# Title 24 California



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Magnettica said:


> This is ridiculous.


 I second that.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

gentlemen, ridiculous is not the correct word.....horrifying is...

mags, you don't have kids (do you?), but when you do, their kids will still be paying for this mess....

so please have lots of kids to help take the burden off my son:laughing:


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

For residential, this pretty much sums it up. http://www.lutron.com/CATitle24/default.asp?page=coderequirement

For commercial, mainly just lighting controls. AB switching for areas with natural light. Motion sensors and an Intermatic 24 hour timer to shut off lights at night.

Biggest problem so far, fluorescent fixtures in kitchens. You cant just put a 6" can in a kitchen and install a CFL. It must be a CFL fixture. On single story kitchens, fixtures can be replaced easily after final. Floor above, a little harder. Easiest solution I have found for kitchens. Install a cheapy floerescent fixture to a ceiling box. Passes inspection. Then install customers $400 decorative incadescent fixture. 

Bathrooms, install a cheap sensor with incadescent lighting and replace after inspection. Most women hate fluorescent in bathrooms. The mirrors don't drink alcohol.

Utility rooms, garages, and laundry rooms, I like T-8's.

Dimmers everywhere else is ok.

CFL with motion sensor in attic required here. WTF? 

It still pisses me off that this great state enacted this BS. If people want (48) 6" 65 watt downlights and want to pay for their usage, then what deal is it of the state? We have the power. We are not going to run out.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

knowshorts said:


> For residential, this pretty much sums it up. http://www.lutron.com/CATitle24/default.asp?page=coderequirement
> 
> For commercial, mainly just lighting controls. AB switching for areas with natural light. Motion sensors and an Intermatic 24 hour timer to shut off lights at night.
> 
> ...


Thank you for all the information. We have more coal on this continent than the Saudi's have oil, yet we're throwing it away in the name on a farce known as global warming. Didn't intend on getting in to it here but that's why these laws exist. If the restrictions that California has spreads across the country I'll never be able to buy a home.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I think its great that the great state of Calif is leading the way into the future. My only hope is that they will see the light, and join with the city of Chicago in requiring everything to be run in pipe.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Anyone ever run across a link that is the summary of the main Title 24 requirements?


----------



## JamesINla (May 19, 2007)

Ripping out the CFL cans is a common occurance after final. However LED fixtures are starting to pickup on non budget driven jobs. Motion sensors in the walk in pantrys are a good idea...


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Magnettica said:


> what do the California EC's think about the requirements?


Im not an EC, just an electrician, but it sure doesnt bother me! I Support energy conservation in general, but not necessarly agree with alll the dang rules we have.

For an example: I HATE seeing motion lights mounted on peoples' houses in their driveway, and when a car goes by - it turns on. Thats way too sensitive and is a waste of electricity. But on the flipside, I figured I would try to conserve energy when I bought my new house, and installed a motion light at my front door. Its 10:30pm and 90 degrees out right now - I dont think it 'saw' me and wouldnt turn on. So, I had to put all the crap in my hands down so I could put my hand in front of the sensor so it would turn on so I could open the door.

If energy conservative devices worked as described 100% of the time, I believe people would be more apt to install them.

~Matt


----------



## goose134 (Nov 12, 2007)

This is another well intentioned but misguided effort to lower the carbon footprint of the nation. The mercury footprint will be a bit larger.


----------



## joe cool (Jun 4, 2009)

I had to swap a bunch of canlights in a kitchen out for the 4-pin kind and haven't made that mistake again. For bathrooms I have a pair of like-new 4-pin ceiling lights that have passed many inpections.
I've found that an intermatic timeclock can pass for a lighting controller in small commercial, but one time I had to get a letter from the engineer supporting this. Most recently I found some intermatic digital ones that even said title 24 on the box. I think they were $150 each will do two circuits, look a lot better than the swimming pool pump ones.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

the fact that you guys in California temporarily install fluorescents to pass inspection, then change to incandescents, just proves that this is flawed legislation and a waste of time, effort and energy....not to mention money....

this truly has become a sad country...we should be proud of ourselves...


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

knowshorts said:


> Biggest problem so far, fluorescent fixtures in kitchens. You cant just put a 6" can in a kitchen and install a CFL. It must be a CFL fixture. On single story kitchens, fixtures can be replaced easily after final. Floor above, a little harder. * Easiest solution I have found for kitchens. Install a cheapy floerescent fixture to a ceiling box. Passes inspection. Then install customers $400 decorative incadescent fixture.
> 
> Bathrooms, install a cheap sensor with incandescent lighting and replace after inspection. *



I am a licensed professional, I would never help a customer break the rules. 

