Republicans and Lightbulbs

Andrew Ryan · Mar 10, 2011

citizenthom said:
Except these are.grown adults participating in a valid democracy.

Sure they are.

Schneiderman said:
It DOESN'T MATTER what the merits of the new lightbulbs may or may not be. The federal government has NO PLACE to regulate my lightbulbs. If they are really that much better, I'll buy them. And actually, yes, I do like them and all the bulbs in my house are CFL's. But it's none of the government's business!

Actually, yes, it is, it's most certainly the State's business considering if we all switch over to the new bulbs it will save the State billions in energy costs and it will be better for their enviroment. I think given these facts and the fact that they last for 10 years and are vastly more efficient than the old ones then yes, the old ones should be banned. It's stupid and childish to rant and rave about lightbulbs, I mean seriously, come on.

It's kind of like arguing that you should be able to burn mounds of tires for heat and light because you feel you should have the freedom to do so. If you hadn't noticed, America isn't doing so well which means I care more about the State and my country then I do republican morons complaining about "Big Brother," and how "evil," he is for making them switch to those authoritarian pigtail lightbulbs.

Andrew Ryan · Mar 10, 2011

Schneiderman said:
They CAN'T tell me what to do, at least when it comes to lightbulbs.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Really? You're trying to cite the Constitution for your "freedom," to choose an inefficient and costly lightbulb?

TheManeki · Mar 10, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
Sure they are.

Actually, yes, it is, it's most certainly the State's business considering if we all switch over to the new bulbs it will save the State billions in energy costs and it will be better for their enviroment. I think given these facts and the fact that they last for 10 years and are vastly more efficient than the old ones then yes, the old ones should be banned. It's stupid and childish to rant and rave about lightbulbs, I mean seriously, come on.

It's kind of like arguing that you should be able to burn mounds of tires for heat and light because you feel you should have the freedom to do so. If you hadn't noticed, America isn't doing so well which means I care more about the State and my country then I do republican morons complaining about "Big Brother," and how "evil," he is for making them switch to those authoritarian pigtail lightbulbs.

Essentially a variant of "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Do conservatives and libertarians no longer believe this?

Schneiderman · Mar 10, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
Actually, yes, it is, it's most certainly the State's business considering if we all switch over to the new bulbs it will save the State billions in energy costs and it will be better for their enviroment.

Neither the federal government nor the state are paying my electric bill- and they shouldn't be.

I think given these facts and the fact that they last for 10 years and are vastly more efficient than the old ones then yes, the old ones should be banned. It's stupid and childish to rant and rave about lightbulbs, I mean seriously, come on.

State=/=Federal Government.

The states can regulate this. The feds can not. It's stupid and tyrannically authoritarian for the federal government to regulate my lightbulbs.

It's kind of like arguing that you should be able to burn mounds of tires for heat and light because you feel you should have the freedom to do so.

To my knowledge that is an example of a state regulation and not a federal one- I'm not aware of a federal ban on tire burning. If there is one, there shouldn't be- the feds have no authority over it.

If you hadn't noticed, America isn't doing so well which means I care more about the State and my country then I do republican morons complaining about "Big Brother," and how "evil," he is for making them switch to those authoritarian pigtail lightbulbs.

America isn't doing so well because the federal government has decided to stick it's nose in everything it can find and waste money on addressing issues that it has no authority to address.

Andrew Ryan said:
Really? You're trying to cite the Constitution for your "freedom," to choose an inefficient and costly lightbulb?

No, I'm citing the Constitution to show that the federal government has no AUTHORITY to regulate my choice of lightbulb.

This is not a discussion about lightbulbs.

Andrew Ryan · Mar 10, 2011

Schneiderman said:
Neither the federal government nor the state are paying my electric bill- and they shouldn't be.

This is a rather simplistic argument against this legislation.

The feds can not.

It should.

It's stupid and tyrannically authoritarian for the federal government to regulate my lightbulbs.

It's not tyranny nor is authoritarian, when arguments like this arise, I wish you people would know what those words actually imply. Telling you to use a more efficient lightbulb that helps the enviroment and cuts energy costs is not tyranny nor is authoritarian, it's protecting the state and it's citizenry against it's stubborn fools. There is no logical reason to oppose this legislation when it's to the benefit of us all as a whole. The needs of the many out way the needs of the stubborn foolish few.

If there is one, there shouldn't be- the feds have no authority over it.

Are you really arguing for the freedom to burn mounds of tires?

If so that is absurd.

America isn't doing so well because the federal government has decided to stick it's nose in everything it can find and waste money on addressing issues that it has no authority to address.

Really? I kind of thought part of the reason we're in this mess is due to the "do whatever you want, let the invisible hand work it out," mentality.

