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
-
"Drug addicts say "It's my body and if I want to CHOOSE to put drugs into my body I should be allowed to do so!"...but we know that drug addiction leads to crime and disease (HIV, Hepatitis)."
-Paleo..
I REALLY disagree with that statement.
If (all) presently illegal drugs were legalized, sold at pharmacies, and taxed...there would be no crimes and very little disease related to them.
Another one of my soap boxes.
Doug0 -
How do these new bulbs do in the cold? I know tube flouresent quit working at a certain temp unless you buy special (expensive) bulbs. Would they work in an outdoor shed or an unheated garage? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by redneckandy
How do these new bulbs do in the cold? I know tube flouresent quit working at a certain temp unless you buy special (expensive) bulbs. Would they work in an outdoor shed or an unheated garage?
Nope, or at least not very long.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
no more Christmas lights.[V]
no more halogen.[V]
Aw jeeze...go to LED Christmas lights. Christmas isn't about the pretty lights anyway, right?
As for no more halogen...you mean like in car headlights and spotlights -? Halogen bulbs are actually on the 'GREEN List'. Once again, the title of this thread is simply not factual and a lot of people are making overmuch of nothing without checking the FACTS. The whole Chicken Little mentality that has people boarding up their windows against the nocturnal raids where the black patent leather-clad 'light-bulb police' storm in and have a big old incandescent light bulb burning out in the street a la FAHRENHEIT 451 is more than a little melodramatic.
Shoot why stop with lightbulbs? Let's all insist that it's "our choice" to demand that all public places be lit with PINE TAR TORCHES. It was good enough for our ancestors and they were real men and didn't need no stinking light bulbs.
[:p]0 -
quote:Originally posted by redneckandy
How do these new bulbs do in the cold? I know tube flouresent quit working at a certain temp unless you buy special (expensive) bulbs. Would they work in an outdoor shed or an unheated garage?
That's a good point. One feature of the bill is that the changeover will happen through a 'phase in'. This is both to give the consumer time make adjustments and also to give the industry time to improve the product. I predict the latter will have no trouble doing so- the industry just needed a reason to improve a product that currently has little marketability.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
I REALLY disagree with that statement.
If (all) presently illegal drugs were legalized, sold at pharmacies, and taxed...there would be no crimes and very little disease related to them.
Another one of my soap boxes.
Doug
Doug, I understand your point however...for starters, at this time drugs (such as crack, meth, etc.) ARE illegal. So my statement is true in the context of the current situation.
Also, as far as the idea that legalizing drugs would make them less of a social problem...I disagree. Alcohol is a legalized drug and we know that alcohol addiction leads to crime, disease, etc. not to mention broken homes, ruined careers, and big medical bills. I can hardly believe that legalizing things like crack and meth -which are more addictive and more harmful than alcohol- would be any less destructive.
Would you want a meth-head working next to you in the office, the factory? Do you think they can continue productive output? I don't. So when they lose their jobs because they're addicted to LEGAL Meth., what are they going to do to get the LEGAL Meth. -? Answer: same thing they do now to get ILLEGAL Meth. Burglary, Prostitution, Robbery...
Not saying this applies to you but one thing that a lot of people who point to 'drug tolerant' societies over in Europe don't know or fail to consider is that ALL drugs are not legalized 'over there'.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Don't forget how the guberment screwed up the toilets.
Sorry, gotta disagree. After the 'new' types of toilets were mandated, I see few plumbing calls being made than before. Really, I'm not trying to be contrary but so many predictions of doomsday just never happened ...yet people talk about it as if it did. It's like when I hear Bush-bashers declare that "Bush ruined our economy! It's in shambles!" and they all nod their heads in agreement...but I look around and I don't see that.
De facto "knowledge" is rarely all that it's made up to be.0 -
Folks...don't you realize...we really need the Gov't to control these kinds of things. We would be in a world of hurt if we had to make these kinds of decisions on our own. It's obvious that they know what's best for us... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Folks...don't you realize...we really need the Gov't to control these kinds of things. We would be in a world of hurt if we had to make these kinds of decisions on our own. It's obvious that they know what's best for us...
In some cases, yes. The thing that gets me about opinions such as yours is that you'll cheerfully embrace the technology developed by 'braniacs' as long as you like it...but then you'll ridicule and mock the same 'braniacs' if they tell you something you don't want to hear.
I asked you to give me good reasons why a turn to more efficient light bulbs would be bad. At this point, your sole reason seems to be that the government is controlling your life through light bulbs.
I suppose you don't believe in obeying traffic lights either since that's another case of the government telling you what to do and robbing you of your 'free will' by forcing on you something else to do with light bulbs.0 -
Somedays Ignorance blasts the air waves does it not.
Truth be told the new lights are not meant to be thrown into the landfill.
They need to be recyled.
I dont suppose any of you guys have a boat do you? Because here is another shockwave. All outboard motors that do not meet EPA standards after 1999 or 2000 I am unsure in fact ignorant of the date, Need to be replaced within 20 years.0 -
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
Somedays Ignorance blasts the air waves does it not.
Truth be told the new lights are not meant to be thrown into the landfill.
They need to be recyled.
I dont suppose any of you guys have a boat do you? Because here is another shockwave. All outboard motors that do not meet EPA standards after 1999 or 2000 I am unsure in fact ignorant of the date, Need to be replaced within 20 years.
Daggum Gubernit! Next thing they's gonna tell us is if we wants to fly an airyplane around we gots to do it at whatever level of the atmersfere they tells us! Robbing me of my free rites to fly my airyplane whenever and however I want even tho I ain't got no airyplane but boy if I did I wouldn't want no Gubernit suit feller telling me how to fly it! What's next?
I reckon they's gonna tell me I gots to put lights on my trailer when I haul them old rubber tires down there to the bridge to toss 'em off? Snort! Shoot, it ain't none of my carnsern if someone cain't figger out when my 1973 truck without no muffler that smokes like a train is stopping and they run up on my trailer next to all them there tires. They oughten not to even be on out on the daggumed hiway noways since they ain't paid nearly as many taxes as I done back when I wuz in the 'Nam and my daddy wuz in Dubya Dubya No. 2 and he didn't kill all them Japs just soze them Chineeze fellers can tell me what kinda litebulb I gots to put on my Santy Claus display out there in front of my house!
Next thing you know they's gonna take lead outta paint!
"The sea was angry that day, my friends; like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli."0 -
Rights are given because of society. Property rights have been dwindled since the beginning of our goverment here. Public health safety and welfare always takes the cake. The right of the collective whole shall not be infringed. You are regulated but the rest no individual rights exist. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by redneckandy
How do these new bulbs do in the cold? I know tube flouresent quit working at a certain temp unless you buy special (expensive) bulbs. Would they work in an outdoor shed or an unheated garage?
The tubes need cold weather ballasts, the cfls don't I believe.
I have had them in my porchlights for a couple years, they take a min. to get bright, but once their lit they work good.
But then again, MI weather is not that cold.........0 -
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
Rights are given because of society. Property rights have been dwindled since the beginning of our goverment here. Public health safety and welfare always takes the cake. The right of the collective whole shall not be infringed. You are regulated but the rest no individual rights exist.
There's a lot of truth in what you say. For example, I'm very concerned about the abuse of the Law of Imminent Domain to grab private property for the personal financial gain and other interests of big boys down at city hall.0 -
In the link below is the $ 2,000.00 clean up cited earlier. Also noted is the fact that these bulbs will NEVER be manufactured in the U.S. because the environmental risk is such they will only be manufactured in countries such as India and China, where environmental concerns are negligible.
Obviously, being manufactured in India and China, the primary source of electrical power for the manufacture will be coal without the benefit of scrubbers, resulting in, most likely, a large net negative on the environmental front.
We can expect this type of intrusive nanny-knows-best idiocy from a Democrat controlled Congress. We should be able to expect that a Republican President, even this now-pathetic 'I will be liked at any cost' limp-duck we currently have, would bring some semblance of conservatism and constitutional restraint into the process. Obviously those concepts no longer hold any meaning to him.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
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.