I hope you get caught and screwed hard.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> I am a licensed professional, I would never help a customer break the rules.
> 
> I hope you get caught and screwed hard.


I completly agree. I have had to tell customers i have to "bla bla bla due to title 24" and they dont like it. Then they ask if I can change it after the inspection, I promptly tell them "I will not do it, because I have to follow the energy conservation guidelines, But I cant stop you from doing anything after I get the job finaled." I would never do a job to make it pass, then after the inspector leaves, change it - I would be putting my supervisor [the lisence holder] in a huge liability danger. Its foolish, and the guys that do in fact do that can not be called professionals.

~Matt


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

This is the first I heard that the rest of the country is going to title 24, were did you read that?:001_huh:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

drsparky said:


> This is the first I heard that the rest of the country is going to title 24, were did you read that?:001_huh:


Don't worry, go back to sleep.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

oldman said:


> Don't worry, go back to sleep.


I did not get the memo, I do industrial. I am sorry if my question upset you, shouldn't you be chasing kids off your lawn?:wheelchair:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

TOOL_5150 said:


> .......... But I cant stop you from doing anything after I get the job finaled." ...........


Just make sure your contract states you will provide no warranty if your work is altered by anyone but you.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

drsparky said:


> I did not get the memo, I do industrial. I am sorry if my question upset you, shouldn't you be chasing kids off your lawn?:wheelchair:


It doesn't matter if you are a landscaper. This is part of rthe energy bill they are cramming down our throats because people aren't paying attention. 

You didn't upset me, society as a whole has upset all of us.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> I am a licensed professional, I would never help a customer break the rules.
> 
> I hope you get caught and screwed hard.


 I agree with Bob 100% I hope it gets broke off in you.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> I am a licensed professional, I would never help a customer break the rules.
> 
> I hope you get caught and screwed hard.


Yeah, so am I. So what's your point. The fact of the matter is this "law" was not intended to "save the planet". That is a bunch of BS. This was enacted purely because of companies who sell dimmers and CFL's lobbying the right people.

Inspectors aren't stupid. They do NOT have to follow T-24 part 3 (CA Electric Code) or part 6 (CA Energy Code). It is up to their judgment. They know what's going on and for the most part agree with us contractors and customers. You're doing a $3.5 millions dollar house and inspector sees a bunch of cheap ass non color matching CFL pendants hanging in a kitchen and doesn't know what's up? He does. The "code" should stop at the box not what's attached to it. 

The bottom line is give the customer what they want. As long as it's safe, what's the deal?

Our newest installment of part 6 (not yet released), apparently, fart fans will have to be ran in reverse for a certain amount of time each hour to bring in fresh air to a residence (automatically). So now when it's 108 degrees outside and your A/C is fighting to keep your house cool, the "CA Energy Code" thinks you need to bring in fresh air (@108 degrees). This sounds real energy efficient. Once again, makes a lot a sense.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

knowshorts said:


> Yeah, so am I. So what's your point. The fact of the matter is this "law" was not intended to "save the planet". That is a bunch of BS. This was enacted purely because of companies who sell dimmers and CFL's lobbying the right people.
> 
> Inspectors aren't stupid. They do NOT have to follow T-24 part 3 (CA Electric Code) or part 6 (CA Energy Code). It is up to their judgment. They know what's going on and for the most part agree with us contractors and customers. You're doing a $3.5 millions dollar house and inspector sees a bunch of cheap ass non color matching CFL pendants hanging in a kitchen and doesn't know what's up? He does. The "code" should stop at the box not what's attached to it.
> 
> ...


I agree.

Title 24 energy rules punish those who follow the rules.
The idea of making people doing new construction use
crappy CFL cans while the person in the house next
door whose house was built in the 50's and doesn't
have any insulation burns away electric and natural
gas energy (which they can all afford because they
are paying $2K property tax on their $M+ home because
of Prop 13, another dysfunctional CA boondoggle)
is fundamentally flawed.

I am basically a rule follower, but when it comes to
total stupidity that is widely ignored by homeowners,
installers and inspectors, saying someone should be
punished for not following a stupid rule seems excessive.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

As some of you may know, Arnold has declared a state of emergency in CA due to our drought. People forget, SoCal is a desert. We don't get much rain. Yet we do have some of the largest water supplies in the country. 

The 2 largest reservoirs in CA are Shasta (North) and Dominigoni (South). Both hold an crap load of water. For the un-educated, by looking at Shasta, and noticing that the water level has dropped beween 50-100 feet across hundereds of miles of shore line would think it has to be because of drought conditions . It's not, it has to due with Salmon spawning in the Sacremento River. Look at Dominigoni. This resevor doubled (yes doubled) the capacity of water storage in CA. Water level hasn't dropped since it's innaguartion.