No, I'm citing the Constitution to show that the federal government has no AUTHORITY to regulate my choice of lightbulb.

Which amendment are you trying to cite for this?

This is not a discussion about lightbulbs.

No, I'm pretty sure that's what this thread is all about, lightbulbs.

Schneiderman · Mar 10, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
This is a rather simplistic argument against this legislation.

It's a simple issue.

It should.

No it shouldn't, that's absolutely absurd.

It's not tyranny nor is authoritarian, when arguments like this arise, I wish you people would know what those words actually imply. Telling you to use a more efficient lightbulb that helps the enviroment and cuts energy costs is not tyranny nor is authoritarian, it's protecting the state and it's citizenry against it's stubborn fools. There is no logical reason to oppose this legislation when it's to the benefit of us all as a whole. The needs of the many out way the needs of the stubborn foolish few.

Yes, it is by definition tyrannical (unrestrained, arbitrary, and illegal use of power) and authoritarian (complete submission to government power).

There's no authority for the federal government to regulate such matters.

Are you really arguing for the freedom to burn mounds of tires?

No, I'm pointing out the difference between federal and state government, a distinction that you seem to be completely unaware of. Apparently you don't know how our government was designed.

If so that is absurd.

No, your perception of the proper role of government is.

Really? I kind of thought part of the reason we're in this mess is due to the "do whatever you want, let the invisible hand work it out," mentality.

That mentality does not exist within the function of our government, unfortunately.

Which amendment are you trying to cite for this?

#10. Read the constitution.

No, I'm pretty sure that's what this thread is all about, lightbulbs.

No, the discussion you and I are having is about the lack of authority of the federal government to regulate them.

TheManeki · Mar 10, 2011

The funny part is, if Americans had acted in enlightened self interest and on their own purchased the more energy efficient (and cost efficient) bulbs, legislation banning incandescent bulbs would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, all too often people are not the rational actors required for the invisible hand to work its magic.

chris4243 · Mar 10, 2011

Schneiderman said:
It DOESN'T MATTER what the merits of the new lightbulbs may or may not be. The federal government has NO PLACE to regulate my lightbulbs. If they are really that much better, I'll buy them. And actually, yes, I do like them and all the bulbs in my house are CFL's. But it's none of the government's business!

And I agree with that. They should have just put a tax on the old bulbs, raising their price to above the price of CFL. Then the idiots who buy the bulbs because the price tag is cheaper will stop buying them, and yet people would retain the freedom to buy them if for some reason they really wanted to. It would be essentially a tax on the pollution generated by their higher electricity consumption. Some people think that people shouldn't be allowed to pollute, but then we wouldn't have any electricity in the first place.

chris4243 · Mar 10, 2011

Schneiderman said:
They CAN'T tell me what to do, at least when it comes to lightbulbs.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Republicans should have spoken up long ago. Now it is too late. "First they came for the people's weed, and I did not speak up because I did not smoke weed. ... Now they come for my lightbulbs, and there is no longer any items the government is not allowed to tamper with per their interpretation of the Commerce Clause."

I totally agree; hands off the people's weed and old lightbulbs.

grasping the after wind · Mar 10, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
I have read that the new lightbulbs are not only more enviromentally friendly but they are more cost effective as well because of their superior energy efficiency which I believe the savings by switching to the newer lightbulbs ranged in the X billion(s).

You were probably reading the manufacturers advertising. Similar to the old Camel commercials that extolled the health virtues of the cigarette.

grasping the after wind · Mar 10, 2011

TheManeki said:
The funny part is, if Americans had acted in enlightened self interest and on their own purchased the more energy efficient (and cost efficient) bulbs, legislation banning incandescent bulbs would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, all too often people are not the rational actors required for the invisible hand to work its magic.

The sad part is you not only actually think that this legislation accomplishes something and that it was necessary but that anyone that see things differently is not only irrational but deserves to lose the ability to act in what they perceive to be their own self interest.

TheManeki · Mar 10, 2011

grasping the after wind said:
The sad part is you not only actually think that this legislation accomplishes something and that it was necessary but that anyone that see things differently is not only irrational but deserves to lose the ability to act in what they perceive to be their own self interest.

So if I see you as a human being and if you saw yourself as a woodchuck, then this would be a legitimate difference of opinion, and not a sign of irrationality on your part. Very interesting.

grasping the after wind · Mar 10, 2011

TheManeki said:
So if I see you as a human being and if you saw yourself as a woodchuck, then this would be a legitimate difference of opinion, and not a sign of irrationality on your part. Very interesting.

