View Poll Results: Incandescent Light bulb ban.... do you care?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • I care! The ban is foolish! I want my incandescent bulbs!

    20 26.32%
  • I like the ban! Bring on new lighting technology!

    20 26.32%
  • I dont care either way!

    13 17.11%
  • I like incandescent bulbs and fluorescent ones. But dont make a law about them!

    19 25.00%
  • OTHER / I dont know / Chimichanga

    4 5.26%
Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 452

Thread: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

  1. #381
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    There were two other goals that Obama made here. What are you thoughts on them?
    They are typical Obama plans. "Sometime in the future (when I'm not around) I have these grand plans that I'll let you know about later as we are working on ideas right now"

    I guess you can't blame the guy. If I had been handed a 97-0 no vote on the one plan I actually did turn in, I'd be reluctant to try again.

    lol, that's all you can come up with? You're gonna let me get off that easy?
    I should waste more time than that?

    No to derail this wonderful topic but.

    My god...you just don't get it. Why will Republicans not back down from farm subsidies? Why will Democrats not back down from CAFE standards? Because this is how stuff works, dude. See, this is one of the things I don't get about conservatives: They think that choice is the greatest thing that a human can have--subject, of course, to quite a few conditions.
    The Dems support farm subsidies every bit as much as the GOP and in most cases they both are wrong. It was Carl Levin (D) Michigan that fought for years to keep CAFE standards from rising.
    Last edited by 1Perry; 08-16-11 at 02:00 PM.

  2. #382
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,784

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    They are typical Obama plans. "Sometime in the future (when I'm not around) I have these grand plans that I'll let you know about later as we are working on ideas right now"

    I guess you can't blame the guy. If I had been handed a 97-0 no vote on the one plan I actually did turn in, I'd be reluctant to try again.
    Dude that's politics. Watch them being interviewed--most of them will intentionally not give a straight answer. Sometimes this is a shrewd move, other times they need to just come out and say it.

    I should waste more time than that?

    No to derail this wonderful topic but.
    Beh, this joke of a debate is typical of what the political discussion has degraded to here in America. It's very difficult to debate people who claim laughably absurd positions, such as the idea that restricting low-efficiency light blubs = an attack on freedom, AND, on top of that, who resort to childish tactics when their bluff is called.

    The Dems support farm subsidies every bit as much as the GOP and in most cases they both are wrong. It was Carl Levin (D) Michigan that fought for years to keep CAFE standards from rising.
    Good--I was hoping someone would catch that point about farm subsidies. And you're right.

    FWIW, a lot of Democrats in Congress are in bed with Big Oil and Big Coal. It isn't just Republicans.

  3. #383
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Dude that's politics. Watch them being interviewed--most of them will intentionally not give a straight answer. Sometimes this is a shrewd move, other times they need to just come out and say it.
    He gave a straight answer. The part where he says that NASA should become Goodwill agents to Muslims.

    Beh, this joke of a debate is typical of what the political discussion has degraded to here in America. It's very difficult to debate people who claim laughably absurd positions, such as the idea that restricting low-efficiency light blubs = an attack on freedom, AND, on top of that, who resort to childish tactics when their bluff is called.
    I believe my latest jump in was to point out where you were resorting to the same tactics.

    Good--I was hoping someone would catch that point about farm subsidies. And you're right.

    FWIW, a lot of Democrats in Congress are in bed with Big Oil and Big Coal. It isn't just Republicans.
    Then why create a boogeyman to argue against? Why slam one side when you know both are guilty?

  4. #384
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,784

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    He gave a straight answer. The part where he says that NASA should become Goodwill agents to Muslims.
    Yeah, that SO was a straight answer. Here, lemme talk about how good basil spice is when mixed in with pasta. Yeah, that's relevant to this discussion.

    I believe my latest jump in was to point out where you were resorting to the same tactics.
    If you actually believe that he and I are on the opposite side of the same coin, then I cannot help you.

    Then why create a boogeyman to argue against? Why slam one side when you know both are guilty?
    Because it's not that simple. It never is. Hint: Many liberals have some serious complaints about Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Contrary to what libertarian/conservatives want to think, we do NOT blindly support them simply because they wear a "D". It just doesn't work that way on this side of the fence.

