SC lawmakers take a dim view of new light bulbs

Mar 28, 2011 By JIM DAVENPORT , Associated Press
In this March 24, 2011 photo, Richard Anderson, a 70-year-old Greenville, S.C. retiree, shops for light bulbs at a Lowe's in Greenville. With a looming federal mandate to phase out incandescent bulbs in favor of energy-efficient fluorescents, South Carolina legislators may try to exempt the state from the law, saying it shouldn't be told how to light its homes and businesses. “For me personally, I don’t like the fact that I don’t have the choice,” Anderson said. “But I’ll say at the same time I don’t have a problem with the fluorescent lights." (AP Photo/The Greenville News, Patrick Collard)

(AP) -- South Carolina lawmakers are taking a stand in favor of states' lights.

With being phased out under federal law in favor of energy-efficient compact fluorescents, legislators want to exempt South Carolina from the measure, saying Washington has no business telling the state how to light its closets and countertops.

The proposed state law, called the Freedom Act, "allows South Carolina to say to the federal government we are going to exercise our rights," said Republican state Rep. Bill Sandifer, a co-sponsor.

The federal government is phasing out incandescent lights starting with 100-watt bulbs in 2012. In 2014, manufacturers will stop making 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs, too, under the 2007 Bush administration law. But the squiggly, energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs have drawn complaints that they are too expensive, put out a dim, sickly light, contain traces of mercury and take too long to reach full brightness.

As early as Tuesday, the South Carolina House will begin debating a bill that would allow companies to manufacture incandescent bulbs in South Carolina as long as they stamp them "Made in South Carolina" and sell them only within the state. Supporters of the bill say the federal government would have no authority to intervene because its power to regulate business extends only to commerce that crosses state lines.

South Carolina has only one, small manufacturer of incandescent bulbs, but the hope is that others will set up shop here, too, if the law passes.

Arizona tried the same thing a year ago, passing a bill that would have declared incandescent light bulbs manufactured entirely within the state exempt from federal regulation. But Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it. Texas, Georgia and Minnesota have also considered clinging to incandescent bulbs, but none has passed a law. California embraced the new federal regulations a year early.

The South Carolina bill is expected to win approval in the House, though its fate is far from certain in the Senate, and Republican Gov. Nikki Haley has not offered her support. Even if it became law, it would probably be challenged in court.

And Randy Barnett, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown University, said the state would probably lose, in part because it wouldn't be able to keep people from buying incandescent light bulbs in South Carolina and using them in another state.

California lost a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case with a similar underlying legal issue. That dispute involved whether medical marijuana grown in the state is subject to federal laws against pot.

South Carolina lawmakers have a long history of going against the federal government. In the past year they have taken up bills to stall federal health care legislation and create their own currency. Before that, of course, came slavery, states' rights, secession and the Civil War, as well as a century of foot-dragging on segregation, seat belts, drunken driving and the drinking age.

Incandescents, the design basically created by Thomas Edison in the late 1800s, create light by passing electric current through a wire filament. But 90 percent of the electricity is wasted as heat instead of light. Fluorescents burn cooler.

The newer bulbs are more expensive - about $3 for a 25-watt fluorescent versus about $1 for a 100-watt incandescent - but supporters of the new technology say the lights last so much longer that they save money in the long run. An incandescent bulb may burn for 750 to 2,500 hours, while a compact fluorescent can last up to 10,000 hours, according to the Energy Department.

If the South Carolina bill passes, it could boost hiring at American Light Bulb Manufacturing Inc., which has a factory in Mullins, in an impoverished, rural part of the state, president Ray Schlosser said from the company's headquarters in Schaumburg, Ill. The plant is in Marion County, the state's capital for unemployment, with one-fifth of the work force jobless.

"The federal government was just trying to shove this down Americans' throats too quickly," Schlosser said.

Before the 2007 law, he had three production lines with 50 workers making the bulbs. But Schlosser said he is down to a single line with 15 workers and a single U.S. competitor, Sylvania. Most of the incandescent bulb business is now overseas. GE made its last incandescent bulb in the U.S. last fall.

Kit Kennedy, energy counsel with the Natural Resources Defense Council, doesn't expect other states to follow South Carolina's lead.

"Most states, whether they're red states or blue states, are interested in promoting energy efficiency," Kennedy said. "We hope that South Carolina sees the light, as it were."

Explore further: Turning bio-waste into hydrogen

3 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Lights out for old 100-watt bulbs in EU next week

Aug 26, 2009

Old-style 100-watt light bulbs will be banned in Europe's shops from next week in favour of new energy-saving models, but consumers groups on Wednesday gave the move a guarded welcome.

Care for some light music? LEDs make it possible

May 12, 2010

(AP) -- Light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, are starting to become cost-effective alternatives to standard light bulbs and fluorescent tubes. That opens up some interesting possibilities, such as the combination ...

LEDs bringing good things to light

Jul 01, 2010

Forecasting the future of technology is anything but an exact science. In late 2006, for instance, my colleagues and I put together an article outlining our predictions for the top 10 tech trends for 2007. My record was, ...

Recommended for you

Turning bio-waste into hydrogen

18 hours ago

Whilst hydrogen cars look set to be the next big thing in an increasingly carbon footprint-aware society, sustainable methods to produce hydrogen are still in their early stages. The HYTIME project is working on a novel production ...

Economical and agile offshore construction ship

Jul 25, 2014

Siemens is currently installing the power supply and propulsion systems into a new multi-purpose offshore construction ship for Toisa Ltd. The ship, which is being built by the Korean company Hyundai Heavy ...

User comments : 98

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

T2Nav
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2011
The desire to waste electricity and stay in the stone ages mystifies me. I am confident that if the situation were reversed, with the old CFL being replaced by the newfangled efficient incandescent bulb, the same people would be resisting it because the bulb gets wicked-hot and the filaments break too easily.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 28, 2011
The desire to force people to buy something they don't want and stay in the socialist age mystifies me.
apex01
2.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2011
Go South Carolina! People should make decisions for themselves and not the government.
k_m
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2011
When these CFL's started getting subsidies and give-aways from the Utilities, I put pair of lights in identical fixtures in the bedroom, both on the same switch- one CFL and one 100W incadescent. In 5 years, I've gone through 3 CFL's and one incadescent.