ECC, not trying to get involved in this interesting and entertaining debate, but I do have a reply to your comment about the Cummins enginge being bigger and less efficent. That is not true. Yes the Cummins ISB engine for '07 and newer have increased displacement, but are by no means less efficent. You probably believe so because the rating on the factory stickers are the same ratings as the past few years. This is because the engine is limited in Rated and Torque Peak power by Diamler-Chrysler so that their drivetrain components won't fail nearly as quickly. Yes the Emissions crap that the government regulates us with plays a key factor in how much power we can make an engine produce in a config that will be placed in a truck, but the ISB has a lot, and I mean a lot of potential if you know what to do to it or who to have mess with it. The 6.7L In the new '07 is a lot more fuel efficent than most people know, but if the engine is tuned to be more fuel effecent and powerful at the same time it takes a dump on the emissions.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jtmarine0831
quote:Originally posted by ECC
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.
ECC, not trying to get involved in this interesting and entertaining debate, but I do have a reply to your comment about the Cummins enginge being bigger and less efficent. That is not true. Yes the Cummins ISB engine for '07 and newer have increased displacement, but are by no means less efficent. You probably believe so because the rating on the factory stickers are the same ratings as the past few years. This is because the engine is limited in Rated and Torque Peak power by Diamler-Chrysler so that their drivetrain components won't fail nearly as quickly. Yes the Emissions crap that the government regulates us with plays a key factor in how much power we can make an engine produce in a config that will be placed in a truck, but the ISB has a lot, and I mean a lot of potential if you know what to do to it or who to have mess with it. The 6.7L In the new '07 is a lot more fuel efficent than most people know, but if the engine is tuned to be more fuel effecent and powerful at the same time it takes a dump on the emissions.
...and what was I saying about Gov't regulations??? It's idiocy at it's finest.
One thing that gets me is that they keep going after diesels and diesel is much better for the enviornment to begin with.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
In the link below is the $ 2,000.00 clean up cited earlier. Also noted is the fact that these bulbs will NEVER be manufactured in the U.S. because the environmental risk is such they will only be manufactured in countries such as India and China, where environmental concerns are negligible.
Obviously, being manufactured in India and China, the primary source of electrical power for the manufacture will be coal without the benefit of scrubbers, resulting in, most likely, a large net negative on the environmental front.
We can expect this type of intrusive nanny-knows-best idiocy from a Democrat controlled Congress. We should be able to expect that a Republican President, even this now-pathetic 'I will be liked at any cost' limp-duck we currently have, would bring some semblance of conservatism and constitutional restraint into the process. Obviously those concepts no longer hold any meaning to him.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda
Thank you Don,.......I knew I did not dream it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
In the link below is the $ 2,000.00 clean up cited earlier. Also noted is the fact that these bulbs will NEVER be manufactured in the U.S. because the environmental risk is such they will only be manufactured in countries such as India and China, where environmental concerns are negligible.
Obviously, being manufactured in India and China, the primary source of electrical power for the manufacture will be coal without the benefit of scrubbers, resulting in, most likely, a large net negative on the environmental front.
We can expect this type of intrusive nanny-knows-best idiocy from a Democrat controlled Congress. We should be able to expect that a Republican President, even this now-pathetic 'I will be liked at any cost' limp-duck we currently have, would bring some semblance of conservatism and constitutional restraint into the process. Obviously those concepts no longer hold any meaning to him.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda
I really think that's a cheap shot, presuming to know what the President's mindset and motivation is. I hardly think he's shown any worry that doing what he believes is best might not make him popular. You'd have to believe he's a complete fool to think the Energy Bill would cause a turn-around in how the Bush-bashers feel.
Your comments about the longterm effects of the new lightbulbs are valid and echo my own observations about how Ethanol as the 'wonder fuel' is just trading one set of problems for another. However, consider that the energy bill is NOT "just about lightbulbs". And I suspect the man is weary of being told he's not 'working with the other side' especially since a lot of his fellow Republicans are pressuring him to make concessions.
