CPR works. ;P

"When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out."

Assuming it does all ballance out and as much oxygen as CO2 enters the atmosphere, then you would still see an increase of CO2. If the ratio of oxygen to CO2 remained the same it wouldn't matter to environmentalists, since all of their focus has been on how much carbon is there.

See how this works? Environmentalists focus all of their attention on one little element and convince us it is an evil byproduct produced by the burning of oil procured by evil oil companies.

I thought I was supposed to be the ignorant religious nut here because I believe in God. So what's up with environmentalists trying to scare people by getting them to believe in the evil oil monster?

"...during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas."

I should probably explain how this could happen, seeing as how vegetation takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen. Vegetation actually does both... when photosynthesis is happening it takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen, when photosynthesis isn't happening (primarily at night) then it takes in oxygen and gives off CO2. When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out. But an increase of vegetation also means an increase of animal and insect life because of more available food. Animals and insects only take in oxygen and give off CO2, so that's how the ballance tips in favor of an increased level of CO2.

(V): "When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

[[ ?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.]]

If that's true then those sulphur gasses would be reflecting sunlight away from earth, not reflecting the radiant energy back, which I presume is what some scientists are saying CO2 does.

The earth is a very complex system, and comparing water vapor and other gasses in the atmosphere to a greenhouse as the main or only cause of weather change is an oversimplification. And yes, when Ice core samples were taken they concluded carbon dioxide in the atmosphere preceded global warming. Later tests revealed the opposite, higher concentrations of CO2 followed periods of global warming. This makes sense, because during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas.

In memory of Maggie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g9ysArxCdk

Some in the UK are sad she's gone.. others have held street parties.

Iamon lyme: Without going through tons of reports and stats... I can make this general statement.

... Every new power development in the UK is getting help from HM Gov. Nuclear, renewable, etc.. they all are. Plus various universities are through mixed investment looking into developing more tech and improving on what is already known.

"When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.

(V): (V): [[ "French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide...

...puts it on the same footing as other forms of low-carbon energy...

A top official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told the Guardian: "We have made it very clear that this is about low-carbon energy in total." ]]


There's that word 'carbon' again. That word is key for supporting wind/solar and even nuclear energy. It's too bad so many people are unaware of what carbon in the atmosphere actually does. Al Gore wouldn't have dared trying to bamboozle the public with his scare for profit scheme if the junk science behind global warming wasn't king. When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming.

(V): "Do they..."

Yes. When automobiles were a new thing did the government need to step in so Ford couldn't monopolise the automotive industry? Competition is what prevents monopolies, or breaks them up when someone provides a better choice... that could mean better quality or lower price or more useful features or a combination of those things. That's not a bad thing for the consumer, it's a good thing.


I asked you "Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies?"

You gave some examples but it's not clear if they are or were subsidized or not. And in case there is any misunderstanding, I'm talking about government subsidies... not investors capital. Investors risk losing their investment. But that's okay with me because it's their money being risked, not the taxpayers.

Iamon lyme: Do they.... Not always I have to say has to be held up as being as true as 'they do'.

(V): "Even if governments were not involved... we'd still have monopolies, as we do now manipulating the market, bribing suppliers to reject competitors."

You can't stop monopolies from occurring, they will happen. Competitors always manage to overcome a monopolies stranglehold over a particular industry, unless government partners with that monopoly. A powerful business monopolising an inudstry always attracts the attention of a powerful government intent on holding onto its own power... they will either support the monopoly or oppose it.

I suppose in a perfect world there would be no monopolies. In a perfect world I would also win as many games of chess as I lose, but then I could also forget about any ambition about rising to the top. Fantazising over what life would be like in a perfect world has never improved my game.

Looking back at some one the 'wins' it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

should have read...

Looking back at some of the 'wins', it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

Artful Dodger: Just follow the instructions.

I like this system. Looking back at some one the 'wins' it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.