• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kiss your 100-watt lightbulb goodbye

Catawba said:
The light bulb requirement does not require anyone entering your front door. If you are talking about the 2008 proposal you brought up that was voted down, who gives a ****? Its a moot point, it was voted down.
Click to expand...

That's not what I was talking about....you're avoiding again...

...and yes I know it was voted down. I never said it was active law today. If you go back and actually bother yourself to pay attention, I was asked to provide an example of such a thing even being supported by anyone. So that's what I did. I specifically said government controlled thermostats were a thing to come. I never said they were here today.

Now please stop with the silly games and link to your evidence.
 
Last edited:
This change is typical of the environmentally ill's ideas. They are trading a few pennies in elctricity for lightbulds that will polute when thrown away.

The whole environmental movement lost it's way back when they started having an effect because those at the top of all the tax free orginizations saw the day coming that they would be out of the cushy high paying jobs that have armies of volenteers go out and do the heavy lifting while they drive gas gusslers and occupy huge offices.

This BS needs to stop because the loss of jobs is getting out of hand with all the new bulbs coming from China.
 
Councilman said:
This change is typical of the environmentally ill's ideas. They are trading a few pennies in elctricity for lightbulds that will polute when thrown away.

The whole environmental movement lost it's way back when they started having an effect because those at the top of all the tax free orginizations saw the day coming that they would be out of the cushy high paying jobs that have armies of volenteers go out and do the heavy lifting while they drive gas gusslers and occupy huge offices.

This BS needs to stop because the loss of jobs is getting out of hand with all the new bulbs coming from China.
Click to expand...


Hate to disturb your rant there but there is no mercury in halogen light bulbs. Also, this will create jobs - U.S. plant to make mercury-
free energy saving light bulbs.

So it will mean the same light for less money without polluting and creates jobs. Yean, somebody definitely has to put a damper on that!
 
Last edited:
I find it highly amusing that mostly the rabid cons want to be allowed to buy the brightest bulbs.

Overcompensation?
 
paris said:
I find it highly amusing that mostly the rabid cons want to be allowed to buy the brightest bulbs.

Overcompensation?
Click to expand...

Some studies show that when faced with some sort of voluntary energy-reduction program, some conservatives will actually deliberately increase their energy usage. Out of, I don't know, spite or something.
 
paris said:
I find it highly amusing that mostly the rabid cons want to be allowed to buy the brightest bulbs.

Overcompensation?
Click to expand...

you would think that conservatives want to conserve energy.......and have a smaller electric bill...:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
you would think that conservatives want to conserve energy.......and have a smaller electric bill...:2razz:
Click to expand...

They are, but because it is a government program some are Pavlovian in opposition

I bet if the government today made hitting oneselve in the head with a hammer illegal some would hit themselves in the head with a hammer just to be in oppostion to the government
 
They have control of the seeds. OMG!!!!!!! It's the end! :lamo
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They are, but because it is a government program some are Pavlovian in opposition

I bet if the government today made hitting oneselve in the head with a hammer illegal some would hit themselves in the head with a hammer just to be in oppostion to the government
Click to expand...
how many blows to the head are required to change a conservative into a libertarian:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
how many blows to the head are required to change a conservative into a libertarian:2razz:
Click to expand...

depends on which head and who is blowing
 
marduc said:
depends on which head and who is blowing
Click to expand...
don't bring the liberals into this....

as for bulbs, the best way to save energy is to turn them off, whatever kind they are....
 
UtahBill said:
you would think that conservatives want to conserve energy.......and have a smaller electric bill...:2razz:
Click to expand...

Actually, most want to have the FREEDOM to choose what they do and when they do it. They don't like the idea of the government imposing change on them without their consent.
 
UtahBill said:
how many blows to the head are required to change a conservative into a libertarian:2razz:
Click to expand...

Cant be done, the number of blows to the head would turn them into brainless morons ( which makes them ideal republican presidents)
 
Cephus said:
Actually, most want to have the FREEDOM to choose what they do and when they do it. They don't like the idea of the government imposing change on them without their consent.
Click to expand...

If people would stay informed and be concerned about conservation perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to have a regulation for energy conservation. But when others ignorance or disregard for conservation negatively affects the rest of the population than it is up to the government to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people, not to mention our energy resources. We've had four people I've noticed just on this thread who think halogen bulbs contain mercury.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Actually, most want to have the FREEDOM to choose what they do and when they do it. They don't like the idea of the government imposing change on them without their consent.
Click to expand...

are you married? I am, and I have learned that some of our freedoms are lost the day we tie the knot....:2razz:
 
The public officials mandating these bulbs are no better than the Y2K'ers or the Survival Seed Vault peddlers.
 
Catawba said:
Hate to disturb your rant there but there is no mercury in halogen light bulbs. Also, this will create jobs - U.S. plant to make mercury-
free energy saving light bulbs.

So it will mean the same light for less money without polluting and creates jobs. Yean, somebody definitely has to put a damper on that!
Click to expand...

Halogen are just incandescence with a gas. Same bulb no change no savings
 
Deuce said:
Some studies show that when faced with some sort of voluntary energy-reduction program, some conservatives will actually deliberately increase their energy usage. Out of, I don't know, spite or something.
Click to expand...

Voluntary? Nice try it will be government control not voluntary. Just like ethanol and telling bus what kind of light bulbs we can buy
 
ptif219 said:
Halogen are just incandescence with a gas. Same bulb no change no savings
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is correct, the second is false. From your own article you started this thread with it says the new bulbs will "save consumers $35.6 million in higher electricity bills."
 
Catawba said:
Your first sentence is correct, the second is false. From your own article you started this thread with it says the new bulbs will "save consumers $35.6 million in higher electricity bills."
Click to expand...

Thats a nice figure but what I see there is little change and they cost clost to $4 more a bulb. They save a little electricity but very little
 
ptif219 said:
Thats a nice figure but what I see there is little change and they cost clost to $4 more a bulb. They save a little electricity but very little
Click to expand...

All depends on your perspective I suppose. I consider a $36 million dollar savings to consumers more than a "little change." Not to mention that they reduce the load on an already overloaded system thereby helping to prevent blackouts which are a hardship on everyone.

Now if you are concerned the halogen bulbs don't save enough energy, which I think is a legitimate point, switch to the LED bulbs, they cost more initially but save you money over the life of the bulb.
 
Catawba said:
All depends on your perspective I suppose. I consider a $36 million dollar savings to consumers more than a "little change." Not to mention that they reduce the load on an already overloaded system thereby helping to prevent blackouts which are a hardship on everyone.

Now if you are concerned the halogen bulbs don't save enough energy, which I think is a legitimate point, switch to the LED bulbs, they cost more initially but save you money over the life of the bulb.
Click to expand...

Who can afford LED? When they produce bulbs thar are affordable let me know
 
ptif219 said:
When they produce bulbs thar are affordable let me know
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm letting you know! Again, I refer you to your own article, "The new lights are comparably priced to the regular incandescent lights. A two-bulb package of 100-watt incandescent bulbs is about $4.32 at Lowe's, while a four-bulb package of new 72-watt halogen bulbs is $8.66, or $4.33 for two."
 
Catawba said:
If people would stay informed and be concerned about conservation perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to have a regulation for energy conservation. But when others ignorance or disregard for conservation negatively affects the rest of the population than it is up to the government to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people, not to mention our energy resources. We've had four people I've noticed just on this thread who think halogen bulbs contain mercury.
Click to expand...

You can't regulate or force concern, sorry. If people wish to disregard conservation, that's up to them. Forcing them to do things your way, just because you think that's how it ought to be done, is an infringement on their American freedoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom