First, they came for our 100-watt bulbs

LadyJazzer wrote:

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...

OK yes he did and it is certain that you and I will not be able to discuss the topic as initially created. After all how can we even begin to come together if all we think about is Washington?

Since the "topic as initially created" was based on a lie...I guess you're right... We will not be able to discuss it.

Then stop LJ
you are tiresome.

Actually, I take that back, you have the right to express your idiocy every moment of the day.

Why, yes...I do have the right to call b.s. whenever you guys start threads based on lies and outrages that don't exist.... And with or without your permission....

LadyJazzer wrote: Why, yes...I do have the right to call b.s. whenever you guys start threads based on lies and outrages that don't exist.... And with or without your permission....

Idiots r us. Welcome aboard.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/02/bosto ... rkplaces-f

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/28 ... mark-steyn
"
There may be “another side” to this story, but it’s hard to foresee any version of events in which a First Grader can plausibly be guilty of “sexual assault”. Nevertheless, if found guilty, Mark Curran when he turns 18 will be placed on a “sex offender registry”, and his life will be ruined. If officials of the Boston public schools system genuinely believe that when a seven-year old kicks another seven-year old in the crotch that that is an act of “sexual harassment”, then they are too stupid to be entrusted with the care of the city’s children.

for the stupid.

First they came… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

OK, you should have a right to buy 100 year old technology when you can get more modern technology which is better and will save you money in the long run.

That's why I still use my horse and buggy. lol

I also realize that most of the incandescents nowadays say "Long Life" and have anywhere from 5 to 20 times the number of rated hours that the old ones had. If increased hours "takes away freedoms and rights" to own the original ones that cost more to operate, you might find the original ones back in the store room--next to the buggy whips.