Which makes me wonder if the cost to manufacture and dispose the CFL's, along with the cost of the environmental impact of the manufacture and disposal are really justified.
SSLPro
3.1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2011
What these people have to understand is that lighting concerns
are producing LEDs of increasing quality at lower prices monthly. How many of those single digit IQs types are bemoaning incandescents demise without an understanding of the rationale behind this merit based evolution- then they post
their nonsensical rants from their laptops,and smart phones
that use LED - OLED screens- Selective luddites, its not about lightings past its about all of our futures.I wonder if
these folks shake their fists at unleaded gas, or digital TV
signal transmission- Its laughable, like Idiocracy
apex01
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2011
SSLPro, i wonder if you would shake your fists at mercury laden CFLs? By the way, LED lights have lead too so should we regulate them? My bottom line is, if you want more energy efficient light bulbs then buy them. Just don't treat other people like children and micro manage what light bulbs they buy. If LED lights become more economical than i will consider them. Until then, i'll stockpile more ambient incandescents while there still legal in my state.
kevinrtrs
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2011
One begins to wonder where the money is going when you install the CFL bulbs only to find out that they give up the ghost 2 years before their claimed expiry date. You might as well have installed the incandescent lights and still come out ahead.

Then there's the poisonous mercury which none of the brilliant green enthusiasts seems to be screaming about. Why the silence on that issue?

I find I need to install two or three of these CFLs to give me the equivalent brightness I require. So given the cost and short life expectancy does it make economic sense?

So does this make me an idiot living in the dark....ages? Maybe.
LuckyExplorer
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2011
Why is this argumentation just taking into account two technologies that will become excint within 5-10 years?
Why did judges not have a look on LED technology?

Freedom of choice is OK, but..
..it ends when it has negative impact on others.
And waste of energy has such an impact!
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2011
In winter I could leave my incandescent lights on for a while and take some of the chill out of the air, especially the bathroom. My bedside incandescent light just took the edge off the cold nights, I could feel it from bed. Now with CFL I have an electric heater to take the frosty chill away. Why is the heat from incandescent bulbs considered "wasted"?
88HUX88
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2011
bluehigh, because in the summer it is waste heat, also others might use another heat source to take the chill off. Electricity gives up 95% of its energy as heat in your incandescent lamp but when the power station burnt coal or gas to generate your electricty only 40% of the energy in that gas made it to the High Voltage power lines and then depending on how far away you live from the power station quite a bit less of that made it to your incandescent light. But you are not alone, millions of people think the same as you.
bluehigh
2.4 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2011
In summer i use a 3.5kw air-con plus the TV, DVD, PC. How does reducing my consumption by maybe 40 watts on a summer night become significant? Should I not be permitted to use an extra 40 watts? How is it that these CFLs are actually an advantage, considering the increased cost of manufacture and potential disposal pollution? Seems to me to be false economy and an attempt by some crackpots to send us back to the stone age or a nefarious way to profit from fear.

AkiBola
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2011
Freedom of choice is OK, but..
..it ends when it has negative impact on others.


List below everything you buy and do in your life so I can tell you what is acceptable. For the items that impact others, we'll make swift arrangements for your reeducation. Hurry up, the bureau is impatient:

Moebius
3.4 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2011
I understand the need to save energy but CFL's suck. They don't last any longer than incandescents and aren't even close to worth the extra cost. They also have mercury and are a recycling problem. I stopped buying them. We should phase out CFL's and stick with regular bulbs until LED technology can take over.

I am sure I am going to get comments from people saying they do last as long as advertised. I've bought a lot of them and disposed of a lot of them and broke a few too. They don't last and they aren't worth the risk of breaking.
Kingsix
5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2011
1. Buy a good cfl, not the cheap ones, the same thing will happen with LED, bad manufacturers will use cheap leds still claim the 50,000 hour lamp life and people will wonder why their LED bulbs burn out in 10,000 hours.
2. A good CFL like the Philips Energy saver contain 3mg of Mercury, yes not a good substance, but recycle your bulbs properly and the problem is reduced. The real problem is if you just toss them in the trash.
3.The difference in energy between a 100W fluorescent and a 26W CFL is exactly what it looks like. But lets be strait, this big area this will impact is the workplace. At home sure some people leave too many lights on, but there are buildings that leave 100's of lights on all the time. 100 bulbs is the difference of a continuous 10kw vs 2.6kw, this is why most offices use fluorescents already. That will move to LED in the next 10 years. Its what I do, and I am already designing buildings replacing about half of FLs with LEDs.
Every Watt counts.
SmaryJerry
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2011
I don't care about the benefits of either bulb and I don't think South Carolina dose either. The problem is really how it undermines each person's freedom with unecessary regulation. If a less efficient bulb costs less or more even, whoever wishes to purchase or sell it should have the option.
Moebius
2 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2011
I have bought supposedly good CFL's, they still don't last. And for home use they are so damn heavy you WILL drop and break one sooner or later. And how many people are stupid enough to not recycle them? How many kids being kids will break them? It isn't worth it, good idea in theory, not so good in practice.
DaveGee
not rated yet Mar 29, 2011
While I aplaude S.C. and their desire to not be told what to do... Let's say S.C. gets it's way while the rest of the US outlaw 100w incandescent bulbs. What does that do to the US market demand for said bulbs? It drops in the toilet, thats what.

So sure S.C. can have all the 100w bulbs they want... however due to the laws of economies of scale the cost of each bulb will rise tremendously! Hey it works in both directions.
SteveL
not rated yet Mar 30, 2011
We here in S.C. buy and use a heck of a lot of CFLs. My house is filled with them - except the outside "bug" lights. I find that CFLs do last longer and they can be bought in multiple wattages and K temp ratings as needed per desired application.

CFLs aren't the issue. The fed trying to shove every little thing down the throats of the American citizenry is. Un/underfunded madates are an ugly abuse of powers not granted by the US Constitution. I and many others in S.C. are not fond of "progress" to a George Orwellian "1984"-type, much less a Yevgeny Zamyatin "WE"-type existance. This type of abuse always starts small and freedom requires vigilance.

I appreciate my elected officials actually looking out for me. But then, I expect no less from them.
J-n
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2011
Right on. I want my CFCs back in my hairspray. Why can't i manufacture Fireworks in my downtown condo? Why can't i walk around naked in public??

Damn feds, they're turning this nation into a brown-coat, mommy-loving, bhuddist-flower sniffing, afraid to change my own adult diaper, nanny state.

/sarc off
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2011
Right on. I want my CFCs back in my hairspray. Why can't i manufacture Fireworks in my downtown condo? Why can't i walk around naked in public??

Damn feds, they're turning this nation into a brown-coat, mommy-loving, bhuddist-flower sniffing, afraid to change my own adult diaper, nanny state.

/sarc off

Funny how the greenies LIKE Hg filled lamps.
J-n
not rated yet Mar 31, 2011
Personally don't care either way about the lightbulbs, just reacting to the typical responce given by some folks to green regulation.

I think it is strange i don't see the same sorts of "Government should not control what i do" replies when it's the Abortion issue, or recreational drug use, or...

I don't believe that the real issue here is the protection of personal rights. If it were i'd see the same names complaining about government infringement in the above examples as well.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2011
I don't believe that the real issue here is the protection of personal rights.

What is it then?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2011
I don't believe that the real issue here is the protection of personal rights.

What is it then?

It's propaganda practice from the right wing.

Incandescent bulbs have not, nor will they be rendered illegal. They simply have to comply to a higher efficiency standard. Yet all those who are listening ot the propaganda are running out to home depot and stocking up on good ole GE socket burners.

How stupid.
Funny how the greenies LIKE Hg filled lamps.
Funny how you like burning Hg filled coal.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2011
I am all for nuclear power but the govt order SH loves has essentially banned their construction.
Of COURSE nuclear power plants are NOT illegal, BUT they must endure decades of agonizingly slow govt approval processes.
A new crude oil refinery has not been built in the USA for 30 years for exactly the same reason.
Nooooo, the govt is NOT banning Tom Edison's light bulb.....

We used to use heat lamps to keep pigs warm in the winter. They were ~150-200 watts. Will they be banned?

It amusing the unintentional consequences of govt orders. Low flush toilets are constipating the SF sewer. Too much solid, not enough water to keep the pipes clear.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2011
I am all for nuclear power but the govt order SH loves has essentially banned their construction.
What government order?
A new crude oil refinery has not been built in the USA for 30 years for exactly the same reason.
New refineries haven't been built in the US because the public demands that the refineries aren't built. Beyond that many refineries have been closed due to the oil industry undergoing mergers and expansions of existing refineries.
Nooooo, the govt is NOT banning Tom Edison's light bulb
It isn't. Invent a more efficient one and start selling it. That would require innovation though. Are you up to the task, or are you content to cry about the rules of the game?
We used to use heat lamps to keep pigs warm in the winter. They were ~150-200 watts. Will they be banned?
Not incandescent, also not for use in your house.
Low flush toilets are constipating the SF sewer.
Source?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2011
The real tragedy is that Congress can pass laws banning light bulbs but they can't open US territory to drill for oil, won't decide what to do with all the nuclear waste sitting in pools at every nuclear power plant, won't license new nuclear power plants, ban drilling in the Gulf of Mexico...

Invent a more efficient one and start selling it.


Just because a govt bureaucrat orders it, doesn't make it happen. And now, the US has twice as many govt bureaucrats giving orders than workers to make it so.

Source?

Look it up.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2011
The real tragedy is that Congress can pass laws banning light bulbs but they can't open US territory to drill for oil,
Why would they. The fossil fuel companies are sitting on over 9300 unutilized oil and natural gas drilling permits. That means they have permission to drill, but they're just not doing it.

Second, when the oil company pulls that oil out of the ground, we don't own it, they do. They can sell it where ever they have a market for it. Most of it will wind up here, sure. It won't be less expensive.
A govt ORDER won't make innovation occur.
That's demonstrably false. Beyond that, if incandescents are unavilaible, and you want something similar, that's a market problem. Isn't that what you claim causes innovation?
Low flush toilets are constipating the SF sewer.
Source?
Look it up.
Yep, just as I suspected, more bullshit, and not in the San Fran sewer system.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2011
Beyond that, if incandescents are unavilaible, and you want something similar, that's a market problem. Isn't that what you claim causes innovation?

That's not a market problem.

Govt bans certain drugs. People innovate, violating laws to do so. Is that the innovation you like?

There is this thing called google. Type this in:
sf low flush toilets

I know SH does not understand how to do research or he would not lie so often.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2011
That's not a market problem.
The lack of a wanted product is, by your very definition, a market problem.

Govt bans certain drugs. People innovate, violating laws to do so. Is that the innovation you like?
No, but Pfizer and the rest of big pharma have done rather well comming up with alternative pain killers, appetite stimulants, etc. Like I said, are you going to cry about the rules or innovate?
There is this thing called google. Type this in:
sf low flush toilets
When you make an assertion, you are on the hook to provide the evidence when challenged.
I know SH does not understand how to do research or he would not lie so often.
Found out who you and Mr. Valentine are. perhaps you should use your brain for something more than keeping your eyes in your sockets.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2011
When you make an assertion, you are on the hook to provide the evidence when challenged.

Why should I? You don't.
Look it up for yourself. The truth is out there.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2011
"More domestic oil production and innovative use of our vast fossil fuel resources afford quicker approaches to energy security than the green visions of solar power, windmills and electric cars.

Whats more, development and innovation of domestic resources would provide a real-world stimulus to an economy badly in need of new businesses and new jobs. "
"He (Obama) said more than 70 percent of off-shore leases are inactive. That would seem to hint at a conspiracy to gobble up resource-rich acreage and, I guess, sit on it rather than exploit it to the benefit of the industrys bottom line and stockholders. But, as the Interior Department reports, only 30 percent of leased acreage produces oil."
{We know where SH gets his information, Obama.}
http://www.suntim...ane.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011
Why should I? You don't.
Look it up for yourself. The truth is out there.
I've never once refused to source when challenged. Don't worry. One day you'll start acting your age and realize that not every conversation has to be hostile.
He (Obama) said more than 70 percent of off-shore leases are inactive. That would seem to hint at a conspiracy to gobble up resource-rich acreage and, I guess, sit on it rather than exploit it to the benefit of the industrys bottom line and stockholders. But, as the Interior Department reports, only 30 percent of leased acreage produces oil
You do know what 'produces oil' means, right? It means that even though there may be oil there, no one is even surveying or drilling for it.

The oil companies, who you say creates jobs, have been exporting US jobs to Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, etc for the past 50 years in ever increasing volume. And you want to pay them more money to drill, laughable.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
No one pays an oil company to drill. They are paid when they find oil and sell it.
", with oil at $130 per barrel, they would drill on those lands if it made sense to do so! No, not all oil and gas leases are being used, because not all of them have production-worthy quantities of oil or gas."
"First, a company may lease property, but never have the funds to properly explore it or drill an exploratory well. Second, after paying for further tests (such as seismic), they often decide the lease isnt worth the high, high costs of drilling after all. Or they may hold onto the lease for years until either higher oil prices or new technology makes it feasible to drill. Third, a company may lease property but drill on another tract (which drains a pool that covers multiple leased tracts), so perhaps theyre counting it as not used if no well is sunk on that particular piece of property. Fourth, they may try to drill and be blocked by government bureaucrats, environmental lawsuits, etc."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
""This administration would have you believe that energy companies do not want to produce energy. I'd say that assertion is ludicrous, but even that would be too generous," Bishop said. "The implications of this report are both disingenuous and intentionally misleading."

Kathleen Sgamma, director of government and public affairs, said the report ignores the bureaucratic hurdles that exist to energy development.

"The truth is that companies are doing all they can to develop federal energy resources, but a lease is not a green light to drill it's the first step in a long, expensive process that is fraught with bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits by environmental groups determined to stop domestic energy development.""
http://www.desere...ses.html
Recall a coal company in WV that thought it had approval from the US govt to proceed after investing $300M, but were stopped by the govt.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
I think its a good thing that the government requires companies to make atleast % efficient product based on technological advancement.
That way the eceonomy becomes more efficient.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
""Production cannot occur on a lease until all preliminary environmental analysis and permitting work is complete," she said. "An oil and natural gas lease is no more than a definite maybe maybe you'll get through all the environmental analysis and regulatory hurdles, maybe you'll get permission to drill, maybe your project won't be held up by legal challenges from obstructionist groups, maybe you'll find oil or natural gas.""
http://www.desere...tml?pg=2

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
"The event highlighted the struggle of a small oil and gas producer, Stewart Petroleum, that completed an environmental assessment required by the Bureau of Land Management to drill nine exploratory directional wells for natural gas. That was in 2006, and although accepted by the federal land agency, the permit was subsequently challenged by an environmental group.

The company, with an investment of $9 million already made, completed another environmental assessment that although submitted last year, remains under BLM review."
"Stewart said he has sunk millions into a project in which the permitting process that was supposed to take a few months has instead dragged onto "year four. The uncertainty of it has me getting to the point where I'll have to sit down and close up shop in Utah on federal lands," he said."
http://www.desere...rms.html
But oil drilling is not formally banned is it? Just effectively so.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011
But oil drilling is not formally banned is it? Just effectively so.
They didn't already have the permit, genius. I'm talking about the thousands of permits that are already issued, and simply aren't used. A permit is not a lease. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what you're reading and what I'm typing.

I said permit, not lease.
No one pays an oil company to drill. They are paid when they find oil and sell it.
Except the US government through drilling subsidies.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
I've never once refused to source when challenged.

You have been challenged, many times, to prove that Koch Industries is hiring a power plant manager in WI.

GE, a friend of Obama, paid no income taxes on its profits due to 'green' energy subsidies and credits.
I don't object to GE not paying corporate income taxes as ALL companies must pass on their taxes to the consumers. What I object to GE having tax breaks specifically tailored to them. That's what happens with crony capitalists who donate to to the politicians in power. That's not rule of law. That's rule of kings, arbitrary and capricious.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
"Why are the unions and their liberal allies so desperate to block Mr. Walker's reforms? It's all about the money. Unions can't abide the loss of political clout that will result from ending the state's practice of automatically deducting union dues from employee paychecks. For most Wisconsin public employees, union dues total between $700 and $1,000 a year, much of which is funneled into political spending to elect the officials who negotiate their contracts. "
http://online.wsj..._LEADTop
Any judge with integrity should publicly refuse campaign contributions from any organization that is trying to buy a decision.

"In 2001, Utah made the collection of payments to union political funds optional, and nearly 95% of public school teachers opted not to pay."
Imagine, people being to spend THEIR money the way THEY want to!

kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2011
ryggesogn2

please learn to use the
[ q ] quote [ /q ]
tags.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
I use those quotes when I am quoting from SH or kaasinees. If I am referring to an article, I use " ".

Why do you care kaasinees?
kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
Why do you care kaasinees?


Readability.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 02, 2011
I wonder if
these folks shake their fists at unleaded gas, or digital TV
signal transmission- Its laughable, like Idiocracy


There are very good reasons to shake a fist at DTV or CFLs. They are both a compromize between quality and cost.

I for example don't like the fact that over the air DTV is basically useless when it comes to handling errors. Instead of a bit of snow on the screen, the image goes blank or halts for three seconds. That is to me, intolerable. That's the same reason why digital radio never really took off. Since I don't have cable, I've virtually stopped watching TV since the switch. I won't spend any more money on it.

Same thing with the CFL lights. Sure, it uses three times less energy, but now all my photographs and paintings look weird - and art is my hobby. I refuse to put a "cool white" CFL in my study simply because it doesn't have a continuous spectrum.

And unleaded gasoline was a problem for people with cars that couldn't handle it.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011

Govt bans certain drugs. People innovate, violating laws to do so. Is that the innovation you like?


Since there is no real alternative for the incandecent bulb for people who need such things, and no way to make it comply to the regulations, people are already finding ways to circumvent the laws in a similiar way to the synthetic design drugs.

Such as the German "heat orb", which is basically a 100 Watt light bulb marketed as a heater to avoid the sales ban.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
All the arguing with you is pointless, Mr. Swenson.

In order to defeat your nonsense I simply need to do one thing and one thing only.

Encourage young people to vote. Corporations are afraid of the people in this country rising up and demanding a fair cut of the company profit. You're seeing it happen across the country now. It's time to make America great again, and that won't be done by trying to teach old dogs, like you, new tricks.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011
Typical socialist response by SH. Instead of the rule of law he prefers the rule of the mob.
Your plan to encourage young people to vote as been tried. The 26th amendment was passed in 1971 and has accelerated the socialist state.
Corporations are afraid of the people in this country rising up and demanding a fair cut of the company profit.