That is truly a most unimpressive argument. You must learn to see the difference between fact and opinion. I am in fact not a woodchuck. That is not an opinion. Simply because it is your opinion that it is necessary that the government mandate that only curly fry light bulbs may be sold does not mean that in fact such legislation is necessary.Furthermore,someone else having the opinion that such legislation is not necessary or even desirable, does not make them irrational. Not seeing the difference between a fact and an opinion might, however, be construed as bordering on irrationality.

TheManeki · Mar 10, 2011

grasping the after wind said:
That is truly a most unimpressive argument. You must learn to see the difference between fact and opinion. I am in fact not a woodchuck. That is not an opinion. Simply because it is your opinion that it is necessary that the government mandate that only curly fry light bulbs may be sold does not mean that in fact such legislation is necessary.Furthermore,someone else having the opinion that such legislation is not necessary or even desirable, does not make them irrational. Not seeing the difference between a fact and an opinion might, however, be construed as bordering on irrationality.

Since it's a fact that cfl bulbs are cheaper in the long run and take about 75% less energy to operate, what is the rational reason to still prefer incandescent bulbs?

grasping the after wind · Mar 10, 2011

TheManeki said:
Since it's a fact that cfl bulbs are cheaper in the long run and take about 75% less energy to operate, what is the rational reason to still prefer incandescent bulbs?

The incandescent light bulb is less dangerous when broken. It costs less in the short run and there is some evidence to suggest that the claims of the length of life and energy savings for curly fry light bulbs may not have been completely accurate as they were not tested under conditions that approximate home use. There is an aesthetic argument that some people prefer the quality of the incandescent lighting and there are many light fixtures that look ridiculous with curly fry light bulbs but very pleasing to the eye with incandescent. Most important is the human spirit which chafes at being treated like a child by a government that is supposed to be their servant and not their master. If you prefer curly fry light bulbs,you may have them but you have no right to insist that I must have them too.

Awesome_Frog · Mar 10, 2011

grasping the after wind said:
The incandescent light bulb is less dangerous when broken.

Source needed.

It costs less in the short run

And in the long run its cheaper and more efficient. Its the same situation where if I want quality products, cheaper is not always a better investment.

and there is some evidence to suggest that the claims of the length of life and energy savings for curly fry light bulbs may not have been completely accurate as they were not tested under conditions that approximate home use.

Source needed.

There is an aesthetic argument that some people prefer the quality of the incandescent lighting and there are many light fixtures that look ridiculous with curly fry light bulbs but very pleasing to the eye with incandescent.

And?

Most important is the human spirit which chafes at being treated like a child by a government that is supposed to be their servant and not their master.

And? Contact your congressman/women then.

If you prefer curly fry light bulbs,you may have them but you have no right to insist that I must have them too.

Yet you are still here on the internet. If you feel so strongly about this, what exactly have you done to reverse it?

TheManeki · Mar 10, 2011

Not another person whining about mercury! It's amazing how widely that bit of fearmongering has spread.

TheManeki · Mar 10, 2011

You know, the obsessive focus on CFLs by conservatives and libertarians not only ignores the mercury that has been lurking in standard fluorescent bulbs, but also that LED bulbs are starting to become more and more commonplace. LED bulbs are getting cheaper all the time, consume a fraction of the electricity CFLs do, last longer than CFLs, and have no mercury.

Andrew Ryan · Mar 10, 2011

grasping the after wind said:
You were probably reading the manufacturers advertising. Similar to the old Camel commercials that extolled the health virtues of the cigarette.

Actually, I just heard it on the news, on various new shows actually but if you don't believe me you can check wiki or any other resource aside from FOX news or some other insane "conservative," resource. But nice comparison between CFLs and Camel cigarettes, nice. But hey, surely the incandescent bulb (which is an early 20th century invention) can easily compete with CFL bulbs in terms of efficiency, lifespan and energy costs. Of course.

Compact fluorescent lamp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MacNeil, D. · Mar 10, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
Really? With all that is going wrong with America, you're concerns are on lightbulbs? I say, out with the old and in with the new, if it's more efficient and cost effective, then why would you be against that? Why? This is retarded.
...

because the light is awful, reminds me of a college dorm.

Republicans and Lightbulbs

I like any king that can reign with his fist

I like any king that can reign with his fist

Christian Humanist

Senior Veteran

I like any king that can reign with his fist

Senior Veteran

Christian Humanist

Advocate of Truth

Advocate of Truth

That's grasping after the wind

That's grasping after the wind

Christian Humanist

That's grasping after the wind

Christian Humanist

That's grasping after the wind

Awesome_Frog

Guest

Christian Humanist

Christian Humanist

I like any king that can reign with his fist

MacNeil, D.

Guest

Similar threads