G.W. Bush signed bill to Outlawed Light bulbs..
As we know them..
Glad I grabbed three cases (360 total) of 75Watt - 130V rough service bulbs from a good supplier for $60.00 a case back at the first of the year. I got tired of paying $1.00 for two Dollar Store bulbs only to have them blow at the first power spike. Have yet to have one of these $.50 130 Volt bulbs to blow.
"On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts (California Commie Comity) don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
Glad I grabbed three cases (360 total) of 75Watt - 130V rough service bulbs from a good supplier for $60.00 a case back at the first of the year. I got tired of paying $1.00 for two Dollar Store bulbs only to have them blow at the first power spike. Have yet to have one of these $.50 130 Volt bulbs to blow.
"On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts (California Commie Comity) don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
0
-
Some of the older hi watt fluorescent tube are being phased out also IIRC, the f96t12's are supposed to be going away soon.
I started using the cfl's a few years ago, they cost a little more, but last a lot longer and use less energy which = $ to me[:D]
Don0 -
The older this world gets-the more insane it becomes![:0] 0 -
GOD...I love it when a plan comes together !!!!
All you stupid morons out there ain't got the sense God gave a Mongoloid mouse...so that GOD we gots us the 'decider' in office to do all that nasty thinking for us !!1
All you stupid mprons that keep insisting that ANY Republican is 'better' then the nearest Democrat...jeeze...you got to have a calculator and scorecard to tell ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM !!!!
Keep right on voting the garbage that is pushed into you face into office...
You don't deserve a free country any more.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
GOD...I love it when a plan comes together !!!!
All you stupid morons out there ain't got the sense God gave a Mongoloid mouse...so that GOD we gots us the 'decider' in office to do all that nasty thinking for us !!1
All you stupid mprons that keep insisting that ANY Republican is 'better' then the nearest Democrat...jeeze...you got to have a calculator and scorecard to tell ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM !!!!
Keep right on voting the garbage that is pushed into you face into office...
You don't deserve a free country any more.
I think the dumbasses are the ones still using incandescents..........0 -
quote:think the dumbasses are the ones still using incandescents..........
Thats fine...you are welcome to your opinion.
What bothers ME is..the law is perfectly fine with YOU...screw the fact that I can see FAR better with the Incandescents.
What I prefer, see...is for you and your hero to leave me the hell alone, instead of deciding that somehow you are so much smarter then the rest of us.0 -
When all the landfills get contaminated with the mercury that's in those "earth friendly" bulbs what are they going to make us use then? Candles? BTW-I've been using the Algore bulbs for several years now. I hardly ever have to replace them but I haven't noticed my electric bill going down. 0 -
You ain't gonna heat a chicken coop with no cfl on the end of a trouble light! Better sharpen up the scissors!
I foresee a AG exemption. [;)]
Allen0 -
I'm going to start driving with my lights turned off when driving at night
Be careful if you drive in northern Michigan at night0 -
And when you start wiping your ass with plastic toilet paper I will jump on your environmental band wagon.
But until then. I have timber to cut and wonder about the few that attempt to dictate how I will live and what I can and can't use.
It is not about if an incandescent light bulb saves energy or not . It about a whole government bending over with their pants dropped for environmental whackoffs that have nothing better to do than tell me that my firearms ammo is known to cause cancer in the state of California. Hell if it was not for flying hot lead. We would not have a country called the United States of America which is suppose to free.
The same environmental whackoffs that now tell me that I cant go out and buy a new LawnBoy two stroke mower because it is not environmentally friendly.
The same environmental whackoffs that tell me I can't build a pond on my property because I will upset the Wet Land. Hell wet land is what I want rid of dumbass. But it is ok for me to cover my kids with known to cause cancer in the state of California bug spray to help protect them against Mosquitoes and the disease's they carry..
Bend over America for the environmental enthusiasts will soon make it so that you can not insert your own clue here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:think the dumbasses are the ones still using incandescents..........
Thats fine...you are welcome to your opinion.
What bothers ME is..the law is perfectly fine with YOU...screw the fact that I can see FAR better with the Incandescents.
