Originally posted by WajomaSo you are OK with massive campaign donations so long as they are not economic related? So its OK for political reasons such as a donation from Israel or North Korea, but not OK when it is economic eg from Saudi Arabia or BP?
No I don't have a gripe about campaign donations, I have a gripe about what those campaign donations buy. Do you see the difference?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperDoes it bother me when I'm lied to and suckered? No, because I get it from both sides of the isle. What would bother me is if people started telling the truth. It would unerve me and make me wonder what the @$$$ is going on!!
BTW, Whodey. It doesn't bother you that the "article" you posted blatantly lied to you? You will not.... NOT be required to buy a $50 light bulb.
I mean, if I read some crap on the internet that deliberately deceived me I would angry. You're not even mad that you got suckered?
As for there not being $50 light bulbs, all I can say is that we will soon see. What I do know is to make things more energy efficient, whether they be cars, light bulbs etc, the cost goes up. So what do you think they will cost?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhere do you draw the line? Is there even a line?
"After all, assuming the role of energy policeman has no bounds."
Yes, because the "slippery slope" argument applies to literally everything.
"They will tell you what cars you can drive"
Yes, just imagine if the big guvamint began setting minimum effeciency requirements for cars. Oh, wait. That already happened decades ago.
"and what ...[text shortened]... ld go on, but the point has been made. Whodey, you're already living in the apocalypse.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIts the global system really. $$$ buys power. It just amuses me how some people think that their pet political party is somehow different.
What you really should be arguing about is not whether government regulation is good / bad but the system you have in the US where instead of government regulation being for the good of the people, it is based on which industry spends the most on lobbyists.
I suppose that if you cannot think of an alternative system, then you might argue that it is best to avoid regulation altogether.
Originally posted by whodeyWhere the line is drawn is certainly a reasonable question and an ongoing debate. But when you make the "slippery slope" argument you're creating a false dichotomy. You're saying you must choose between a laisez-fair market and total government control, which simply is not true.
Where do you draw the line? Is there even a line?
Originally posted by whodeyIncandescent bulbs in France cost about 1 euro before they were banned. New ones cost 9-10 euros each.
Does it bother me when I'm lied to and suckered? No, because I get it from both sides of the isle. What would bother me is if people started telling the truth. It would unerve me and make me wonder what the @$$$ is going on!!
As for there not being $50 light bulbs, all I can say is that we will soon see. What I do know is to make things more energy eff ...[text shortened]... whether they be cars, light bulbs etc, the cost goes up. So what do you think they will cost?
Originally posted by spruce112358If they are CFLs, they last 8-20 times as long, so in general you're saving money. http://www.eco-wisdom.com/articles/electronics/cfls-vs-incandescent-light-bulbs.html
Incandescent bulbs in France cost about 1 euro before they were banned. New ones cost 9-10 euros each.
Originally posted by whodeyThat's nonsense. You already know that CFLs are cheaper overall for the consumer than incandescents. There is no reason to believe that electric cars will remain more expensive than petrol driven ones. In fact, I believe they will be cheaper within the next 30 years.
What I do know is to make things more energy efficient, whether they be cars, light bulbs etc, the cost goes up.
There are many other things that got cheaper as they got more efficient from day 1. Computer chips for example get cheaper to make as they shrink the die size as less silicon is used. At the same time they become faster and more energy efficient.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey are also dim for the first minute. So you walk into a room looking for something and have to squint in a pinkish glow for awhile.
If they are CFLs, they last 8-20 times as long, so in general you're saving money. http://www.eco-wisdom.com/articles/electronics/cfls-vs-incandescent-light-bulbs.html
I don't care even if they are cheaper. I'll pay the extra cost to have nice, bright, immediate light.
Why should that liberty be taken away?
Originally posted by spruce112358That's not true. Aside from the time it takes for the bulb to illuminate, the light must travel from the bulb, reflect off of the surfaces in the room and into your eyes, and then be registered by your brain.
They are also dim for the first minute. So you walk into a room looking for something and have to squint in a pinkish glow for awhile.
I don't care even if they are cheaper. I'll pay the extra cost to have nice, bright, immediate light.
Why should that liberty be taken away?
That's not instant, that's tons of time.