From LA to San Diego, there are now "laws" that you can only water your lawn on certain days of the week. We, as Californians, know we have to conserve water, but for someone to fine us if we water our lawn on a Thursday is rediculous. I shower with my ole lady to conserve water. I am averaging 4476 gallons a month under what the water company allows me without charging more per billing unit. So if I want to hose down my driveway once a month, eff off. 

People make it sound as if we are going to run out of water. We are not. Last I looked, the oceans were still made of water. And desalination techniques are there.

As far as electricity goes, as long as we have water, wind, and that big hot ball in the sky, our electrical generation is infinite.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

knowshorts said:


> ......... I am averaging 4476 gallons a month ..........


You use over 6 gallons of water _*per hour*_?


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

As far as Bob and 5150's remarks, I am going to let that slide. I turn over a code compliant property, every time. Oops, there was that one time when I strapped a piece of 3/4" EMT 37" from the box. Please forgive me. I have never, and I repeat never, had an inspection fail or re-due. I don't even know if a "red tag" is really red.

If I change out a CFL to an incandescent or replace a motion sensor to a toggle it is not a requirement to pull a permit and get it inspected. It is not dangerous to the propery owner. It will not kill anyone. I will not lose my license. It is not inforcible. It is not unethical. It is not illigal.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

480sparky said:


> You use over 6 gallons of water _*per hour*_?


No, that is what I am NOT using. My water company thinks that with the size of property I have and the number of people in my household, normal usage should be x amount per month. I have been averaging 6 billing units UNDER normal usage. Each billing unit is 746 gallons.


----------



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> Anyone ever run across a link that is the summary of the main Title 24 requirements?


 
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-005/chapters_4q/6_Lighting.pdf


----------



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

Magnettica said:


> So now that the whole country's about to adopt California's dopey energy act, what do the California EC's think about the requirements? I've read that a few of the requirements are _fluorescent lights only in the kitchen_, and outside, and also the exterior lights need to be on photo-cells and/ or timers. I could easily do a search for all the other requirements but I would like to hear from the EC's out west. This is ridiculous.


 

Actually it is 50% of total lighting wattage in kitchen has to be high efficacy. So what ends up happening is, you install whatever incandescent the customer wants and then add enough fluorescents for inspection. After inspection you remove the fluorescents. There is nothing that says I can't remove a fixture! If the HO decides to keep the fluorescents, they are now using 50% more energy.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

knowshorts said:


> As far as Bob and 5150's remarks, I am going to let that slide. I turn over a code compliant property, every time. Oops, there was that one time when I strapped a piece of 3/4" EMT 37" from the box. Please forgive me. I have never, and I repeat never, had an inspection fail or re-due. I don't even know if a "red tag" is really red.


Yeah, you just make them un-compliant after the fact ........ I don't see that as something to be proud of.



> If I change out a CFL to an incandescent or replace a motion sensor to a toggle it is not a requirement to pull a permit and get it inspected. It is not dangerous to the propery owner. It will not kill anyone. I will not lose my license. It is not inforcible. It is not unethical. It is not illigal.


It is unethical, if that is your style then I assume your trunk slamming hack.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

knowshorts said:


> Yeah, so am I. So what's your point. The fact of the matter is this "law" was not intended to "save the planet". That is a bunch of BS. This was enacted purely because of companies who sell dimmers and CFL's lobbying the right people.


If you do not agree with a law you do not get the option to ignore it.

If you really feel it is wrong than lobby to change it instead of being a snake about it.



> The bottom line is give the customer what they want. As long as it's safe, what's the deal?


In my opinion the deal is, when a professional is hired a professional follows the codes and laws without trying to fake out the inspection process.

To each their own.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> If you do not agree with a law you do not get the option to ignore it.
> .


Bob.. ever go over the speed limit or not report a cash job you did??


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> Bob.. ever go over the speed limit or not report a cash job you did??


You suck  ask me questions I can not lie about. :laughing:

Well I do not do side jobs so that takes care of that and I have not gotten a speeding ticket in many years .......... If I do get a speeding ticket it will be because I deserve it and I will not bitch about paying any fines.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> I have not gotten a speeding ticket in many years ..........


 You better knock on some wood!!!!:laughing:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

william1978 said:


> You better knock on some wood!!!!:laughing:


I know ........ :laughing:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> You suck  ask me questions I can not lie about. :laughing:
> 
> Well I do not do side jobs so that takes care of that and I have not gotten a speeding ticket in many years .......... If I do get a speeding ticket it will be because I deserve it and I will not bitch about paying any fines.