  5. #385
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Yeah, that SO was a straight answer. Here, lemme talk about how good basil spice is when mixed in with pasta. Yeah, that's relevant to this discussion.
    Hey, I agree that thinking that it was a good fit for NASA is crazy talk. Indeed, making them cooks for Olive Garden would make as much sense, but that's his plan.

    If you actually believe that he and I are on the opposite side of the same coin, then I cannot help you.
    No, I noted that you were the same side of the coin you weren't crazy about.

    Because it's not that simple. It never is. Hint: Many liberals have some serious complaints about Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Contrary to what libertarian/conservatives want to think, we do NOT blindly support them simply because they wear a "D". It just doesn't work that way on this side of the fence.
    Well you certainly fooled me.

  6. #386
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,784

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Hey, I agree that thinking that it was a good fit for NASA is crazy talk. Indeed, making them cooks for Olive Garden would make as much sense, but that's his plan.



    No, I noted that you were the same side of the coin you weren't crazy about.



    Well you certainly fooled me.
    Can you please actually make some points that are worth addressing instead of this childish trolling? What the hell does the Olive Garden even have to do with this discussion?

  7. #387
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Can you please actually make some points that are worth addressing instead of this childish trolling? What the hell does the Olive Garden even have to do with this discussion?
    You brought up points about basil spice, not me.

  8. #388
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    To my libertarian and small government conservative friends: Calling energy standards on light bulbs tyranny and oppression is overstating your case a bit. If you're are concerned about the size and scope of government, there are far more pressing concerns than one minor additional energy standard. To hear some folks here, you'd think we're on the verge of becoming a police state. Yes, you can argue that its not an appropriate use of federal authority. You can argue the government has overstepped its bounds as envisioned by the founding fathers. But shouting "Tyranny!" and saying anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom is a sure fire formula for most people to dismiss you as shrill, bombastic, and out of touch with reality.

    Now, for the topic at hand. I have no problem with the government occassionally stepping in and acting to correct a market failure. Pollution is a classic example. Safety standards is another. A couple hundred years ago there was a limited amount of products you could buy and they were all relatively simple and easy for a buyer to inspect and judge the construction as being safe or not. Today we have millions of poducts on the shelves and many are complex items. How many consumers can inspect a car and tell if the construction is safe or not? How many can tell if the electrical appliance they bought is a fire hazard or not? Not many and no one can have that degree of knowledge over everything. So the government steps in and helps us out by ensuring that there is a basic minimum standard of safety. Pollution is similar. The cost of pollution to society is not factored into the final cost of a product, so the market fails to take it into account. So the government steps in and creates standards to minimize pollution.

    However in this circumstance, I don't believe there was a market failure. Many people, myself included, have already converted to the higher efficiency bulbs. And as companies compete and innovate to find new ways to lower the price, more and more people will make the switch. Decreasing the demand for the old less efficient bulbs until we reach the point where demand is so low, its no longer worth it to companies to manufacture them. We were already on this path. The market was working as intended. New, better technology was being introduced and it was slowly replacing the older, less efficient technology. Many supporters of this regulation have said the same thing. So why do we need the regulation in the first place? Why not let the market take its natural course? There is no market failure here, and therefore I see no need for government intervention.

    Plus, without this regulation, companies had a strong incentive to keep innovating to reduce the cost of these new bulbs, to attract new customers who had not yet made the switch due to the relatively higher price of the new bulbs. Now, with the entire nation forced to buy the current technology, there is less of an incentive to lower costs. Sure competition is still in place, so there is an incentive, but its probably less pressing without the possible reward of new customers. And that's the problem with many regulations. By picking a winner, even a product who was already more or less destined to win, the government removes part of the market forces that give incentive to innovate and lower costs.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  9. #389
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    To my libertarian and small government conservative friends: Calling energy standards on light bulbs tyranny and oppression is overstating your case a bit. If you're are concerned about the size and scope of government, there are far more pressing concerns than one minor additional energy standard.
    Just as there was when they passed these.

