No More 100-Watters After Jan 1 - Phooey!

[RadiomanATL]

Hate to mention it, and I think I said in the OP I didn't consider this to be a partisan topic, but the law in question was signed into law by the guy you refer to here . . .

Just sayin' . . .

The Pelosi/Reid congress ran the bill through. And further attempts to repeal it by Republicans were shut down by Democrats.

....Just sayin', since you're not making it partisan and all.

Run through the post history on this particular issue and check out Xotoxi's original post. He's the person that brought politicis into it. I said in the OP I didn't want to make it political. All I was doing was responding to him.

But since we seem to be there, my recollection is that the law was proposed during the Bush administration. I think he signed it into law as well. As far as "attempts by Republicans to shut the bill down," my understanding is that this is a bunch of disingenuous bull shit. The last I heard on this in a Meet the Press two weeks ago was that Boner and some other Republicans were posing as wanting to repeal the law and giving lip service to doing so, but nothing was being done and it didn't look like anything was going to be done.

Pelosi/Reid passed the law.

In July Republicans tried to have it repealed. It did not meet the 2/3rd's majority due to not enough Democrats on board.

Facts, not opinions

 

[Sunshine]

You know those 100-watt light bulbs we have used for decades? Come January 1st, they become illegal. You won't be able to get them any more. God knows what will replace them. Whatever it is, it can't be good. Maybe those curly little sons of bitches that take ten minutes to begin producing light? I sure hope there's something available better than that.

I was listening to Levin this afternoon. He was grousing about this ban on the 100-watt bulb, noting that our politicians gave lip service to repealing the law on the eve of its going into effect, but didn't have the balls to follow through. He bitched about how "liberals" were prone to pass nanny laws like this, dictating what we can and cannot have for our personal use, failing to mention that this law was passed during the El-Busho administration.

Oh well - this really isn't a partisan issue. It's a BULL SHIT issue. Write your congressman/senator. Threaten to vote his/her ass out of office unless this mother gets repealed.

That is all.

George

I don't use them anyway because all my fancy light fixtures and lamps call for 40 watts only. Some use up to 3 of them, but for safety 40 watts is the limit on most light fixtures.

Funny and true story: A guy in is 80s changed the light bulb on his front porch when it burned out. It had been there for 50 years. He could remember the last time it was changed - 50 years prior. There was a pic of it in the article and it looked nothing like today's light bulbs. The company's reason for why it lasted 50 years: "The bulb was defective....Too much filament." I kid you not. This was in our local paper a few years back.

 

[PredFan]

I guess I'll be buying a bunch tomorrow.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I prefer the LED bulbs.

 

[MikeK]

You know those 100-watt light bulbs we have used for decades? Come January 1st, they become illegal. You won't be able to get them any more. God knows what will replace them. Whatever it is, it can't be good. Maybe those curly little sons of bitches that take ten minutes to begin producing light? I sure hope there's something available better than that.

[...]

George,

I don't know about the curly bulbs taking ten minutes to light up but the quality of the light they produce, fluorescent, is offensive to me as I expect it would be to others. The effect of the fluorescent light spectrum is opposite the relaxing effect of the dimmed incandescent spectrum. Fluorescent light is known to cause nervousness and psychological tension.

I can understand government recommending the new bulbs but imposing the force of law is suspicious. Especially considering the cost of the new bulbs.

Am I just paranoid?

 

[Sunshine]

You know those 100-watt light bulbs we have used for decades? Come January 1st, they become illegal. You won't be able to get them any more. God knows what will replace them. Whatever it is, it can't be good. Maybe those curly little sons of bitches that take ten minutes to begin producing light? I sure hope there's something available better than that.

[...]

George,

I don't know about the curly bulbs taking ten minutes to light up but the quality of the light they produce, fluorescent, is offensive to me as I expect it would be to others. The effect of the fluorescent light spectrum is opposite the relaxing effect of the dimmed incandescent spectrum. Fluorescent light is known to cause nervousness and psychological tension.

I can understand government recommending the new bulbs but imposing the force of law is suspicious. Especially considering the cost of the new bulbs.

Am I just paranoid?

You can buy full spectrum flourescent bulbs that are not offensive, and actually help with depression. Occasionally you can also find them at Lowes or Home Depot.

Duro-Test (full-spectrum "Vita Light" fluorescent tubes)

9 Law Drive
Fairfield NJ 07007
(800) BUY-DURO
(201) 808-6622



These have been tested in the workplace where absenteeism was reduced and on Alzheimer's units in mental health facilities where they reduce the risk of falls.