What I prefer, see...is for you and your hero to leave me the hell alone, instead of deciding that somehow you are so much smarter then the rest of us.
HB,
I don't think we needed a law banning them, myself, it was common sense to run a 14w/60w output cfl in the majority of my general lighting fixtures.
Sorry if you took offense.0 -
Okay, I read the article but I'm still confused. Is there any particular reason why this is a bad thing? As I understand, the new bulbs will cost more...but last about proportionately the same extended life. And be more efficient...and better for the environment.
I am not for the Kyoto Accord and I do not hug trees. And I do eat meat, especially deep fried Spotted Owl (which contrary to popular belief, does not "taste like chicken". No, fried Spotted Owl tastes a lot like fried Bald Eagle. But you can make an omelet with only one or two Bald Eagle eggs whereas it takes about 4 or 5 Spotted Owl eggs)...but I am all for doing 'green' WHEN FEASIBLE AND SENSIBLE.
But that does not include thinking that growing corn and sugar cane to make ethanol will solve our dependency on petroleum. The increase in corn production in the U.S. is killing the Gulf of Mexico and the increase in sugar production is destroying more rain forest. So despite what the pinheaded liberal enviro-thugs tell us, there are no solutions to our oil dependency as simple as "make cars run on ethanol".
But I like the lightbulb idea...I think- unless someone can explain to me why I should not -???0 -
quote:Originally posted by LesWVa
As we know them..
Glad I grabbed three cases (360 total) of 75Watt - 130V rough service bulbs from a good supplier for $60.00 a case back at the first of the year. I got tired of paying $1.00 for two Dollar Store bulbs only to have them blow at the first power spike. Have yet to have one of these $.50 130 Volt bulbs to blow.
"On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts (California Commie Comity) don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
He'll take the time to sign a stupid bill like this...I wonder if he'll take the time to avert a revolution by vetoing a bill that tramples on the Constitution.?.?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
GOD...I love it when a plan comes together !!!!
All you stupid morons out there ain't got the sense God gave a Mongoloid mouse...so that GOD we gots us the 'decider' in office to do all that nasty thinking for us !!1
Oh shut up if you can't do any better than that. You Bush-bashers want to blame everything on the man. If he didn't sign the Kyoto Accord, then he's an "anti-environment" who didn't listen to good advice . If he signs this energy bill AT THE INSISTENCE OF A BUNCH OF WHINING ENVIRONMENTALISTS then he's "the decider". Admit it: for Bush-bashers like you, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
If your life revolves around lightbulbs, I'm betting you're about as bright as a blown lightbulb.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by LesWVa
As we know them..
Glad I grabbed three cases (360 total) of 75Watt - 130V rough service bulbs from a good supplier for $60.00 a case back at the first of the year. I got tired of paying $1.00 for two Dollar Store bulbs only to have them blow at the first power spike. Have yet to have one of these $.50 130 Volt bulbs to blow.
"On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts (California Commie Comity) don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
He'll take the time to sign a stupid bill like this...I wonder if he'll take the time to avert a revolution by vetoing a bill that tramples on the Constitution.?.?
Yeah, President Bush should not sign ANY bills about anything until he addresses the one you're blathering on about.0 -
An entire class of lightbulb not being made anymore. By a single stroke of the pen. I imagine those that bought one prior to the manufacturing ban will be "grandfathered". Joe 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by LesWVa
As we know them..
Glad I grabbed three cases (360 total) of 75Watt - 130V rough service bulbs from a good supplier for $60.00 a case back at the first of the year. I got tired of paying $1.00 for two Dollar Store bulbs only to have them blow at the first power spike. Have yet to have one of these $.50 130 Volt bulbs to blow.
"On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts (California Commie Comity) don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/519kutui.asp
He'll take the time to sign a stupid bill like this...I wonder if he'll take the time to avert a revolution by vetoing a bill that tramples on the Constitution.?.?
Yeah, President Bush should not sign ANY bills about anything until he addresses the one you're blathering on about.