So you do break the law by speeding :laughing: and we all know reporting cash jobs in this economy will never happen. :whistling2:

PS: Normally you don't do side jobs, but if a fist full of hundreds came your way.. well....


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> but if a fist full of hundreds came your way.. well....


You making an offer? :jester:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> You making an offer? :jester:


:laughing::thumbup:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

I personally like the stringent energy standards. I cant tell you how many times I see parking lot lots, street lights and what not on all hours of the day. Im not sure what the bath fans going backwards is about though..:001_huh:.
The days of high living and 5000 sq ft homes is comming to an end.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> I personally like the stringent energy standards. I cant tell you how many times I see parking lot lots, street lights and what not on all hours of the day. Im not sure what the bath fans going backwards is about though..:001_huh:.
> The days of high living and 5000 sq ft homes is comming to an end.


I believe people should have the freedom to waste as much money as they want on electric bills, and I'm not going to do a darn thing to stop them. If you think government regulations are going to save the world, you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> I believe people should have the freedom to waste as much money as they want on electric bills, and I'm not going to do a darn thing to stop them. If you think government regulations are going to save the world, you are sadly mistaken.


At least its a start in the right direction...The days of "Falcon Crest" are over. We all need to be more responsible in our usage. Peter I didnt realize you had a PHD in enviormental science...?


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

So you think its ok for us to Waste electricity......? why....? thats a really strange way to think ..........:001_huh:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Peter D said:


> I believe people should have the freedom to waste as much money as they want on electric bills, and I'm not going to do a darn thing to stop them. If you think government regulations are going to save the world, you are sadly mistaken.


 
I agree.. some people buy gold watches.. I Leave the lights on sometimes when I run out the door. 

I don't see the government telling Vegas to turn down all the neon lights or the endless "water features" some businesses have on their front lawn.

But *YOU* have to use certain energy conserving devices

If government wants to help the planet, just ban congress from flying all over the world on "fact finding missions" and fix the mess back home.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 11, 2008)

Let's face it. The main driving force behind CFL's is some politician getting a fat wallet from some lobbyist. I don't have the hard numbers in front of me, but I have read that CFL's cost a huge percentage more to produce as far as material and labor goes, more energy is consumed producing them, and then there's the enviromental issues with the mercury contained within. It all boils down to the bottom dollar, and someone isn't making enough money, so a pork loaded law has to be introduced to even things out.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

captkirk said:


> So you think its ok for us to Waste electricity......? why....? thats a really strange way to think ..........:001_huh:


?? It's not like we're asking you to pay for it. If I want to buy a pound of hamburger and throw it in the trash, or leave the lights on a pay for it when the bill comes... what's it to you? Both are quite legal.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

my issue is with the government mandates....if it costs me $100 to have an occupancy sensor installed, and it saves me $10/yr in electricity costs, it's not a good investment...and to have the government force me to make a bad investment is just a bit too much for me...

the flip is that the government picks up the tab, through incentives or rebates or credits, and the rest of the tax payers get forced into making a bad investment....

so, it looks like the current plan is to artificially increase the cost of energy in an effort to shorten the payback...much better plan...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> ?? It's not like we're asking you to pay for it. If I want to buy a pound of hamburger and throw it in the trash, or leave the lights on a pay for it when the bill comes... what's it to you? Both are quite legal.


I guess it all comes down to if you believe that global warming is real. If you don't, (and by your comment i take it that you dont) than the whole argument is a moot point. 
When people waste resources we all pay for it in the long run.
And its unfortunate that the Govt has to step in with drastic measures to get us to reprogram our habits. 
Marc if you had to pay 8.99 for that hamburger instead of 1.99 you would be less willing to throw half of it out. Which in turn would create less of a demand for beef, thus lowering the carbon footprint cattle farming causes. And the same goes with electricity, gas, coal, you name it.
Seriously Marc, Ive been reading your posts now for a few years and I really consider you to be a very logical person but this is really causing me to scratch my head. I dont expect much from Peter, but you....?

Sure old man makes a good point (and its debatable whether you are really only saving 10 bucks) but who says you have to use a 100 dollar motion sensor and not a simple 16 dollar crank timer. 

Marc your comment reminds me of my Dad complaining about having to recycle bottles and plastic. But I really think you just like to disagree with me...........(smiley face)


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> I believe people should have the freedom to waste as much money as they want on electric bills, and I'm not going to do a darn thing to stop them. If you think government regulations are going to save the world, you are sadly mistaken.


 WOW and this is comming from a "Blue Stater". How and when did you fall off the Bus............:001_huh:.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Hey Peter you look a little older in this pic

Its just a joke dude please dont take it to seriously.....