    However in this circumstance, I don't believe there was a market failure. Many people, myself included, have already converted to the higher efficiency bulbs. And as companies compete and innovate to find new ways to lower the price, more and more people will make the switch. Decreasing the demand for the old less efficient bulbs until we reach the point where demand is so low, its no longer worth it to companies to manufacture them. We were already on this path. The market was working as intended. New, better technology was being introduced and it was slowly replacing the older, less efficient technology. Many supporters of this regulation have said the same thing. So why do we need the regulation in the first place? Why not let the market take its natural course? There is no market failure here, and therefore I see no need for government intervention.
    Which has been my point. People will and have been doing this all along. The government doesn't need to force the issue. Especially while they were ignoring the housing market collapsing.

  10. #390
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,204

    Re: Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    You are putting words in my mouth by assuming what is on our minds, not to mention that that is a massive strawman. I could just as easily argue that your side believes that Average Joe knows exactly as much about a particular subject as someone who has given his or her life to studying it.
    Be my guest and make an argument that the Average Joe knows exactly as much about a particular subject as an expert. You would look foolish doing that and, of course, I have never suggested any such ridiculous idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Oh you want to lecture me about coercion? What the hell do you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were? See, this is one of the many things I don't get about conservatives: It's absolutely fine to start preemptive wars, deny women's choice, and treat children like soldiers in training. But when it comes to policies that *gasp* actually make our planet a little cleaner, you guys throw a fit! What the hell, man?
    ROFL! First of all, per the Constitution, Congress and the President can take us to war. I'm pretty sure that the authors of the Constitution did not intend to grant to Congress the power to limit what lightbulb a person could purchase. Women should have the choice to purchase whatever lightbulb they wish, but liberals are denying them that choice. Treat children like soldiers? ROFLMAO!!! Whew! You are taking a long walk on a very short pier there. As for the cleaner planet, I am for that too. I never throw trash from my car nor do I relieve myself in streams. If you are speaking of less pollution, I am for that too. I have said this over and over. Again, the difference is really simple to understand. You are for oppressive authoritarian tyanny and I am not. That's the difference between you and me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Dude, if you think that conservatism doesn't espouse any kind of authoritarianism, then you are severely misguided in what your views are. See above.
    Oh I saw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    And I couldn't see coal, oil, and gas disappear fast enough. There are all sorts of hidden costs to fossil fuels, in addition to all the known dangers. Again, I actually believe that a clean environment is a GOOD thing. For you, it's all about the money.
    I bet you do not have any idea of the consequences of your desires. Let's assume that you could have that one wish. Tomorrow morning you wake up and you find that coal, oil and gas were gone and we cannot get any under any circumstances. What do you think would be the consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Let me ask you a question I asked on another thread: If I want to burn my garbage in a city park, shouldn't I have the freedom to do so?
    There are three problems with your attempt to come up with an analagous situation. First, the park is city land. My house belongs to me. Second, there are many places where you can burn your garbage on your own land or someone else's land if they give you permission. In 2012, I will not be able to find a store in the U.S. to purchase the lightbulbs that us "stupid" people wish to purchase. Third, you can burn your garbage right now in your own home, if you wish. Just put bits and pieces in the fireplace and burn it. Bottom line, if I were prone to do so, I could burn my garbage in the U.S. I cannot; however, purchase a lightbulb next year that I might want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    My god...you just don't get it. Why will Republicans not back down from farm subsidies? Why will Democrats not back down from CAFE standards? Because this is how stuff works, dude. See, this is one of the things I don't get about conservatives: They think that choice is the greatest thing that a human can have--subject, of course, to quite a few conditions.
    In response here, let's get something straight. I am not a "dude," nor, in relation to anyone else on this site, am I anyone's "son." I am a Republican and I do not support farm subsidies. Your statement is false. Incidentally, Democrats started farm subsidies. Most Democrats probably do support C.A.F.E. standards. Authoritarians normally support oppressive authoritarian acts of tyranny. I have not said that choice is one of the greatest things a human can have. I am simply arguing that enacting standards that are in effect a ban on a commodity that the public wants is oppressive. And, yes, I do indeed get it. I think you do too, but you want the oppressive legislation anyway.

Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •