Vertical Geothermal HVAC

Page 2 of 2  


The point that most miss is that it can only be "executive privilege" if the covered documents are internal conversations with the President himself. The President is now either guilty of gun-running, with multiple murders resulting, or obstruction of justice. It now *has* to be one or the other. There can't be a middle road.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The above is not true. The documents potentially covered by executive privilege are not limited to those directly involving the president. They can also be documents from within the executive branch where the president believes releasing them is an unwarranted intrusion on the rights and functioning of the executive branch. Obviously the case for using executive privilege and it being upheld by the courts is going to be strongest if it covers documents or conversations involving the president himself.
And in the "fast and furious" case, I think it's going to be hard for the president to argue that the need for the requested documents to be kept from Congress outweighes the right of Congress to fully investigate what happened here. Ultimately I would expect that a court will order that most of them be turned over.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:30:06 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

No, the privileged communications are *only* those regarding policy in the Office of the Executive, not the agencies below that.

No, the "privilege" is *only* in the office of the President, not at the cabinet-level.

Agreed. But they won't be (turned over). What are they going to do, impeach him? Not bloody likely.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jul 3, 10:22am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

There you go again. You posted something that is clearly wrong:
"The point that most miss is that it can only be "executive privilege" if the covered documents are internal conversations with the President himself. "
And you tried to use it to prove something:
" The President is now either guilty of gun-running, with multiple murders resulting, or obstruction of justice. It now *has* to be one or the other. There can't be a middle road. "
I simply pointed out the factual error, which is that executive privilege has been used many times well beyond the president himself. So, now, instead of just saying "Ooops, got that one wrong...", you instead come back trying to claim that I have it wrong and start spinning away. This is you standard operating procedure. You just double down and dig your hole deeper. In this case, you are now making the false claim that executive privilege can only be used for documents within the office of the president and that it does not extend even to the cabinet level. That is untrue.
Executive privilege has been used many times to justify not turning over executive branch information on a whole host of documents, converstaions, etc that not only are not in the office of the president, but are not even cabinet level. Here are some examples"
"There followed a series of investigations, culminating in the famous Hiss-Chambers case of 1948. At that point, the Truman Administration issued a sweeping secrecy order blocking congressional efforts from FBI and other executive data on security problems.[5] Security files were moved to the White House and Administration officials were banned from testifying before Congress on security related matters. Investigation of the State Department and other cases was stymied and the matter left unresolved.
During the ArmyMcCarthy hearings in 1954, Eisenhower used the claim of executive privilege to forbid the "provision of any data about internal conversations, meetings, or written communication among staffers, with no exception to topics or people." Department of Defense employees were also instructed not to testify on any such conversations or produce any such documents or reproductions. This was done in the form of a letter from Eisenhower to the Department of Defense and an accompanying memo from Eisenhower Justice. The reasoning behind the order was that there was a need for "candid" exchanges among executive employees in giving "advice" to one another. I
President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001.[8]
On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.[13]
I expect vulgarity will be coming next.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Obama has out-Nixoned Nixon. Amazing. Just call him Barak Milhouse Obama, from now on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That aspect struck me right away too. It's a federal crime to be a straw purchaser of weapons for anyone else. And here you don't have one purchaser that is buying a few guns and then turning around and handing them over to say a friend that they bought them for. You had many purchasers buying guns in huge volume and sending them to Mexico. Clearly this is illegal and could have been prosecuted under the existing gun laws.
The fact that they didn't prosecute, the operation ran for a year, thousands of guns were allowed to walk, etc lends credence to the idea that they were NOT interested in prosecutions, but were instead trying to obtain data to use for expanding gun control laws. More gun control laws that the libs were lobbying for at the time. And that is what many now believe Holder and/or Obama are hiding, ie that there are documents that show that. True or not, I don't know. But anyone who writes a crap piece like this in Fortune, that doesn't understand the most basic federal gun laws and that what was going on was illegal, is obviously a lousy reporter.

It's about as political as the investigation by Congress of the third rate burglarly at the Watergate Hotel. I suppose Congress should have just trusted Nixon and Mitchell, been satisfied with their explanations that it was all about nothing and given up on getting all the evidence they wanted too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/1/2012 9:36 AM, JIMMIE wrote:

permanent residence. I was thinking about upgrading to geothermal given that there are already 2 400 ft water wells on the property. I am trying to find some meaningful info but so far all I can find is sales pitches even when talking to an installer. Current HVAC was a 4 ton heat pump about 5 years old. Air handler is still in good condition. I am looking for info that will let me know whether or not I can use the wells and/ or the existing air handler.

There's a lot of interesting information in the forum at http://ecorenovator.org
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Might try a local electrical CO-OP or utility company. Our in-laws installed a horizontal system in southeast Kansas and the local CO-OP is very supportive of the energy saving systems. In addition to suggesting a couple of regional contractors who specialize in drilling and installing the systems, they got some VERY good rebates on some of the components. If was expensive but after rebates on the heat pump, tanks and some other higher-ticket items they recouped quite a bit of the cost.
BTW - the reason they went horizontal was their home site was above a pretty thick layer of shale and sandstone. They were able to combine one existing well with a few hundred feet of buried horizontal pipe to get good results.
RonB
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.