Another unsourced assertion.
Your plan will fail anyway as the young can no longer by controlled by the typical lame stream media. They have a wide diversity of sources. Including Fox and the bloggers.
Also, there is a core of young who have served in combat and are less prone to socialist BS.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
All the arguing with you is pointless,

Because you can't. You have no valid points defend statism and socialism. You can't even bring yourself to condemn socialist tyrants like Pol Pot.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2011
All the arguing with you is pointless,
Because you can't.
Because you're entirely unable to listen and evaluate anything that deviates from your point of view. You're living inside a bubble that prevents new information from comming in, while repeating the false information back to you over and over and over.
Corporations are afraid of the people in this country rising up and demanding a fair cut of the company profit.
Another unsourced assertion.
So you never read the CitiBank memo?
http://www.scribd...t-Part-1

I'd suggest you read the whole thing, but pages 25-27 source my claim well.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
This is a legitimate, professional document?
"Lets look at some of the coolest figures that amplify and verify this idea."p.14
I am skeptical, one because you sourced it and because of unprofessional writing.
Dan Rather faked a document he said was true.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
"The weakened moral code Moore complains of is clearly visible in political corruption (the sale of government favors to businesses and investors), which is tied to the regulatory spiral {WHICH SH APPROVES} fueled by the state grant of corporate status, shifting or risks to the public and eliciting efforts from citizens groups to rein in increasingly powerful corporations. "
"but the best way to "create" jobs is for government to leave tax dollars with taxpayers, and to undo counterproductive government regulation"
http://mises.org/...ent.aspx

The plutonomy report was a public Citi document. The author no longer works for Citi.
But the bottom line is SH is no better than those rich who want to use state power to advance their interest.
SH wants to legally plunder, too.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
When these CFL's started getting subsidies and give-aways from the Utilities, I put pair of lights in identical fixtures in the bedroom, both on the same switch- one CFL and one 100W incadescent. In 5 years, I've gone through 3 CFL's and one incadescent.

Which makes me wonder if the cost to manufacture and dispose the CFL's, along with the cost of the environmental impact of the manufacture and disposal are really justified.


Um, you must have bad luck or something?

I have had the same CFL now for like 2 years and it runs almost non-stop...They also come with a receipt and a warranty you know, so if it doesn't last you get a full refund.

To my knowledge, we've never had a CFL go out yet since they were invented. They've aleady paid for themselves several times.

Maybe something is wrong with your electrical wiring in your house or where ever you are using the product.

I replaced three 60 watt bulbs with one 13 watt CFL, and just leave the other sockets empty.
rgwalther
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
Because you can't. You have no valid points defend statism and socialism. You can't even bring yourself to condemn socialist tyrants like Pol Pot.


Calling Pol Pot a 'socialist tyrant' is like calling Jeffrey Dahlmer a 'frugal gourmet'
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
This is a legitimate, professional document?
"Lets look at some of the coolest figures that amplify and verify this idea."p.14
I am skeptical, one because you sourced it and because of unprofessional writing.
Dan Rather faked a document he said was true.

Ask Citigroup, they wrote it. Their people leaked it. It's on their letter head and matches multiple other memos from their offices in terms of style. They admitted it was their material. They admitted it was a factual memo.

If you're going to ignore it, well, then you're just head in the sand Swenson as usual. Like I said before, when you're presented with evidence, here's how you deal with it:
Because you're entirely unable to listen and evaluate anything that deviates from your point of view. You're living inside a bubble that prevents new information from comming in, while repeating the false information back to you over and over and over.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
Here's the second memo on the same topic from Citi.
http://www.cps-ne...2006.pdf

You should really just wake up and evalute these things on your own.
The plutonomy report was a public Citi document. The author no longer works for Citi.
The Plutonomy report was a closed informal memo to investors. The authors, plural, were top researchers in the Citi economic environment. Take another look at the names, look em up. Tell me how many are 'former' employees.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2011
"Mr Kapur is furious. There was no nefarious or subversive intent behind our research on plutonomy and it was not in the least bit secret or confidential, he says. We were clinical about our subject and made no moral judgments about whether [plutonomy] was a good or bad thing, he adds."
"For though Mr Kapur has now moved to Mirae Asset group in Hong Kong, he recently issued a new plutonomy report. And this makes fascinating reading. "
http://www.ft.com...IYz2w6vp
The issue still remains: govt control of private property. You attack corporate control of the govt, but YOU want govt to control the corporations. I want the govt to protect EVERYONE'S private property rights. Including yours AND a corporation's.
Your regulatory state fails and will continue to fail because the regulatory state is one the corporate interest prefer to stifle their competitive.
That was documented in Teddy Roosevelt day.
SH is a corporatist.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2011
The issue still remains: govt control of private property.
And you can't evidence it happening.
You attack corporate control of the govt, but YOU want govt to control the corporations.
I want the government to regulate the corporations. Regulation and control are not the same.
I want the govt to protect EVERYONE'S private property rights.
No, you want the government to not exist.
Including yours AND a corporation's.
A corporation cannot hold private property as a corporation by definition is a business collective. They could only hold property that is communally owned by the corporate share holders.

SH is a corporatist.
A corporatist is someone who works in favor of corporations. Get a dictionary.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2011
And you can't evidence it happening.

Government Motors formerly known as General Motors.
Endangered Species Act.

Regulation and control are not the same.

Yes, they are.

They could only hold property that is communally owned by the corporate share holders.

So?

SH is a corportist as corportists are socialists that desire govt control to limit their competitors. The FDA was crated at the behest of Chicago meat packers to limit their competition.
Large corporations can more readily absorb regulatory control costs. SH advocates for more regulatory controls which is exactly what corporations advocate for. SH, corporatist.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2011
Government Motors formerly known as General Motors.
Endangered Species Act.
GM took a loan from the government. Does that mean that no corporations exist since they're all owned by banks? After all, that's your metric for a 'takeover'.
Regulation and control are not the same.
Yes, they are.
If regulations were control there would be absollutely no need for courts since everyone would be obeying regulations without the will to do otherwise.
They could only hold property that is communally owned by the corporate share holders.
So?
So you support communism.

(see how stupid it is when people argue the way you do?)
SH is a corportist as corportists are socialists that desire govt control to limit their competitors.
So you're saying I support laws to limit competition, that's demonstrably false. I encourage laws that promote competition.
SH advocates for more regulatory controls which is exactly what corporations advocate for.
LOL, you're so dumb
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
This is what happens in SH's regulatory state:
"in refusing to play the Washington game, Microsoft was being downright unpatriotic. Look, buddy, there is an American way of doing things, and that American way includes hiring lobbyists, paying lawyers vast sums by the hour, throwing lavish parties for politicians, aides, journalists, and so on. So get with the program."
http://www.latime...0.column
It's like the Guido stopping by once a week for the insurance payment. The payment that keeps Guido from burning down your business. That's what the govt did to Microsoft and will try to do with Google and Facebook and any other business that doesn't want to pay up.
That's what the regulations are for. To have some law to attack any business, or individual, the govt chooses whenever it wants. Now conservatives are IRS audit targets.
That's SH's Regulatory State. Long live the state.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
It's like the Guido stopping by once a week for the insurance payment. The payment that keeps Guido from burning down your business. That's what the govt did to Microsoft and will try to do with Google and Facebook and any other business that doesn't want to pay up.
No. Internet explorer was demonstrably causing compatibility problems for other browsers, while Microsoft was insisting that IE was not. It was found that MS lied to congress on that topic, and further lied to every windows customer since 1994.

That's why Gates wound up in court. He was participating in unfair business practice. The company was violating the law.
Now conservatives are IRS audit targets
Prove it, further, you think Gates is a Conservative? LOL
That's SH's Regulatory State. Long live the state.
You seem to have great difficulty discerning between 'law' and 'state'. There is a difference, even in those 100 year old books on trading mules that you read for your economic sense.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2011
Did a little (very little) research on this topic. In Q1 of 2007 (the sales information I found) South Carolina ranked 17th in the USA in CFL purchases per population. It took a bit to be able to match up regional sales data with census data on an Excel spreadsheet. 17th out of 50 isn't exactly impressive, but it doesn't indicate that South Carolina is anti-CFL as the disingenous title would imply.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2011
Did a little (very little) research on this topic. In Q1 of 2007 (the sales information I found) South Carolina ranked 17th in the USA in CFL purchases per population. It took a bit to be able to match up regional sales data with census data on an Excel spreadsheet. 17th out of 50 isn't exactly impressive, but it doesn't indicate that South Carolina is anti-CFL as the disingenous title would imply.

Shows you the disconnect between the 'political public opinion' and actual public opinion. The problem is the former typically influences the latter rather than the opposite in the US. I blame poor voter turnout/apathy.
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
Businesses have ONE goal, and ONLY ONE GOAL - To make money. THATS IT. No other goals. So to ensure that they do not step on the rights of individuals, the government MUST enact regulations to protect those rights.

Lead in paint was outlawed here in the USA by a government regulation. Were this not enacted we would have childrens toys that use lead paint even today (see china).

The FDA regulates our food and drugs here in the USA, were they not to exist we would have things like melamine in our milk. (see china).

The EPA protects our environment from abuse by businesses who's only goal is to make money today, regardless of future consequences. Without proper regulation disasters would happen more often. (See gulf of Mexico)

So, Parents, Milk Drinkers, Fishermen and tourists are all Socialists now because they benefit from Government Regulation?

Do you really think you'd even have Free Speech if it were left to businesses?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2011
the government MUST enact regulations to protect those rights.

No, they MUST not.
What the govt MUST do is protect everyone's individual property rights.

we would have things like melamine in our milk.

Why? Are consumers powerless? If 60 Minutes did a story that a local dairy was intentionally sellling tainted milk how long would they be in business?
A movie star assertions about Alar crippled the apple industry. A movie star's assertions encourage some to avoid vaccinations.
The company we sold milk to tested the milk for anti-biotics. Why? Because they made cheese and the anti-biotics would kill the cheese bacteria.
A pet food company sounded the alarm about tainted pet food from China. NOT any govt agency.
We have US senators trying to limit free speech NOW.
How and why would any business limit free speech?
BTW all the food poisonings in recent years occur with govt inspected food.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2011
No, they MUST not. What the govt MUST do is protect everyone's individual property rights.
Liek the right to receive the property I've been sold? ie: if someone is selling me a meal, and that meal is toxic, my property rights have been infringed as someone has stolen my property by trading it for another property that was not as advertised. You say you want a government that protects property, my body is my property.
Why? Are consumers powerless?
Do you know enough about the massive amounts of information you would need to be able to understand every single thing in your life? Answer is no.
If 60 Minutes did a story that a local dairy was intentionally sellling tainted milk how long would they be in business?
What if 60 minutes got it wrong? What if they lied to you? What if they targetted the wrong dairy company? What if the dairy company owned 60 Minutes and used 60 minutes to speak ill of their competition?
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
So, what you're saying is that companies should be ALLOWED to put lead into my childrens toys and that they should be ALLOWED to employ 7 year olds to work in factories. They should be ALLOWED to have company stores where the paycheck you get from them can only be spent at the company store, should be allowed to pollute as much as they want.

Free speech is against business interests. If they could stop people from speaking out against them they certainly would.

Freedom in general is against business interests. If we were all slaves who didn't get paid, who could be worked for 24 hours a day, forced to purchase what goods they wanted you to and weren't allowed to complain about it.. THIS would be IDEAL for businesses. They would be able to maximize productivity, eliminate labor costs, and ensure a steady stream of income. The only business deals would be from one company to another (You have your employees buy our cars, and our employees will buy your eggs).
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
Freedom in general is against business interests. If we were all slaves who didn't get paid, who could be worked for 24 hours a day, forced to purchase what goods they wanted you to and weren't allowed to complain about it.. THIS would be IDEAL for businesses
And this point is why we think you're a silly fool Mr. Swenson.

You think consumers have avenues of redress, that is only the case if their ability to muster force or communication is equal to the ability fo the company they are arguing against.

Freedom also requires equality, otherwise there is no metric by which one can be judged as free or otherwise.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
What if 60 minutes got it wrong? What if they lied to you?

The govt wouldn't lie to you would they?
60 Minutes has an incentive to be honest, money. If they are not trusted, no one will watch. They can't force people to give them money like the govt does.

If they could stop people from speaking out against them they certainly would.

How could they force people from speaking out about their bad products without using force?
I know of people in a bad housing development who posted signs on their front lawn warning new buyers away. The sign was usually taken down after the people complaining had their complaints satisfied by the developer.
BTW, it was the Niagra school board that forced the sale of Love Canal so houses and schools could be built over the toxic dump. Govt in action!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
companies should be ALLOWED to put lead into my childrens toys

Why would any company do that if no one would buy their toys?
A company makes things people WANT to buy.
You know it was the British govt that sent orphaned children to work in factories? Children that lived with parents had to their parent's permission to work in factories.
When I was 7, I was raking alfalfa using a John Deere 'B'.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
What if 60 minutes got it wrong? What if they lied to you?
The govt wouldn't lie to you would they?
It's called an FOIA request. If the government lies to me there are laws that dictate the mechanisms of redress. These do not exist for companies or corporations as they have zero informational responsibility to their customers outside of legal regulations, which you want to do away with.
60 Minutes has an incentive to be honest, money.
Not if their parent company is a dairy company that makes money using 60 Minutes as a propaganda ring to forward their other businesses.
If they are not trusted, no one will watch.
No one trusts FOX and many people watch it.
They can't force people to give them money like the govt does.
No but they can trick you and lie to you. Once they have the money, they don't care what happens to you. A company doesn't need or want you to be rich. The US government does for purposes of taxation. The incentive to be rich comes from govt
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
You think consumers have avenues of redress,

Because the DO!
Ever hear of Consumers Union or the better business bureau?
The BBB helped me recover $250 from HSBC. I went on line and filed a complaint. HSBC was very responsive.
Now there is Angie's List and all sorts of internet review sites. Better Homes and Gardens guarantees products.
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2011
Any TV show actually has an incentive to do as their owners require. If the potential loss of revenue from the bad product source outweighs the potential loss of revenue from the tv show what do you think would happen?

If Media companies had their way yes, you would be forced to watch, or not able to watch anything else. Were it not for the regulations in place we have right now, that would be exactly what we would have, 1 or 2 (at the most) media companies so large that any small one that springs up would get purchased and destroyed within a few hours. (even now that's pretty close to what we have).

Signs and people talking to one another only goes so far, when fighting against companies with billions of cash at their disposal. Hold all the signs you want when the companies show their opinions/entertainment as fact on fox everyone will believe it, and decide that you're a violent irrational protestor, that is probably on drugs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
It's called an FOIA request.

"wo investigations found that Freedom of Information Act requests sent to the DHS were reviewed by Obama administration political appointees.

Through the course of an eight-month investigation, the committee has learned that political staff under the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano have corrupted the agencys FOIA compliance procedures, exerted unlawful political pressure, on FOIA compliance officers, and undermined the federal governments accountability to the American people, Issa said."
http://cnsnews.co...politi-0
I guess you are stuck. Since you support the Regulatory State you must defended it and live with the poor results.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2011
Sorry, I wouldn't take Darryl Issa's word on anything. You do know that he's a convicted car thief and is suspected of arson and insurance fraud (he settled out of court on those with his insurance company).
I guess you are stuck. Since you support the Regulatory State you must defended it and live with the poor results
I'd rather have a broken compliance system over the wild west any day.

Besides, all the shortcommings of government you have cited can be tied directly to low levels of funding. Since people like you expect the government to be run like a business, why would you ever expect that businesses don't do the same, if not worse?

What makes business so pure in your mind?
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2011
You do realize that the BBB exists because of the laws you wish to do away with right? They fight for MORE business regulation in certain areas, and has been cited as the driving force behind several legal cases that could collectively be called US Government vs Business X.

Here is an example from your world of no business regulation.

Business decides that lead based paint is cheaper for use in barbie dolls than their current paint, so thats what they use.

Someone finds out and reports it to their local media. The Media companies that are owned by the same as the barbie company are put out stories that there is no lead in the barbies, and that the other stations are trying to smear barbies. Later they release stories saying the amount of lead in the paint is not harmful. the other outlet airs the story.
A few weeks goes by and people forget about the story, as they've heard 2 sides with no resolution. And kids get lead poisoning, legally, and no one to stop them.
J-n
not rated yet Apr 05, 2011
What makes business so pure in your mind?


This is a great question that, if you feel comfortable in doing so, you should answer at least for yourself, ryggesogn2.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
What makes business so pure in your mind?


This is a great question that, if you feel comfortable in doing so, you should answer at least for yourself, ryggesogn2.


What makes govt so pure in everyone's mind?

Business cannot use force like the govt. They must persuade you to buy their products. Therefore business has an incentive to get you to keep buying their products. If their products kill their customers, it is bad for business.
In addition to the customer, the market based regulatory bodies that are most effective are those operated by insurance companies. UL and IIHS test products for safety and publish and certify their results for all consumers to see. The insurance companies have a stake in minimizing losses due to fire, which launched UL, and auto accidents, IIHS. IIHS tests to higher standards than the USG and car companies strive to pass IIHS safety tests. Why? Because they want to sell more cars.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
What makes the govt so pure?

"the Washington culture of influence peddling is not entirely or even primarily the fault of the corporations that hire the lobbyists and pay the bills. It's a vast protection racket, practiced by politicians and political operatives of both parties. Nice little software company you've got here. Too bad if we have to regulate it, or if big government programs force us to raise its taxes. Your archrival just wrote a big check to the Washington Bureaucrats Benevolent Society. Are you sure you wouldn't like to do the same?"
http://www.latime...0.column
Bribery is alive and well in Washington, DC.
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2011
Government has multiple goals, and most of them involve the protection of their citizens health and well-being.

Businesses will do ANYTHING to persuade you to buy their products.

Cocaine does not kill quickly. Therefore if businesses were allowed, they would include cocaine in their products (coke).

This would make addicts out of consumers, and even when told that cocaine would eventually kill them, they would keep drinking regardless of these warnings. This would undoubtedly increase profits for the company even though their consumers lifetimes would be shortened.

Insurance companies only exist for businesses because we have the right to sue them when things go wrong with our products. Were it not for federal regulations there would be no need for the companies to insure for claims against their products, Therefore the organizations you mention would not exist.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
What makes the govt so pure?
There is a direct mechanism for citizens to change the government, no such mechanism exists for businesses. Simply ask the various state senators in WI if it's effective. Beyond that, if I don't like you, I can vote against you. The amount of money in my pocket doesn't change my vote's value.
Bribery is alive and well in Washington, DC.
And it's illegal, but in the business world, it's common practice. That's the beauty of government. You take a bribe and pass an unpopular law, we vote you out. A business kills 5 people with bad products, we send the government after them. If the government doesn't exist, there's no way to go after business. And 'voting with your feet' doesn't work in a global marketplace.
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2011
I let the first one go, but this is the 2nd time you've posted an op-ed/opinion column as some sort of proof of something.

If all i needed was an opinion of some guy on some website to "prove" some point... would copy/pasting from my own comments on this website work for you?

Freedom in general is against business interests. If we were all slaves who didn't get paid, who could be worked for 24 hours a day, forced to purchase what goods they wanted you to and weren't allowed to complain about it.. THIS would be IDEAL for businesses. They would be able to maximize productivity, eliminate labor costs, and ensure a steady stream of income. The only business deals would be from one company to another (You have your employees buy our cars, and our employees will buy your eggs).


Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2011
What makes business so pure in your mind?


This is a great question that, if you feel comfortable in doing so, you should answer at least for yourself, ryggesogn2.


You'll notice that he's refused to answer the question twice now. We can be certain he won't answer it at any point in time, whatsoever.
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 05, 2011
Did a little (very little) research on this topic. In Q1 of 2007 (the sales information I found) South Carolina ranked 17th in the USA in CFL purchases per population. It took a bit to be able to match up regional sales data with census data on an Excel spreadsheet. 17th out of 50 isn't exactly impressive, but it doesn't indicate that South Carolina is anti-CFL as the disingenous title would imply.

Shows you the disconnect between the 'political public opinion' and actual public opinion. The problem is the former typically influences the latter rather than the opposite in the US. I blame poor voter turnout/apathy.

My point is that this is before any government mandated standards came out. We will do the right thing, without forcing us to. In my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of many others in my state (SC) CFLs simply make economic sense. We just don't like the federal arm twisting.
SteveL
not rated yet Apr 05, 2011
No one trusts FOX and many people watch it.

I watch FOX quite often, and CNN and others. I trust them the same as I trust any other news outlet. No more, no less. I am an adult and I am observant and educated enough to know that how the news is edited, contextualized and presented can taint the value of the information. There are people on FOX that I despise and do not watch, just as there are on other news outlets. Fortunately we have the freedom and ability to choose. I do not find FOX any more disreputable than other news outlets, and until recently they were one of the few that provided alternate views. I've noticed other news talk shows starting to allow conservative opinions which in my opinion improves the discussion. I'm of the opinion that no one side has all of the answers to what ails our society. I think one of the biggest issues is that people just don't listen to each other, or want to allow others their freedom to be different or think differently.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
I've noticed other news talk shows starting to allow conservative opinions

Amazing what competition and a desire to make a profit will do.

Businesses will do ANYTHING to persuade you to buy their products.

But they cannot FORCE you like a govt can and does with CFLs or low flush toilets or.....
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2011
It is only because of regulations that companies cannot force us to purchase their products.

Think, company stores, monopolies.

No one FORCES me to buy my heart medications, but I do it because i want to stay alive.

No one would FORCE people to buy cocaine/opium/other addictive substance laced food goods, but addiction is a powerful biological and psychological response.

If the government lies to us we have a way to force out those who lied and to make changes so it does not happen again. If a company lies to us (with your proposed changes) there would be nothing we could do to even find out the truth.

Fox admits that most of it's programming is NOT news but entertainment. It also states that it is NOT a conservative news source but fair and balanced, yet both of you seem to have trumpeted it as a conservative news outlet. Interesting.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2011
It is only because of regulations that companies cannot force us to purchase their products.

It is only because of COMPETITION.
Monopolies required the force of a govt to stay in business. Think Ma Bell, ATT.
If a company lies to us (with your proposed changes) there would be nothing we could do to even find out the truth.

But you don't have to buy their products or own their stock.
In the recent past what has happened to companies that lied? They are OUT of business.
Govt lies all the time and they are still in business and people still elect the same people who lie to them.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2011
It is only because of COMPETITION.
Monopolies required the force of a govt to stay in business. Think Ma Bell, ATT.
Bullshit argument. We've been over this one a million times.
But you don't have to buy their products or own their stock.
And how would you know any different.

In the recent past what has happened to companies that lied? They are OUT of business.
When every business lies, of course every one out of business lied in the past.
Govt lies all the time and they are still in business and people still elect the same people who lie to them.
Then get more people to vote.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2011
Then get more people to vote.

The tea parties are working hard to do so.
But then you hate the tea parties. Too bad.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2011
Then get more people to vote.

The tea parties are working hard to do so.
LOL, not if they're having groups like ACORN defunded. I'm not a fan of how ACORN was run, it was messed up, but it got people to vote.
But then you hate the tea parties. Too bad.
I don't hate the tea party. I think they're being misled by a group of selfish demogogues.
SteveL
4 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2011
I don't hate the tea party. I think they're being misled by a group of selfish demogogues.

I think that all political parties are being misled by a group of selfish demogogues. I like the Tea Party for a few reasons. They gave a voice to some frustrated segments of the American populace. They got that segment to speak up, get involved and vote - all good things. However, where I don't like the Tea Party is that I don't see viable (in my opinion) solutions coming from them. I see a lot of anger and a lot of complaining and finger pointing that seemed to cause electoral change, but did it really? The Tea Party change is just the flip side of the Obama change - it's mainly reactionary efforts from a disgruntled populace. The people seem to be looking for a leader they can trust but the media outlets on boths sides of the aisle are so busy vilifying anyone who sticks their head up that it's difficult for the common voter to sort the wheat from the chaff.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2011
Who is the Leader of The Tea Party?
I don't hate the tea party. I think they're being misled by a group of selfish demogogues.

More lies.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
Who is the Leader of The Tea Party?
Depends on who you ask. As far as I'm aware, it's a group of leaderless morons who simply adhere to the rules of mob mentality.
I don't hate the tea party. I think they're being misled by a group of selfish demogogues.
More lies.
Go ahead and pull a quote where I've said I hate the tea party. Good luck in that venture.

Your assumptions are not reality.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
As far as I'm aware, it's a group of leaderless morons who simply adhere to the rules of mob mentality.

Then they don't have 'selfish demagogues' as leaders? Make up your mind.
Since you insult them, you must not like them very much.
That put you on the side of Chucky Schumer.

Sen. Chuck Schumer On Budget: Tea Party "Is The Problem"
http://www.realcl...lem.html
SteveL
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2011
Who is the Leader of The Tea Party?
I don't hate the tea party. I think they're being misled by a group of selfish demogogues.

More lies.

People can disagree without hating each other for their differences. Well, at least some of us can. It's a bit of a stretch to call someone a liar when you really don't know.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
It's a bit of a stretch to call someone a liar when you really don't know.

It's demonstrable and it has been acknowledged. What more is required?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2011
So in short, you have nothing, you never had anything, and your asking for my help in damning me.....

Next?