I happen to be "blathering" about the Constitution...You know...the most important document of our land...the very essence of America.
Wake up buddy...or better yet, let the other folks who really care about this nation carry the load for you...0 -
Can any of you who are convinced that President Bush is the Great Satan for having signed this bill explain to me exactly why you think these new light bulbs are so evil -???
Or is it just more Bush-bashing and you'd complain if he hung you with a new rope that "new rope makes my neck itch" -?
You know, you people need to learn how 'the system' works. The lightbulbs issue was not THE ISSUE in that bill. A lot of bills have details and minutiae with which someone might not fully agree but taken as a whole, it's overall an improvement, a step forward. As the quote said: "...an energy bill that will, among many, many other things..." A couple of those many, many other things were:
- requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
- ramps up production of ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.
Both of those details would -presumably- be detrimental to the oil profits that Bush-bashers claim makes Bush an "oil profiteer". Anybody want to claim that those two points are 'bad' -?
Personally, as I've stated, I know the whole "ethanol is better" premise is flawed- but keep in mind that "EVERYONE" is clamoring for less dependency on oil. For the time being, ethanol is about the best response to that. President Bush is trying to be responsive to the clamoring and acting on the 'best technical advice' available. In other words, all you Bush-bashers are clamoring for THIS President to finally do something (about a situation he did not create), but you're certain that President Bush isn't doing the right thing and you're going to condemn him for whatever he does every step of the way.
Doesn't mean I'm here to defend President Bush: I'm just wondering when all you braniacs who have all the answers are going to step forward and give us all those answers -???0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
I happen to be "blathering" about the Constitution...You know...the most important document of our land...the very essence of America.
Wake up buddy...or better yet, let the other folks who really care about this nation carry the load for you...
Well do tell Buddy. Tell me about the "revolution". I'm always interested in hearing from "revolutionists".0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
He'll take the time to sign a stupid bill like this...
So a bill that requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is "stupid" -?
Here Buddy (now that you and I are "buddies"), here's a little equation for you: more fuel efficiency = more sales of American products = more job security for more Americans working in the American auto industry AND more fuel efficiency = less gasoline used = less dependency on OPEC. From where I sit, that's not "stupid" it's smart. Course, I'm not a "revolutionary" thinker like you.
BTW, just when IS "the revolution" going to begin? I want to come watch. I'll probably bring a cooler with something to drink and maybe some chips.0 -
I think the biggest problem we have in our government right now is a republican president and a democrat congress. They just seem to be butting heads, and all that does is waste money and resolves nothing. The congress should always match the party of the president. 0 -
quote:So a bill that requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is "stupid" -?
Yes, it is....it will probably increase the cost of your vehicle by 300 fold...not to mention the infrastructure for new fuel systems etc. The Gov't has NO business regulating this kind of crap...period...just like it has no business telling you what kind of toilet you can use.
But then again, I guess some of us like living in Communistic/Socialistic societies where the gov't regulates every aspect of your life...BUT that is not America...or at least it's not what America is supposed to be.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:So a bill that requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is "stupid" -?
Yes, it is....it will probably increase the cost of your vehicle by 300 fold...not to mention the infrastructure for new fuel systems etc. The Gov't has NO business regulating this kind of crap...period...just like it has no business telling you what kind of toilet you can use.
But then again, I guess some of us like living in Communistic/Socialistic societies where the gov't regulates every aspect of your life...
Sorry Buddy, but you're dead wrong. The American made cars of today are roughly twice as fuel efficient as the cars before the gas crunch in the 70's...but the cost did NOT increase "300 fold". In fact, it's sorta hard to say for certain given the multitude of car models/types...but most cars today represent less (percentage-wise) of the average working man's income than they did back in the early-mid 70's. If anything, the average car is actually LESS EXPENSIVE (when inflation is factored) than the previous gas-guzzlers. Forcing auto manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency by 40% is probably not going to significantly increase the sticker price...at least not as long as the Japanese are 'doing it'.