No man is an island. And President Bush isn't God and doesn't control the death of even the least little sparrow or whatever that line is. My point is that if you're a conservative, I think turning to Bush-bashing is just what the leftwingers want: divide and conquer. he's a lame duck president anyway. Shoot, let's all pile on him and nod our heads with our brothers the leftwingers and agree with them that he's the worst president ever and "now it's time for a change!" Usher in Clinton-Obama.
Great work guys. [xx(][xx(][xx(]
"Also noted is the fact that these bulbs will NEVER be manufactured in the U.S. because the environmental risk is such they will only be manufactured in countries such as India and China, where environmental concerns are negligible. Obviously, being manufactured in India and China, the primary source of electrical power for the manufacture will be coal without the benefit of scrubbers, resulting in, most likely, a large net negative on the environmental front."
Agreed. It's a variation of the "no toxic dump in my state, put it in your state" situation. But at this point WHAT IS THE ANSWER??? I know, we know that a lot of these things are just bandaids on a festering sore. BUT WHAT IS THE ANSWER? Keep doing everything the way we have been for decades, over a century now?
It's just like with 'race relations' and 'sexual harassment'. Yeah, the pendulum has swung way too far to the left on those issues- but a lot of that was brought about by refusing to do ANYTHING about the problems earlier on. If we allow problems to grow and don't police ourselves, then we invite big brother to step in and police it for us.0 -
Nothing with mercury in it is environmentally friendly. No way I'm bringing one of those things in the house. I've got five years to find a source for the oldies. Watch -- the internet will start popping up with sites showing how to make your own. 0 -
quote:...and what was I saying about Gov't regulations??? It's idiocy at it's finest.
One thing that gets me is that they keep going after diesels and diesel is much better for the enviornment to begin with.
I totally agree with you on the BS Gov't regs!
As far as Diesel being better for the environment, that is nonsense. The amount of CO, CO2, HC, and NOX in diesel exhaust is much more than even the most unefficent gasoline powered engine out there. I use to think a long those same lines until I started working in Research and Development for Cummins. I have ran and tested just about every Cummins engine manufactured. I ran several spark-ignited(gas, nat-gas, propane) engines for over 2 years and when I went to running diesel engines, I thought all of the sampling equipment was junk because of the extreme increase in measurements. We are talking thousands to hundreds of thousands of PPM increases. The increases are almost ridiculous when you see them put into numbers. I know you probably think I'm blowin smoke up your hind-end, but unfortunately I'm not. Thankfully they finally started going with the new ULSD(15PPM Sulfur) fuel. It has drasticly reduced emissions on its own. However, even with the knowledge of this I have obtained in the past few years, I still let my truck roll, pouring the fuel to it. Why, because I like it, the power, the noise. I don't believe that the outcome is near as harsh as they say it will be. And as you are stressing, I believe it is too poltically motivated. Motivated by greed and power.0 -
It'll be interesting to see how Rush Limbaugh spins this. He was railing against CFL's a few months ago. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
Somedays Ignorance blasts the air waves does it not.
Truth be told the new lights are not meant to be thrown into the landfill.
They need to be recyled.
I dont suppose any of you guys have a boat do you? Because here is another shockwave. All outboard motors that do not meet EPA standards after 1999 or 2000 I am unsure in fact ignorant of the date, Need to be replaced within 20 years.
I agree with you on the recycling, darn near everything is made to be recycled anymore.
But the big kicker to recycling is that most people are to lazy to recycle.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Don't forget how the guberment screwed up the toilets.
Sorry, gotta disagree. After the 'new' types of toilets were mandated, I see few plumbing calls being made than before. Really, I'm not trying to be contrary but so many predictions of doomsday just never happened ...yet people talk about it as if it did. It's like when I hear Bush-bashers declare that "Bush ruined our economy! It's in shambles!" and they all nod their heads in agreement...but I look around and I don't see that.