 

[Intense]

You know those 100-watt light bulbs we have used for decades? Come January 1st, they become illegal. You won't be able to get them any more. God knows what will replace them. Whatever it is, it can't be good. Maybe those curly little sons of bitches that take ten minutes to begin producing light? I sure hope there's something available better than that.

I was listening to Levin this afternoon. He was grousing about this ban on the 100-watt bulb, noting that our politicians gave lip service to repealing the law on the eve of its going into effect, but didn't have the balls to follow through. He bitched about how "liberals" were prone to pass nanny laws like this, dictating what we can and cannot have for our personal use, failing to mention that this law was passed during the El-Busho administration.

Oh well - this really isn't a partisan issue. It's a BULL SHIT issue. Write your congressman/senator. Threaten to vote his/her ass out of office unless this mother gets repealed.

That is all.

George

Still blaming Bush.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You know those 100-watt light bulbs we have used for decades? Come January 1st, they become illegal. You won't be able to get them any more. God knows what will replace them. Whatever it is, it can't be good. Maybe those curly little sons of bitches that take ten minutes to begin producing light? I sure hope there's something available better than that.

I was listening to Levin this afternoon. He was grousing about this ban on the 100-watt bulb, noting that our politicians gave lip service to repealing the law on the eve of its going into effect, but didn't have the balls to follow through. He bitched about how "liberals" were prone to pass nanny laws like this, dictating what we can and cannot have for our personal use, failing to mention that this law was passed during the El-Busho administration.

Oh well - this really isn't a partisan issue. It's a BULL SHIT issue. Write your congressman/senator. Threaten to vote his/her ass out of office unless this mother gets repealed.

That is all.

George

Still blaming Bush.

But he didn't want to make it partisan

 

[MikeK]

I don't use them anyway because all my fancy light fixtures and lamps call for 40 watts only. Some use up to 3 of them, but for safety 40 watts is the limit on most light fixtures.

Funny and true story: A guy in is 80s changed the light bulb on his front porch when it burned out. It had been there for 50 years. He could remember the last time it was changed - 50 years prior. There was a pic of it in the article and it looked nothing like today's light bulbs. The company's reason for why it lasted 50 years: "The bulb was defective....Too much filament." I kid you not. This was in our local paper a few years back.

I have dimmer switches wherever it's possible to use them and I rarely need to change a bulb. Where I need about 40w of light I use a 60w bulb and keep it dimmed. I have bulbs burning in lamps and fixtures for at least ten years, probably more. And the reason they last so long is less current passing through filaments which are designed to accommodate more.

The savings is a coincident bonus for me. I use dimmers because I like the softer effect they produce. I don't like bright light (except for reading).

 

[Full-Auto]

Repubs started this but according to this, they also ended it.
LEDs Magazine - US House votes down incandescent bulb-ban bill

Is this the latest word?

Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this? I doubt it.

In any event, we've been using the energy savers for a while now and wouldn't go back to incandescent. They really are a lot cheaper and put out sufficient light for most uses.

The real issue here is that most pubs don't want to do anything that might be good for the environment.

Once again youve proven to be an idiot.

Now tell us about the mercury, since its so good for the environment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The fact most ‘let the market decide’ rightists fail to accept is often the markets can be wrong, since they’re created and manipulated by fallible humans.

Here Congress is acting appropriately within its Constitutional mandate, the legislation is clearly Necessary and Proper.

 

[BDBoop]

You know those 100-watt light bulbs we have used for decades? Come January 1st, they become illegal. You won't be able to get them any more. God knows what will replace them. Whatever it is, it can't be good. Maybe those curly little sons of bitches that take ten minutes to begin producing light? I sure hope there's something available better than that.

I was listening to Levin this afternoon. He was grousing about this ban on the 100-watt bulb, noting that our politicians gave lip service to repealing the law on the eve of its going into effect, but didn't have the balls to follow through. He bitched about how "liberals" were prone to pass nanny laws like this, dictating what we can and cannot have for our personal use, failing to mention that this law was passed during the El-Busho administration.

Oh well - this really isn't a partisan issue. It's a BULL SHIT issue. Write your congressman/senator. Threaten to vote his/her ass out of office unless this mother gets repealed.

That is all.

George

Stockpile!