THAT is the question you should be asking: IF THE JAPANESE CAN MAKE QUALITY CARS THAT GET 35mpg WHY CAN'T AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS? You don't think we can do it? Why not? Aren't we as smart or as good as the Japanese?
As for "some of us like living in Communistic/Socialistic societies where the gov't regulates every aspect of your life" I can tell you that most people who say that about this country have never lived or visited for any period of time a genuine Communist/Socialist country. I certainly want less government but in the case of this energy bill, it was inevitable that some sort of changes would have to be made.0 -
quote:I certainly want less government but in the case of this energy bill, it was inevitable that some sort of changes would have to be made.
...sort of like the Second Amendment, huh?0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:I certainly want less government but in the case of this energy bill, it was inevitable that some sort of changes would have to be made.
...sort of like the Second Amendment, huh?
Say what -??? So -if I understand you- President Bush signs an energy bill calling for more fuel efficient cars and that means he wants to take away your gun -?
Buddy, that sort of reasoning is exactly the sort of reasoning the liberal gun-grabbers use against we gun owners when they want to say we can't think straight or argue coherently.
Forcing auto manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency by 40% is not taking away your right to own guns...and probably is not going to significantly increase the sticker price (certainly not "300 fold" as you claim)...at least not as long as the Japanese are 'doing it'. THAT is the question you should be asking: IF THE JAPANESE CAN MAKE QUALITY CARS THAT GET 35mpg WHY CAN'T AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS? You don't think we can do it? Why not? Aren't we as smart or as good as the Japanese?0 -
quote:THAT is the question you should be asking: IF THE JAPANESE CAN MAKE QUALITY CARS THAT GET 35mpg WHY CAN'T AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS? You don't think we can do it? Why not? Aren't we as smart or as good as the Japanese?
BTW...I don't want a more fuel efficient car! Don't cram it down my throat. I prefer the power that I have now.0 -
quote:Originally posted by givette
An entire class of lightbulb not being made anymore. By a single stroke of the pen. I imagine those that bought one prior to the manufacturing ban will be "grandfathered". Joe
Maybe they will give out coupons like they are for the HDTV upgrades. Did they stop and think how the impoverished and un-enfranchised are going to be able to afford these earth saving bulbs? What will the poor use to heat their homes?0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
BTW...I don't want a more fuel efficient car! Don't cram it down my throat. I prefer the power that I have now.
Sorry Buddy: non-sequitur argument. More fuel efficiency does not 'automatically' equate to less power. For example, most of the full-sized pickup trucks of today have more power than the P/U trucks of the early 70's...but today's trucks are about 25% - 40% more fuel efficient.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ljwrench
Did they stop and think how the impoverished and un-enfranchised are going to be able to afford these earth saving bulbs? What will the poor use to heat their homes?
Um...are you saying the poor are using light bulbs to heat their homes now?
You know, if the bulbs last longer, then the poor will only have to purchase them less often. Besides, bulbs are so cheap now that even if they go up in price 5X-6X, I don't think anyone is going to go bankrupt buying replacement bulbs. After all...the "poor" probably don't have that many rooms to light up anyway, right?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
quote:Originally posted by ECC
BTW...I don't want a more fuel efficient car! Don't cram it down my throat. I prefer the power that I have now.
Sorry Buddy: non-sequitur argument. More fuel efficiency does not 'automatically' equate to less power. For example, most of the full-sized pickup trucks of today have more power than the P/U trucks of the early 70's...but today's trucks are about 25% - 40% more fuel efficient.
...and they are 100,000% more complicated, with that many more add ons just to make them as efficient as last years model. Take a look at Cummins for example. Their new engine is larger and a LOT less efficient...all to accomplish the same job as the smaller, more fuel efficient model of last year...You know why???...b/c of Gov't regulation They had to increase the engine size just to maintain their existing performance and meet new Gov't criteria.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:So a bill that requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is "stupid" -?
Yes, it is....it will probably increase the cost of your vehicle by 300 fold...
A 300 fold increase in price on my truck would price it at about 6 million dollars.
Disturbing news to say the least. I'll contact my senator right away0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
94 comments