Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

G.W. Bush signed bill to Outlawed Light bulbs..

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
0

Comments

94 comments

Date Votes
  • River Rat
    It's things like this that drive me nuts! The role of Gov't is national defense, and filling potholes. Period. Someone noted that their pickup is more fuel-efficient than one from the 70s. Thank you for illustrating that PROBLEMS are not solved by the government, they are solved by the marketplace.
    0
  • Paleobrute
    quote:Originally posted by 1911a1fan
    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 is


    Well, not everyone. I don't bitch about the helmet laws. Arguments like that though can go way out to an extreme. For example, if your brother Joe gives you permission to shoot a bottle off his head...and you do is that Wanton Endangerment? If you miss and kill him is that negligent homicide? If the answer is "yes" to either/both of those, is that taking away free will and the right to choose?

    Personally, I think if two guys hate each other bad enough they want to kill one another they should be allowed to do so since it's their "choice" and thus dueling should be (re)legalized. The law says otherwise so we have to abide.

    I'm making a list of you light bulb rebels and I'm going to turn it into the Department of Energy in 2020 as suspects who aren't complying and I hope the light bulb police -wearing black patent leather uniforms- come to your houses and raid them for illegal light bulbs...
    [;)]
    0
  • Marc1301
    quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
    quote:Originally posted by 1911a1fan
    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 is


    Well, not everyone. I don't bitch about the helmet laws. Arguments like that though can go way out to an extreme. For example, if your brother Joe gives you permission to shoot a bottle off his head...and you do is that Wanton Endangerment? If you miss and kill him is that negligent homicide? If the answer is "yes" to either/both of those, is that taking away free will and the right to choose?

    Personally, I think if two guys hate each other bad enough they want to kill one another they should be allowed to do so since it's their "choice" and thus dueling should be (re)legalized. The law says otherwise so we have to abide.

    I'm making a list of you light bulb rebels and I'm going to turn it into the Department of Energy in 2020 as suspects who aren't complying and I hope the light bulb police -wearing black patent leather uniforms- come to your houses and raid them for illegal light bulbs...
    [;)]

    And I will have a huge stash,.....thanks Max!
    0
  • Paleobrute
    quote:Originally posted by River Rat
    It's things like this that drive me nuts! The role of Gov't is national defense, and filling potholes. Period. Someone noted that their pickup is more fuel-efficient than one from the 70s. Thank you for illustrating that PROBLEMS are not solved by the government, they are solved by the marketplace.


    Sorry RR but a lot of the changes came about because of government -not market- driven mandates.

    You alarmists also need a little perspective. The 1964 Corvette with the 327 cubic-inch engine produced 375 horsepower and the 1965 Mustang with the "Hi-Po" 289 produced 271 horsepower. (Note: figures are gross horsepower; automakers began citing net horsepower figures in 1971, so the ratings dropped even when measuring the same engine.) Those are impressive figures, even by today's standards. Then came the 1970s and the gas crunch, emissions control systems and catalytic converters. Purists lamented it would all spell the end of the muscle car and we'd all be driving ugly, tinny Chevettes.

    Yes, there were some pretty lean years for awhile, but the industry adapted and moved on. The 2008 Corvette ZR1 will crank out 620 horsepower and the Bullitt edition of the Mustang will have 315 (a Shelby edition planned for 2009 reportedly produces 540). Horsepower figures have roughly doubled in the past 20-odd years, and at least 33 cars available in the United States produce 500 horsepower or more. Anyone who thinks they're all gonna disappear has been inhaling exhaust fumes too long. In fact, some auto industry insiders and analysts say were at the dawning of a new horsepower war.

    Putting aside the question of whether anyone needs that kind of power, you can argue the 35 mpg standard will make all cars - including high-performance vehicles - better. Some of the first things Detroit will do to boost fuel efficiency are reduce weight, improve aerodynamics and reduce parasitic loads by replacing engine-driven components like power-steering pumps with electric parts. That's a sure-fire recipe for better performance even if horsepower figures decline significantly.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity