The purpose of the constitution is to protect freedoms of the people.
If you pass a law that TAKES AWAY freedom from the people, that is not comp
arable to passing a law the GIVES freedom to the people. There is a fundame
ntal difference. New laws are almost always for taking away freedoms, this
is a rare example of the opposite.
When I am elected king, I will make an amendment that any proposed new law
or regulation that TAKEs AWAY any freedom must have a FREEDOM IMPACT STATEM
ENT analysis that clearly outlines the cost/benefits of taking away freedom
We need to fight for our right to party. :-)
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:38:03 PM UTC-5, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
mparable to passing a law the GIVES freedom to the people. There is a funda
mental difference. New laws are almost always for taking away freedoms, th
is is a rare example of the opposite.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the law making process
can be skipped because a president deems the new law gives someone freedom.
Following that logic, one could come up with any number of laws that
a president, abusing his power, could enact or nulify. And who says what
Obama did only gives and doesn't take? The border states are already being
hit with a huge burden by illegal aliens. His action just put out the welc
mat for another incoming wave.
w or regulation that TAKEs AWAY any freedom must have a FREEDOM IMPACT STAT
EMENT analysis that clearly outlines the cost/benefits of taking away freed
The difference is that we don't have a king, we're supposed to have a presi
that obeys the constitution. Ultimately, it's highly likely that what Obam
just did will go down in flames in the courts. He will have screwed the ve
people he's pretending to help, because now he's so poisoned the political
landscape, he won't get any laws passed on immigration for the rest of his
Probably not much else, either.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 19:35:55 -0600, Gordon Shumway
WTF. My employer was dropping and adding new insurance plans long
before the ACA. You want the same plan, move to another country.
Until this country is single payer, you're dreaming abut keeping the
You want prosecution? The R's will shortly be in control of all the
They can prosecute away.
Hey, you forgot Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.
So now the R's have the purse strings.
They'll fix everything.
Joe Friday ain't in charge. Besides, that was a TV show.
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:14:37 AM UTC-5, Vic Smith wrote:
What your employer was doing has nothing to do with Obama's promise
that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it, nothing changes".
Millions of Americans saw the private plans that they were paying
for themselves get cancelled as a direct result of Obamacare. Many
can no longer keep their doctor either. But apparently you admit that
Obama and the libs did lie. People weren't dreaming. They heard the
Committees can't prosecute.
The Republicans aren't an excuse for the lies and failures of Obama.
If you don't like what your employer is doing you have three choices:
1. Get another job.
2. Buy your own insurance.
3. Quit whining and at least act like a man.
Keep showing how stupid you are like Dr. Gruber said. The house and
senate the legislative branch of the government. They are responsible
for creating the laws. The prosecutorial responsibility is under the
purview of the Department of Justice. The president that you are in
love with appoints the head of that and other department. If you are
man enough I would like to hear an apology.
What part of "There's many more, but I think you get my point" are you
incapable of understanding?
That depends on how "willing to work with the house and senate" Obama
really is. However, this is yet another example of the lies we've hard
from him many times before.
Next time get the facts before you show your stupidity again.
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 7:14:28 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
He doesn't care about what plan his employer offers. But he does
care about Obamacare being mandated, defending Obama's lies, etc.
Some of these libs are very strange indeed. If you don't care about what
kind of healthcare plan your employer has, that says a lot about your
overall intelligence, awareness, and concern about the world around you.
Sounds like he's the kind of voter that Gruber was talking about.
> organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most
> recent climate change-related science."
No, the IPCC doesn't make synthetic climate. I expect what they're
referring to is the use of computer models to assess climate change.
Even when I was a petroleum engineer 30 years ago, we used main frame
computers to model reservoir behaviour. Basically, we would generate a
mathematical model of the reservoir under the ground with known rock
parameters at each well location and see if we could get the computer to
predict historical behaviour. That is, we would withdraw the known
production from each well and see if the computer would accurately
predict the pressure in the reservoir, the elevation of the gas/oil
interface and the water/oil interface. If we could manipulate the
unknown parameters into getting the computer to accurately predict
historical measured pressures and gas/oil and oil/water interface
elevations, then we could use that same model to predict how the
reservoir would behave if we were to produce it in different ways, such
as by implementing a water flood or perhaps a miscible flood. In that
way, we maximize the amount of oil produced from large reservoirs.