 

[CrackerMagnum]

No worries, just go to your local chepo store like Dollar General, or even better Freds like we have here in Tennessee. CCC brand(Cheap Chinese Crap) 4-pack 100w bulbs for $1.00 per pack. I already have a shelf stocked altho I use mostly curly fluorescent mercury contaminated bulbs for indoor use, or outdoor in the summer only because they get too dim when it's cold. Anyway, they will make a good bartering item when the economy crashes (SHTF). They wont bring much but will be a wanted item for people who can't pay $10 for a stupid bulb.

 

[Trajan]

*shrugs* we had this out a while back. I posted a pic. of my cache. 3, 50 gallon Rubbermaid tubs of Incans- 3 ways, 100, 150, soft white , clear......gonna make a killing when the rubes wake up, kinda like the local crack dealer, pay me MFer's....

I have a stash of Phosphorus laced detergent too...

 

[George Costanza]

I guess I'll be buying a bunch tomorrow.

Great! If you can find any, please let me know where. I haven't been able to find them anywhere.

 

[George Costanza]

You know those 100-watt light bulbs we have used for decades? Come January 1st, they become illegal. You won't be able to get them any more. God knows what will replace them. Whatever it is, it can't be good. Maybe those curly little sons of bitches that take ten minutes to begin producing light? I sure hope there's something available better than that.

I was listening to Levin this afternoon. He was grousing about this ban on the 100-watt bulb, noting that our politicians gave lip service to repealing the law on the eve of its going into effect, but didn't have the balls to follow through. He bitched about how "liberals" were prone to pass nanny laws like this, dictating what we can and cannot have for our personal use, failing to mention that this law was passed during the El-Busho administration.

Oh well - this really isn't a partisan issue. It's a BULL SHIT issue. Write your congressman/senator. Threaten to vote his/her ass out of office unless this mother gets repealed.

That is all.

George

Still blaming Bush.

But he didn't want to make it partisan

I didn't - and I still don't. It wouldn't matter who put the law into effect, I would still be calling bull shit on it.

I know that you know that, and I also know that you are being deliberately obtuse on this particular issue for whatever reason(s) you may have. In case you have questions, refer to my original response to your misguided characterization of my motives in starting this thread here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...0-watters-after-jan-1-phooey.html#post4496728

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, okay people, as strollingbones would say, let's not start ripping the tits off each other. This is truly a subject we can surely all amicably share in pros and cons.

As for Mr. Foxfyre and myself, we have been stockpilling 100 watt bulbs for some time now--they can be bought at places like Lowes or even the grocery store or Wal-mart for like 25 cent a piece. No way we are going to spend 12 times that much for each of three or four CFL bulbs that still won't put out the amount of light that one 100 watt incandescent bulb costs. As we are getting up in years now, we may have enough bulbs stockpiled to last us the rest of our natural lives. At least for as long as we supply our own light bulbs.

It's kind of like we won't replace our aging and often-needing-repair old toilet in the main bathroom either. It almost always flushes with one flush. The one in our bathroom is a new mandatory low flow toilet that almost always requires two or more flushes to get the job done.

And yeah, I'll admit the former occupant of the White House signed the bill to nix our beloved 100 watt bulbs. But then he advocated an energy policy that only the most pinko communist environmental wacko leftist could love.

The world is a funny place sometimes.

 

[George Costanza]

Well, I just ordered up forty-four bucks worth of the little bad boys on Amazaon.com. I hope I didn't make a mistake - the ad at Amazon said a 4-pack for $3.98. I ordered 11 of 'em. When I went to check out, it said the bill was sixty bucks, which included shipping. The shipping was around twelve bucks.

I have a sinking feeling I am going to get 11 bulbs, not 44. I don't know why, but that's what I think is going to halppen. I SHOULD get 44 bulbs - 4-pack for four bucks. I ordered what I thought was 11 4-packs.

We'll see. In any event, I will be stocked up pretty good.

 

[percysunshine]

Today the light bulb, tomorrow doubly ply toilet paper. It is only a matter of time.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Still blaming Bush.

But he didn't want to make it partisan

I didn't - and I still don't. It wouldn't matter who put the law into effect, I would still be calling bull shit on it.

I know that you know that, and I also know that you are being deliberately obtuse on this particular issue for whatever reason(s) you may have. In case you have questions, refer to my original response to your misguided characterization of my motives in starting this thread here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...0-watters-after-jan-1-phooey.html#post4496728

Its a mischaracterization to point out that you blamed Bush in your OP, and then tried to say you weren't trying to be partisan?

I'd say I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.