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

drsparky said:


> This is the first I heard that the rest of the country is going to title 24, were did you read that?:001_huh:


The bill would still need to pass the senate before O can sign it into law. 

Say a prayer unless you want to go work at the plant in China.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

I dont think it will pass.....


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

knowshorts said:


> Yeah, so am I. So what's your point. The fact of the matter is this "law" was not intended to "save the planet". That is a bunch of BS. This was enacted purely because of companies who sell dimmers and CFL's lobbying the right people.
> 
> Inspectors aren't stupid. They do NOT have to follow T-24 part 3 (CA Electric Code) or part 6 (CA Energy Code). It is up to their judgment. They know what's going on and for the most part agree with us contractors and customers. You're doing a $3.5 millions dollar house and inspector sees a bunch of cheap ass non color matching CFL pendants hanging in a kitchen and doesn't know what's up? He does. The "code" should stop at the box not what's attached to it.
> 
> ...



Oh yeah....... that makes a lot of sense. 

If you have to go back and rewire to the way the homeowners want their lighting, how is that law representing what the people want? I swear Californian politicians are seriously off their rockers when it comes to this. Shame that a few kook groups run the whole thing.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Kevin J said:


> Let's face it. The main driving force behind CFL's is some politician getting a fat wallet from some lobbyist. I don't have the hard numbers in front of me, but I have read that CFL's cost a huge percentage more to produce as far as material and labor goes, more energy is consumed producing them, and then there's the enviromental issues with the mercury contained within. It all boils down to the bottom dollar, and someone isn't making enough money, so a pork loaded law has to be introduced to even things out.


That;s pretty much the way i see it too, Kevin. :thumbsup:


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I dont think it will pass.....


I'm not so sure, the democrats have a super-majority.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I guess it all comes down to if you believe that global warming is real. If you don't, (and by your comment i take it that you dont) than the whole argument is a moot point.
> When people waste resources we all pay for it in the long run.
> And its unfortunate that the Govt has to step in with drastic measures to get us to reprogram our habits.
> Marc if you had to pay 8.99 for that hamburger instead of 1.99 you would be less willing to throw half of it out. Which in turn would create less of a demand for beef, thus lowering the carbon footprint cattle farming causes. And the same goes with electricity, gas, coal, you name it.
> ...


go to europe....they have astronomical taxes and fees on items to artificially drive up the price, thereby reducing consumption...it's not the life i want to live....

as for the sensor - what about people who can't install it themselves? are you going to donate your labor for the greater good?

if you really want to save the planet, you need to change people hearts and minds....perfect example is all the guys in CA who do what the law says to get passed inspection, then do what they want after....

you can't force people to think a certain way, you need to convince them to think a certain way...


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Hey Cali electricians.....

Have you seen your profits increase or decrease since Title 24 became law?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> Oh yeah....... that makes a lot of sense.
> 
> If you have to go back and rewire to the way the homeowners want their lighting, how is that law representing what the people want? I swear Californian politicians are seriously off their rockers when it comes to this. Shame that a few kook groups run the whole thing.


I agree.. California seems to breed waco people with really waco ideas.

Just remember #3 in line for President is Nancy Pelosi.. the best SF treat ever produced :blink:


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Just make sure your contract states you will provide no warranty if your work is altered by anyone but you.


You bet it does! :thumbsup:

~Matt


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

Black4Truck said:


> I agree.. California seems to breed waco people with really waco ideas.
> 
> Just remember #3 in line for President is Nancy Pelosi.. the best SF treat ever produced :blink:


Give me a break. NY has produced Schumer, Rangel, Nadler and
Lowey, to name a few of the politicians from your state.

California is a big state, so please don't treat it with
narrow-minded caricatures.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> I dont expect much from Peter, but you....?


You say this as if I somehow might care about your opinion of me. But I don't expect much from you either as more often that not you resort to personal attacks. Doesn't really bolster your arguments very well. :no:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> You say this as if I somehow might care about your opinion of me. But I don't expect much from you either as more often that not you resort to personal attacks. Doesn't really bolster your arguments very well. :no:


 Its ment more as a joke....im sorry you take it so personal.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> WOW and this is comming from a "Blue Stater". How and when did you fall off the Bus............:001_huh:.



I've been a conservative for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in the lie of global warming nor do I believe that we are rapidly running out of resources. We have all the resources we need to generate electricity in this nation in the form of coal, nuclear power and even burning garbage. This latest nonsense is just more scare tactics to push through another massive power grab by the gov't.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 11, 2008)

Peter D said:


> I've been a conservative for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in the lie of global warming nor do I believe that we are rapidly running out of resources. We have all the resources we need to generate electricity in this nation in the form of coal, nuclear power and even burning garbage. This latest nonsense is just more scare tactics to push through another massive power grab by the gov't.


