Please be positive and upbeat in your interactions, and avoid making negative or pessimistic comments. Instead, focus on the potential opportunities.
- Manlobbi
Investment Strategies / Mechanical Investing
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don't think there is a slippery slope when it comes to government restrictions....
Think again.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/incandescent-light-bu...
Incandescent light bulbs to get switched off in 2023 under new Biden rules
The Biden administration is pulling the plug on incandescent light bulbs in favor of energy-efficient light-emitting diodes, or LEDs. The phaseout of the old-fashioned bulbs is aimed at reducing utility bills and conserving energy.
The U.S. Department of Energy on Tuesday said it was raising energy efficiency standards for light bulbs, giving manufacturers 75 days to phase out incandescents before an outright ban in July 2023. Incandescent bulbs use a higher wattage than LEDs for the same level of brightness.
No. of Recommendations: 9
<Don't think there is a slippery slope when it comes to government restrictions....Incandescent light bulbs to get switched off in 2023 under new Biden rules>
What's next...banning books and taking away women's reproductive rights?
No. of Recommendations: 3
bighairymike: Don't think there is a slippery slope when it comes to government restrictions....
Think again.
Actually, former president George W. Bush did that (through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007). Trump, is his giddy desire to rollback anything Obama touched (Obama had issued two regulations under the EISA amendments), in 2019 said who needs to save money or energy?
From your link:
Still, the new rules were decades in the making, and reflect a bi-partisan undertaking. Energy efficiency standards were part of legislation approved during George W. Bush's presidency, and then picked up by the Obama administration.
The average American family will save $100 a year.
Oh, the humanity.
No. of Recommendations: 2
What's next...banning books and taking away women's reproductive rights?
And "unelecting" 2 fellow citizen-elected members of the Tennessee state government because they protested gun violence and advocated controls after the recent Nashville mass murder.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And "unelecting" 2 fellow citizen-elected members of the Tennessee state government because they protested gun violence and advocated controls after the recent Nashville mass murder.
Well....all 3 protestors were brought up for dismissal by their colleagues. But only the 2 Black legislators were ousted. The white guy didn't get enough votes, and kept his seat.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The average American family will save $100 a year.
Oh, the humanity.
--------------
Think how more we will save as we are inexorably weaned off of meat.
Thank you benevolent overlords, your ideas are just so good, they become mandatory.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Don't think there is a slippery slope when it comes to government restrictions....Regardless of the merits of phasing out incandescent bulbs....how is this a slippery slope?
As pointed out upthread, the relevant act was adopted in 2007. It's always called for steadily increasing the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs over time, with an eye towards them getting high enough eventually to phase them out over time.
This isn't a case where someone's advocating regulating just X, and then once X is regulated they start regulating Y - which is what people usually mean when they're talking about a slippery slope. If I propose an energy regulation that calls for all incandescent light bulbs to be phased out over the next fifteen years, no one's going to say that this is a "slippery slope" to possibly getting rid of incandescent light bulbs one day. Because that's what the bill actually does! It's not a slippery slope - it's right there in the initial Act! Which is why people have been hoarding incandescent bulbs since at least 2012:
https://gizmodo.com/the-american-outlaws-hoarding-...
No. of Recommendations: 1
And "unelecting" 2 fellow citizen-elected members of the Tennessee state government because they protested gun violence and advocated controls after the recent Nashville mass murder. = shelia
===============
That is not why they were ejected.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well....all 3 protestors were brought up for dismissal by their colleagues. But only the 2 Black legislators were ousted. The white guy didn't get enough votes, and kept his seat. - shelia
------------------
The white guy was a woman.
Do you even watch the news or just repeat talking points?
No. of Recommendations: 1
The white guy was a woman.
Do you even watch the news or just repeat talking points?
Now that you mention it, I recall seeing the photo of the 3 of them with their posters. And the white person was a woman. Thanks for reminding me.
As for repeating talking points......no, I'm not guilty of that. But there are some posters here who very clearly are.
and kept his seat. - shelia
Haven't mentioned this before, but it's sheIla, not shelIa.....since we're talking about being observant.
No. of Recommendations: 2
My first thought was one persons slippery slope is another persons steady progress.
A few years back I tried to order an LED bulb on Amazon, but they refused to ship it to my California address because of the mandated CA requirements. While it was very annoying at the time, I am happy now that when I order LED bulbs on Amazon I know they are going to work well, and be reliable.
There are many areas where the free market has failed us and sensible regulations are a tremendous benefit.
Alan
No. of Recommendations: 0
And "unelecting" 2 fellow citizen-elected members of the Tennessee state government because they protested gun violence and advocated controls after the recent Nashville mass murder.
Erm, they took over the legislative chamber while it was in session.
Some call that 'insurrection'.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No need to worry. You can buy incandescents from Amazon, made in Europe.
No. of Recommendations: 9
"My first thought was one persons slippery slope is another persons steady progress."
Exactly!!!
This is no different than the "slippery slope" of government safety regulations that automobiles go through. Over the decades cars have become more and more safe as the government mandated seatbelts, airbags, gas tank construction requirements, and frame/structure requirements to how the car crumbles in a crash.
Leave it to the free market to figure out? Uh, doesn't work. Most people simply do not have the time/expertise/resources to determine what makes cars safer and what car models have those safety features. Gradual government regulation was required to make cars more and more safe. It was literally government protecting its citizens. Isn't that the role of government?
"There are many areas where the free market has failed us and sensible regulations are a tremendous benefit."