Climate scientists do the same thing. If they can get their computer
models to predict historically accurate global temperature increases,
then they can use that model to predict what will happen with the global
climate in the future under different scenarios, such as the world
moving from gasoline powered automobiles to electric automobiles over
the next 40 years, or by changing from coal burning electric generating
stations to nuclear reactors, for example.
So, when they say the IPCC "synthesizes climate change - related
science" it means that they use their computer models to see if
scientific claims about global warming are realistic or not, based on
whether their computer models agree with those claims.
Even 30 years ago, the people in computer reservoir simulation business
were aware that computer climate models were amongst the most computer
intensive applications of computer modelling that there was. 30 years
ago, it took days and even weeks of time on a mainframe computer to run
a single computer simulation, and so it was only universities and
governments who owned their own computers that could afford to use them
for climate modeling. Tying up a piece of equipment like a computer
that cost 20 million dollars for a week would have been prohibitively
expensive for independant or privately funded climate researchers.
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:17:14 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
Whatever it is, I've never heard of anyone saying they synthesize science,
They did the same thing back in the 70's. They had models, computers,
and they told us that we were entering a new ice age. Of course they
will tell you that the models and computers are much better now. They
said that in the 70's too. Any of those models are only as good as the
guesses that go into making them. And as others here have pointed out,
if you're a manmade global warming skeptic and you want $20mil in govt
funds to work on a model, what do you think your chances of getting funded
AFAIK, it's still the same, nothing has changed. And if you're a skeptic,
how much funding do you think you get? Forget about funding, you'd be
lucky to still have your job.
you hit the nail on the head regarding computer simulations.
when you create a simulation of a geological formation, you have a lot of i
nfomration about the formation. you also have the benefit of testing the s
imulation on other formations and you can refine the simulation over time a
electronics engineers use simulations to test circuits. the behavior of th
e components is mostly well known. as soon as you get into an area where t
he behavior of a component is not known exactly, the simulation fails.
the Earths climate system is chaotic (this is not just a verbal description
, it has a technical mathematical meaning) and the behavior of the componet
s are not well known. Also they do not have the benefit of testing the sim
lation model. And yet they want to to use the results of these models as t
he basis for important economc and social policy decisions.
I would like to create a challange for the climtae modellers. Create a sma
ll system that has some complex chaotic behaivor that can be accuratly meas
ured. Lets see if the models can predict the future behior of this small s
ystem. Oh say, predict what number a rouleete wheel ball will land on. Th
ink you can do that? Creating a model of the Earth's climate is a similar
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 04:16:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
I know, but I just like messing with idiots like him. I asked him in
one of my replies just above this, if he can give me evidence of what
I said was wrong I'll start voting Democrat. Knowing there isn't any,
I figured that would at least shut him up.
So far, nothing but crickets.
> small system that has some complex chaotic behaivor that can be
> accuratly measured. Lets see if the models can predict the future
> behior of this small system. Oh say, predict what number a rouleete
> wheel ball will land on. Think you can do that? Creating a model of
> the Earth's climate is a similar problem.
No, the surface of a roulette wheel has numerous protrusions on it's
surface. The roulette ball hitting any of these would cause it to
bounce, possibly into a different area of the wheel. Consequently,
minute changes in the speed or timing of the roulette ball's release
make a big difference in where the roulette ball winds up.
I don't think it's reasonable to presume that the Earth's climate is
THAT chaotic. If it were, then we couldn't tell with any degree of
certainty when we would have summer or winter and how long those seasons
would last. We could conceivably have -40 degree F temperatures for one
week and then suddenly have +40 degree F temperatures the next. That's
what can happen on a roulette wheel, but things aren't quite that
chaotic in our weather.
On Monday, November 17, 2014 8:37:59 PM UTC-6, email@example.com wrote:
You can't accept the known effect of high CO2 in a planetary atmosphere, and the MEASURED CO2 levels, but you believe that Noah floated around in a boat with all the animals.
Plus, you conveniently ignore the VERY WELL KNOWN reason for the current cold spell -- the huge typhoon Nuri which hit the Aleutians on November 7.
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.