Geothermal heating -- worth considering?

Page 2 of 7  
George wrote:

Agreed. I apologize for the confusion.
My facts were wrong but the narrative was correct.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, HeyBub wrote: ...

????
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/26/2012 9:52 AM, dpb wrote:

Its know as a backhanded apology "I apologize but not really"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

"The facts were wrong but the narrative was correct" - Dan Rather
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If they have to invent "facts" to justify their narrative, then we know that the narrative was NOT "correct"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heh, at least HeyBub can admit it when he's wrong. That's a lot more than some other posters here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/26/2012 12:47 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

heybubs backhanded apology is just an insult and nothing more. An apology that goes "I am sorry but <insert reason why I am not wrong here>" can never be anything else.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

I said "Agreed. I apologize for the confusion."
I didn't want to publicize it, but as an act of contrition I donated a KFC two-piece dinner to the Salvation Army.
I'm prepared to do more - it is (pretty close to) Yom Kippur after all - what would you suggest?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote the following on 9/26/2012 12:47 PM (ET):

I was only wrong once. That was when I thought I posted something wrong but it turned out that I was actually right.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

"The facts were wrong but the narrative was correct" - Dan Rather
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

You may be right, although not for the reason you posit. There's a YouTube video of a woman saying she'll vote for Obama because he gave her a free 'phone and another where the woman arrested for shoplifting asserts "If the government gave me more money I wouldn't have to steal!"
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Everything you said here falls by the way side after you said: "There's a YouTube video of a woman saying she'll vote for Obama because he gave her a free 'phone"
Fact is, the fre phone thing is a result of a long-standing program to help truly indigent people with communication devices and service. And this is paid for by charges on everyone's phone bill, not by any government agency, administered by a collaborative telecom company invention.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh gee, the fact that it's not a govt agency and I'm just paying via a tax on my phone for anyone that CLAIMS they can't afford a cell phone to get one for free makes me feel real good. I'm glad you pointed out that essential difference. I see those ads on TV all the time. Just like Obama's radio ads encouraging more people to apply for food stamps. You libs are really something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm just as concerned about freeloaders getting something for nothing as you are. But perhaps I wasn't quite clear in my post - the free phone has nothing to do with Obama, or Democrats. It is part of a long- standing program that also subsidizes rural telephones for "freeloading" farmers and out in the boonies people. Just like many people are taking advantage of lower tax rates for dividends and cap gains. It is the /system/ that allows it.
I also see and hear many ads for reverse mortgages, mortgage "relief" etc, etc. Many of those are (IMO) grand theft, but Henry Winkler and other actors are getting paid to speak the regurgitated words in the ads.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which party do you think would get rid of that in a minute if they could? Does it fit with conservative values or liberal ones? How did all of us survive without a cell phone a mere 20 years ago? When did a cell phone become an entitlement?
And how you can compare it to lower tax rates for capital gains is beyond me. In one case, someone put their money to work, put their money at risk to EARN income. That investment helps produce jobs. In the other case, many just sit on their asses and say, give me a phone, I'm entitled to it. And meanwhile many of them are out scamming for cash, but claiming to be dirt poor.

What exactly is grand theft about a free market program that allows a senior to use up the equity in their house over time to support themselves? Would you prefer they be forced to sell their house instead? And what the hell does any of that have to do with a govt program whereby those that CLAIM they have little income get a free cell phone and cell phone service? Did the seniors get the house for free? I'll never understand how libs minds operate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/28/2012 12:42 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Is this a trick question? USF came into being in 1996. The house and senate held by Republicans passed (81/18 in the senate and 414/16 in the house) the telecommunications act of 1996 which was sent to and signed into law by the democrat president Clinton.

See above.

Not nearly as efficiently as we do now. I can remember the days of leaving a message on someones answering machine and getting a return call the next day.

It is to lots of people. A friend who can quote chapter and verse of everything Rush Limbagh told him thinks we should all pitch in to put a cell tower in the sparsely populated area where they live. He also thinks we should pay to extend miles of cable TV infrastructure for 3 households.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, but prior to that a similar fee was imposed on phone companies starting in 1934. Who was in charge back then? It was with the deregulation of telecom that the new method of achieving some of the same things went into effect in 1996. And the Republicans aren't fool proof and sometimes get things wrong too. They also have to sometimes accept some of what they don't want in order to get the rest of what they do want. So the fact that a Republican controlled Congress in 1996 passed it doesn't mean that Republicans today would not pull the plug on this crap if they could. The Republican party of today is not what it was in 1996 or even 2010. Who do you think is more likely to be in favor of this? Obama and the libs or the Republicans, particularly the Tea Party Republicans?
>The house and

I don't have to see the above. Only a lib would think it's a swell idea to hand out free cell phones to people too lazy to work as an entitlement.

I see, so now everyone is entitled to the latest and greatest in technology. When will my new iPhone be arriving?

And that is why the country is going broke and down the drain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/28/2012 6:35 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

But you questioned "which party would get rid of that in a minute". Clearly both the red and the blue teams put their all behind the expansion of "free stuff" in 1996.

So is there ever a case that individuals need help much like say the help we gave to the bankers and gm and chrysler in our <cough> "free market"?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.