But Peter, Al Gore made a movie about the danger of global warming that we are now facing, and you have to believe him with all of his scientific credentials and all.:whistling2:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

When people state things like i have a "right" to throw away food, and waste electricity needlessly , im really not expecting you to understand how it affects all of us and not just your wallet. 
My "attacks" arent ment to be personal and I appologize if you dont like my sense of humor so if it is really a problem why dont you just put me on your ignor list. Because its not you persay that I am attacking but your old school mentality of the "world is my oyster" that I am really jabbing at. Im sure in your circle of friends you are a swell guy so "cool your jets Starsky"


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> I've been a conservative for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in the lie of global warming nor do I believe that we are rapidly running out of resources. We have all the resources we need to generate electricity in this nation in the form of coal, nuclear power and even burning garbage. This latest nonsense is just more scare tactics to push through another massive power grab by the gov't.


 And with that folks the Defense rests its case......:thumbsup:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> go to europe....they have astronomical taxes and fees on items to artificially drive up the price, thereby reducing consumption...it's not the life i want to live....
> 
> as for the sensor - what about people who can't install it themselves? are you going to donate your labor for the greater good?
> 
> ...


 Trying to change hearts and minds will never happen. Just read some of this thread and you'll see what most of the population thinks. Apparently we have an unlimited supply of coal, global warming is a myth started by "leviton" and the like, and its cool to stay dependant on foreign oil.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> When people state things like i have a "right" to throw away food, and waste electricity needlessly , im really not expecting you to understand how it affects all of us and not just your wallet.


Yes, this is commonly called "freedom." Freedom necessarily carries certain negative effects with it that must be accepted because the alternatives to a society with certain freedoms are far worse. But it sounds like you want the gov't telling you what to do and what kind of light bulbs you can and can't install. Not me. 




> My "attacks" arent ment to be personal and I appologize if you dont like my sense of humor so if it is really a problem why dont you just put me on your ignor list. Because its not you persay that I am attacking but your old school mentality of the "world is my oyster" that I am really jabbing at. Im sure in your circle of friends you are a swell guy so "cool your jets Starsky"


Ok, whatever you say. :laughing:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> Apparently we have an unlimited supply of coal, global warming is a myth started by "leviton" and the like, and its cool to stay dependant on foreign oil.


And with that folks, the Defense rests its case. :thumbsup:

I can't tell if this is your sense of "humor" speaking or you're attempting to put words in my mouth, but I never said we have an infinite supply of resources. I said I don't believe we are *rapidly running out of them,* particularly the resources required to generate electricity.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> Yes, this is commonly called "freedom." Freedom necessarily carries certain negative effects with it that must be accepted because the alternatives to a society with certain freedoms are far worse. But it sounds like you want the gov't telling you what to do and what kind of light bulbs you can and can't install. Not me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 WOW OMG :laughing: maybe your not so inteligent. I got to show this to my friends ....:laughing: ....you really are a little nutty fellow arent you...


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Kevin J said:


> But Peter, Al Gore made a movie about the danger of global warming that we are now facing, and you have to believe him with all of his scientific credentials and all.:whistling2:


But of course. :laughing:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Your like the William Wallace of energy consumption....FREEDOM TO LEAVE MY LIGHTS ON ALLLLLLL NIGHT.....................FREDOOM............:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

If you dont mind I need to print this thread to show some friends at NYU...:laughing: this will make a fun Monday Morning


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

OK, let me make this as clear as I possibly can because the point doesn't seem to be getting across:

*I DON'T WANT MORE UNNECESSARY GOVERNMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO OUR DAILY USE OF ENERGY.*

Do you get it now?


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> Trying to change hearts and minds will never happen. Just read some of this thread and you'll see what most of the population thinks. Apparently we have an unlimited supply of coal, global warming is a myth started by "leviton" and the like, and its cool to stay dependant on foreign oil.


we've had over 50 years of indoctrination of the 'end of the world' in the public schools...the fact that some don't believe is testament to the hope that common sense is still somewhat common....

you can't legislate people to change their behavior...look at prohibition...you can't force people to do what you believe is 'the right thing'....look at Title 24 and the shenanigans to get around it in CA....

i will add that there are many socialist countries in this world where you can pay a lot of money for a little bit of product in an effort to reduce consumption, you are free to move to any one of them...

I watched a few minutes of a silly movie today called "Hammer" starring Adam Carolla....in it there is a scene where he is sitting with 4 immigrants from Nicaragua....they were toasting something and before every drink, they would say "Nicaragua" in toast...Adam Carolla said something to the effect of : 'you talk about Nicaragua a lot and how proud you are....except you never talk about the part where you risked your lives not to live there anymore'

point being, we are turning our country into the very thing that many people moved here to get away from....

and this bill may not pass senate this time (though I believe it will), but the fact that it's being shoved down our throats the way it is....what do you think will happen with his healthcare plan?


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

Peter D said:


> I've been a conservative for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in the lie of global warming nor do I believe that we are rapidly running out of resources. We have all the resources we need to generate electricity in this nation in the form of coal, nuclear power and even burning garbage. This latest nonsense is just more scare tactics to push through another massive power grab by the gov't.


I to would never hug a tree. Your statement is nonsense. Energy efficiency is a responsibility for us to share whats here with our great grand children.You are watching to much TV.If 100yrs ago TR didn't create
the national parks act, the knuckle heads from the past would of logged every great forest polluted every water resource and filled the grand canyon with your garbage. Could you picture that?


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> WOW OMG :laughing: maybe your not so inteligent. I got to show this to my friends ....:laughing: ....you really are a little nutty fellow arent you...





captkirk said:


> If you dont mind I need to print this thread to show some friends at NYU...:laughing: this will make a fun Monday Morning


i've been through the liberal college system in this country...heck my degree is in environment science from Rutgers (Cook College)...I'd put about as much stock in the opinions of you NYU friends as I would in a plumbers opinion on how to wire a hospital...

what peter said about freedom is correct...it can't be freedom if it's loaded down with stipulations...


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

acmax said:


> Energy efficiency is a responsibility for us to share whats here with our great grand children.


Uh...no, actually it's not. I'm not under any obligation to conserve resources that I can pay for with my own money.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Peter D said:


> I don't believe in the lie of global warming


 
 ummmm.. what do you think is causing all the ice to melt on the north and south poles??


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> maybe your not so inteligent.


It's spelled "you're," not "your." Funny how you made that mistake in a sentence commenting about my intelligence. :laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> ummmm.. what do you think is causing all the ice to melt on the north and south poles??


not me using a spray can....

mount pinatubo had a bigger impact than humans...

there is a natural ebb and flow, and we tend to forget this...it operates over millenia, we are alive for decades...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Look Im not saying that i like the proposal but something needs to be done to help curve our growing need for consuming natural resouces. Look I can literally talk about this for hours and hours but I really dont think it will do any good. If you guys think its ok to be a wastfull society than there isnt much I can do to change your minds. So lets all just agree to disagree.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

captkirk said:


> .
> if you had to pay 8.99 for that hamburger instead of 1.99 you would be less willing to throw half of it out. Which in turn would create less of a demand for beef, thus lowering the carbon footprint cattle farming causes. And the same goes with electricity, gas, coal, you name it.


 i have to disagree with you. when necessities get too expensive to buy people start stealing. most people will do whatever it takes to feed their family. just look at last summers gas prices, the people that got hit the hardest were the poor. 

the only thing these types of laws accomplish is bringing the price of a new home out of reach for most americans.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

make one thing abundantly clear - i'm not in favor of wasting resources...i personally do quite a bit to conserve - from CFL's to more efficient vehicles, etc......

i just do not believe in legislating this...simple as that...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> It's spelled "you're," not "your." Funny how you made that mistake in a sentence commenting about my intelligence. :laughing::laughing::laughing:


 LOL thats all you got........:laughing:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

though, the truth is that this debate is moot....the Autobots and Decepticons are going to destroy our world anyway....i saw a documentary about it...


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

oldman said:


> make one thing abundantly clear - i'm not in favor of wasting resources...i personally do quite a bit to conserve - from CFL's to more efficient vehicles, etc......
> 
> i just do not believe in legislating this...simple as that...


Agreed.

I believe in conservation for pragmatic reasons: it saves me money.


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

Peter D said:


> Uh...no, actually it's not. I'm not under any obligation to conserve resources that I can pay for with my own money.


 
:no: The reason we are subject to so many little laws is because of the way you act and selfishly feel entitled to behave. What shows in your statement is poor judgement and silly arrogance. Curbing the events to 
prevent harm or waste is a good thing.
low heat lighting makes sense.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

mattsilkwood said:


> i have to disagree with you. when necessities get too expensive to buy people start stealing. most people will do whatever it takes to feed their family. just look at last summers gas prices, the people that got hit the hardest were the poor.
> 
> the only thing these types of laws accomplish is bringing the price of a new home out of reach for most americans.