De facto "knowledge" is rarely all that it's made up to be.
It is funny that all the people blaming Bush for the economy are the same people standing there swiping away with those damn credit cards trying to live a life they can't afford.0 -
Opps!
ECC, looks like I got drawed in to this one after all![:p]
Oh the Horror![xx(]0 -
I jes trow my junk inta da crick.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
No man is an island. And President Bush isn't God and doesn't control the death of even the least little sparrow or whatever that line is. My point is that if you're a conservative, I think turning to Bush-bashing is just what the leftwingers want: divide and conquer. he's a lame duck president anyway. Shoot, let's all pile on him and nod our heads with our brothers the leftwingers and agree with them that he's the worst president ever and "now it's time for a change!" Usher in Clinton-Obama.
Bush bashing (though usually necessary) is not the focus of this issue. It is the power grab by the Federal Government, and who is directing it. This bill is a continuation of Congress's and the President's expansion of government at the expense of individual liberty.
You are 100% correct in the analogy to the Ethanol scam. This Energy Bill, and the Ag Bill were bought and paid for by ADM, BP, GE, ETC. It is National Socialism in that the Federal Government is legislating the direction of large segments of the economy through subsidy and decree. Market forces are being skewed towards technologies that are unproven, and, as in the case of Ethanol, are proven to be energy negative. Lobbyists are still writing these laws, but are now using the tree-huggers to preach to us from the moral high ground. They have also found allies amongst the Islamophobic using the Arab oil money to terrorists angle.
The fact of the matter is that it is not within the charter of the Federal Government to dictate what type of light bulbs I use in my living room. It matters not if it is a better bulb, it matters not if it will actually save stupid ole me a couple of bucks. What matters is that it is yet another power grab by Congress, with their willing accomplice in the White House.0 -
i wonder how much stock bush owns in ge?
i have yet to find a bulb that will work in enclosed area for very long other than incandescent, and i like how everyone that uses them now agrees with a new law that tells us we have to buy a product, but will bitch about how unfair a helmet law is0 -
Keep it going, boys...I love to watch a big government supporter make a fool of himself. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The fact of the matter is that it is not within the charter of the Federal Government to dictate what type of light bulbs I use in my living room. It matters not if it is a better bulb, it matters not if it will actually save stupid ole me a couple of bucks. What matters is that it is yet another power grab by Congress, with their willing accomplice in the White House.
I dunno. Somewhere there is a point where 'your rights end where mine begin' and environmental issues affect everyone. Sorta like when my neighbor across the road was burning nasty trash last week and the wind was blowing it across the road at a steady rate for several hours. No, burning trash (out in the county) isn't illegal and no, he can't control the wind. But by the same token, it was an intrusion of my right to enjoy my property when he was 'exercising his right' to burn trash and other factors meant it was affecting me. So he had to stop and wait for a day when the wind didn't blow it across the road onto me. Standard disclaimer: I'm not a tree-hugging wacko but I don't like to see the environment suffer just because it's easier than doing the better deal.
If the light bulb issue was a case of there are two kinds of light bulbs: either is equally effective and thus either is equally 'harmful' to the environment (if only indirectly due to energy consumption which is provided by a process that produces harmful emissions) and the government wanted to force us to use one over the other...I'd see it as an unnecessary and unreasonable intrusion on our free will and right to choose. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. The 'new' technology is (allegedly) more efficient which means that it's better for the environment (that we all share) and -in the long run- really no more or not much more costly than current technology. I say "allegedly" because I know that sales pitches are just that and I'm open to someone providing scientific facts to refute the claims.
If we were talking a jump in price from $2 a light bulb to $20 a light bulb and it didn't last longer and so forth and so on, I'd be up in arms. But sometimes it's good for the consumer when the government steps in and says "Stop making this product and make a better product." I'm just surprised this is considered such a volatile issue and one of the fights someone would choose to fight as proof the government wants to attack our rights.
I guess someone still has the right to choose to live in a cave that's illuminated with pine pitch torches, if he chooses...0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
94 comments