I never understood the knee-jerk anti-regulation crowd. Whenever I hear a politician saying they will go in office and slash hundreds or thousands of regulations I know he is just pandering to an ill informed, unthinking knee-jerk crowd. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a politician making a case for specific regulations to be cut (if they can explain why), there should always be debate over what regulations are sensible or not. But to say they are going to willy nilly cut regulations in a generic sense is just pandering. Whenever I hear a politician say that, I wish a reporter would ask the follow up question of "What regulations? Are you talking about the regulations that prevent companies from putting arsenic in our food?"
Of course, the people these politicians are pandering to are also the same people who will be the first to yell and scream when a railroad that is legally carrying toxic chemicals on a legal railcar has an accident and derails in their subdivision.
It is perfectly reasonable to have a debate on the sensibility of regulations. It also should be recognized that there is oftentimes a tradeoff when deciding upon regulations and different people might fall into different camps on those tradeoffs. For example, we can make driving a car even more safe if we wanted to, but that would require laws that would make cars much more expensive, to own/drive or too cumbersome to be met (like making licensing requirements so tough that only a small percentage of the public could meet them). So it is fine to argue over the tradeoffs of the costs of increased safety versus the marginal risk it would mitigate. I get all of that. But that is not what the knee-jerk anti regulation people are doing.
Take the OP in this thread for example. He obviously doesn't like the light bulb regulations. Fine. He doesn't say why he is against these regulations other than they are government regulations (just like the regulations on arsenic in food come are government regulations). He isn't arguing about the sensibility of the regulations he is simple arguing against them because they are government mandated.
Bizarre and inconsistent logic.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Some call that 'insurrection"
Some??? LOL. Floodin' that zone.
You too?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Erm, they took over the legislative chamber while it was in session.
Some call that 'insurrection'.
They carried posters, not weapons. They didn't destroy any property or try to injure anyone there. And their protest was generated by their profound concern with attempting to gain protections against mass shootings.
Insurrection? Absolutely not. Against regulations? Yes. Should they receive an appropriate rebuke and penalty? Yes. But ousting them from the state government? Absolultely not.
And then you've got George Santos. So many lies to so many about so many critical aspects of his life/experience/qualifications/you name it. And not a finger has been lifted. An ethics group has begun an extended investigation. But he's in the House, in his office....
No. of Recommendations: 2
They carried posters, not weapons.
They stopped the people's legislative house from doing its business. Those folks lost their seats and deservedly so.
No. of Recommendations: 9
"They stopped the people's legislative house from doing its business. Those folks lost their seats and deservedly so."
No. The white lady didn't lose her seat or her health care, only the uppity blacks did.
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<No. The white lady didn't lose her seat or her health care, only the uppity blacks did.>>
Exactly...
"What do I dislike most? Stupidity, especially in its nastiest forms of racism and superstition." ~Christopher Hitchens
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. The white lady didn't lose her seat or her health care, only the uppity blacks did.
Evidently 1 GOP moron bailed her out. She should have been tossed also.
No. of Recommendations: 6
They carried posters, not weapons.
*************************
They stopped the people's legislative house from doing its business. Those folks lost their seats and deservedly so.
No point in responding further. I bet, though, that if they'd been protesting abortion or protesting gun limitations, you'd find justification for it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No point in responding further. I bet, though, that if they'd been protesting abortion or protesting gun limitations, you'd find justification for it. - sheila
---------------
Can't speak for other conservatives but I for one would condemn them just the same. The issue is respect for order, the rule of law, and to the extent it is celebrated (see Kamala Harris) or simply overlooked (see MSM), the more of it we will get.
Same with J6, except in that case the FBI had a big role in whipping up the crowd, a factor not present in Tennessee.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wish we had an edit feature.... To be clear...
Can't speak for other conservatives but I for one would condemn them just the same. The issue is respect for order, the rule of law, and to the extent their disruption of the legislature is celebrated (see Kamala Harris) or simply overlooked (see MSM), the more of it we will get.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Same with J6, except in that case the FBI had a big role in whipping up the crowd, a factor not present in Tennessee.
And a factor not present on J6 either, if you rely on reliable sources for those facts.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I for one would condemn them just the same. The issue is respect for order, the rule of law,
I'm glad to see that
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Same with J6"
Nobody with two brain cells to rub together believe this was like J6 unless they are brainwashed by living in their bubble.
" except in that case the FBI had a big role in whipping up the crowd, a factor not present in Tennessee."
LOL How is that bubble. This is the atheist fools board. Got any evidence for that or just regurgitating what you have been fed by Fox talking heads?
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Can't speak for other conservatives but I for one would condemn them just the same. The issue is respect for order, the rule of law, and to the extent their disruption of the legislature is celebrated (see Kamala Harris) or simply overlooked (see MSM), the more of it we will get."
You might be taken more seriously if you were consistent. I have never seen you comment when conservatives disrupt the legislature.
No. of Recommendations: 3
No point in responding further. I bet, though, that if they'd been protesting abortion or protesting gun limitations, you'd find justification for it.
You'd be wrong. You've a bad habit of making assumptions about other people; why do you do that?
Break the law, go to jail. It's that simple.
No. of Recommendations: 3
So you condemn Trump for refusing to concede the election
Turns out Trump's legal team was full of it and didn't have any real evidence of election fraud. It's time for him to admit he lost and move on.
Your turn. Hillary! still claims she was cheated and so does Stacey Abrams. Where's your condemnation of them?
No. of Recommendations: 7
"in that case the FBI had a big role in whipping up the crowd"
I marvel at what they can get you to believe. The FBI was asleep.
