First, they came for our 100-watt bulbs

znovkovic wrote: Are you referring to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? I also assume that you understand that legislative procedures within a written bill contains more than just one line item and the legislative body can pass a bill without the need for a signature from the executvie office, right?

Why yes, I did... However, since "President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007", we aren't talking about a bill that became law without a signature...are we...

why not just require people to light their homes by putting popcorn in a bowl and lighting it? Too stinky?

rofllol rofllol

Where was your outrage in 2007?

You guys are really funny...

posteryoyo wrote: the leader that leaves in a bad law is repsonsible every moment he/she leaves it in place.

"Bad law"? Was it unconstitutional? Was it fraudulent? Who says it was a "bad law"? It was obviously passed by both houses and signed by Bush... It's "bad law" because you don't like it? It was part of larger package to help make America more energy-independent... I thought energy-independence is something the GOP is pushing as part of its agenda? (It should take but 2 seconds to find video clips all over the place of various GOP candidates talking about energy-independence....(In fact, Herb Cain just said it in his silly announcement this afternoon...) So, what makes this a "bad law"?

LadyJazzer wrote: You mean that bill signed into law by George W Bush in December, 2007? Yes I remember that. That was pretty outrageous, wasn't it...

He should have been booted out of office... Oh, wait, he was...

You might want to read a peice before commenting on it sometimes. You are the first to bring up partisan politics. The peice I linked is about our over reaching government with out regards to party.

When it comes to the GOP and DNC I am an equal opportunity hater.

From the link: "Think of the nanny-state implications.

If the federal government says it can choose my ideal energy-efficiency tradeoffs much better than I can for myself, then light bulbs are the least of it."

and "There are much bigger things at stake here than Thomas Edison’s little old light bulbs.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... z1fVNpcbCW

And I would read a piece that the usual outrage-of-the-day Righties are using to accuse Obama of "taking away their light bulbs" when it was a 2007 bill signed by Bush....because? __________________________

Here... Let me roll the ball across the carpet for you... It should keep you entertained for hours.....

LadyJazzer wrote: And I would read a piece that the usual outrage-of-the-day Righties are using to accuse Obama of "taking away their light bulbs" when it was a 2007 bill signed by Bush....because? __________________________

Here... Let me roll the ball across the carpet for you... It should keep you entertained for hours.....

Ok, that's just :Loco: ,but thanks for playing.

neptunechimney wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: And I would read a piece that the usual outrage-of-the-day Righties are using to accuse Obama of "taking away their light bulbs" when it was a 2007 bill signed by Bush....because? __________________________

Here... Let me roll the ball across the carpet for you... It should keep you entertained for hours.....

Ok, that's just :Loco: ,but thanks for playing.

Hey... gimme my ball back.

Science Chic wrote:

neptunechimney wrote: By CLAUDIA ROSETT
Last Updated: 3:38 AM, December 1, 2011
Posted: 10:26 PM, November 30, 2011

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... P8n9UO152I

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/ ... not-banned
Incandescent Bulbs Not Banned. Repeat: Not Banned
—By Kevin Drum
| Fri Jul. 15, 2011

Nope. Traditional bulbs will continue to be available. They'll just be more efficient.

The table [above] shows the new standards. ( Details here .) Basically, the new bulbs produce the equivalent of 100 watts of light output using only 72 watts, the equivalent of 75 watts using only 53 watts, etc. And they're still incandescent, and they still provide the same kind of light you're used to.

Last I checked, the government has been passing laws like this to help consumers for a very long time - increased car fuel standards, removing lead from gasoline and paint, safe levels of contaminants in drinking water and commercial food, etc. The bulbs aren't banned, they are making the manufacturers create more efficient bulbs that will save consumers money and also require less energy thus reducing our overall energy usage some - why the outrage? Consumers aren't denied a choice and it will save them money; honestly, I'm weary of the stupidity of authors like the one in the OP.

So... you admit that the OP was correct... they have come for our 100-watt incandescent light bulbs. I should have the right to purchase a 100-watt incandescent light bulb that USES 100 WATTS OF POWER. Not some wimpy-socialist-euro-styled-Frenchy-designer-on-the-beach-at-Cannes equivalent!

Science Chic wrote: [Last I checked, the government has been passing laws like this to help consumers for a very long time - increased car fuel standards, removing lead from gasoline and paint, safe levels of contaminants in drinking water and commercial food, etc. The bulbs aren't banned, they are making the manufacturers create more efficient bulbs that will save consumers money and also require less energy thus reducing our overall energy usage some - why the outrage? Consumers aren't denied a choice and it will save them money; honestly, I'm weary of the stupidity of authors like the one in the OP.

From the OP: "And the actual mechanics of this ban have been greatly blurred, Washington-style, by framing this fix not as an outright prohibition, but merely as a phase-out of light bulbs that do not meet “standards” set by Washington in the name of “energy efficiency.”