 I am just trying to make the point that we have undervalued our resources for years and years. Think of the waste as power factor. If the cattle farms produce 100 million cattle in a year and 20 million winds up in the garbage think of all the energy and resources that went into creating that wasted meat. And this example applies to many other things. I am simply saying that we should try harder to limit the amount of waste that goes in the garbage, Up until now, simply telling people there are starving people in Africa or supplying them with hard numbers doesn't seem to be doing the job so the Gov is taking drastic measures to curve this waste.

And you dont have to take the Beef example literally. Use it as a metaphor for many other things . 
That in short is what I am basing my arguments on, but oddly enough there seems to be a large contingent of folks that seem to feel it is our divine right to be waste full and it has no bearing on the greater good other than the users wallet. I hope this helps some.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I am just trying to make the point that we have undervalued our resources for years and years. Think of the waste as power factor. If the cattle farms produce 100 million cattle in a year and 20 million winds up in the garbage think of all the energy and resources that went into creating that wasted meat. And this example applies to many other things. I am simply saying that we should try harder to limit the amount of waste that goes in the garbage, Up until now, simply telling people there are starving people in Africa or supplying them with hard numbers doesn't seem to be doing the job so the Gov is taking drastic measures to *curve* this waste.
> 
> And you dont have to take the Beef example literally. Use it as a metaphor for many other things .
> That in short is what I am basing my arguments on, but oddly enough there seems to be a large contingent of folks that seem to feel it is our divine right to be waste full and it has no bearing on the greater good other than the users wallet. I hope this helps some.


curb....being on a soapbox is better when the proper words are used...unless you happen to be al sharpton or jesse jackson...


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

oldman said:


> there is a natural ebb and flow, and we tend to forget this...it operates over millenia, we are alive for decades...


I have heard that argument before and it is possible.

BUT.. what if all the doom and gloom is correct and the sea levels will rise 10 feet in the next 50 years??

I think it is much smarter to error on the side of caution.

Pictures don't lie.. just look at the pole pics from 10 years ago. *THAT* is scary.

I don't want government telling me what kind of light fixtures I can sell my customers. 

Washington is the biggest producer of methane gas with all their BS


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

acmax said:


> :no: The reason we are subject to so many little laws is because of the way you act and selfishly feel entitled to behave. What shows in your statement is poor judgement and silly arrogance. Curbing the events to
> prevent harm or waste is a good thing.
> low heat lighting makes sense.


 Thank you sir, its nice to see someone else has some sense of logic. I was starting to feel like the "Reds" were going to overwhelm me...:2guns:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

I love it when people start getting on the spelling bit. It shows that I am making some kind of dent.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> I have heard that argument before and it is possible.
> 
> BUT.. what if all the doom and gloom is correct and the sea levels will rise 10 feet in the next 50 years??
> 
> ...


so you are for more rules and regulations? not for more rules and regs? don't know what you're for? c'mon pick a side...


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I love it when people start getting on the spelling bit. It shows that I am making some kind of dent.


not quite...i just find it fascinating that someone who is claiming the morally elitist role, uses a word that is completely incorrect....not a misspelling, but an incorrect meaning...i should send it to my friends at Princeton and Harvard, it will give them a great laugh on Monday morning...


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

acmax said:


> :no: The reason we are subject to so many little laws is because of the way you act and selfishly feel entitled to behave. What shows in your statement is poor judgement and silly arrogance. Curbing the events to
> prevent harm or waste is a good thing.
> low heat lighting makes sense.


Is it better to make laws and *FORCE* him to abide by *YOUR* standards?

If he wants to waste money.. why not?

I see people blowing $80,000.00 on a new BMW.. should we tell them that is excessive to have 500hp. and make it a crime :no:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

acmax said:


> :no: The reason we are subject to so many little laws is because of the way you act and selfishly feel entitled to behave. What shows in your statement is poor judgement and silly arrogance. Curbing the events to
> prevent harm or waste is a good thing.
> low heat lighting makes sense.


what you don't seem to comprehend is this....pass all the laws you want, if people don't believe in them, they will find ways around them...

look at what the contractors who are currently in california are doing...

so you advocate spending millions, if not billions, of tax dollars to force through a series of laws that people don't believe in, and will find a way to avoid?

and this makes sense to you?


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> so you are for more rules and regulations? not for more rules and regs? don't know what you're for? c'mon pick a side...


 I think we are all on the side of America sir. There is nothing we want more than to see our Nation be that pinacle of hope for the rest of the world to follow. But it wont happen if we throw away food, coal, gas . And if the Govt wants me to CURB my energy use, well Bygumit thats what I am going to do and you wont catch me whining about it.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> Is it better to make laws and *FORCE* him to abide by *YOUR* standards?
> 
> If he wants to waste money.. why not?
> 
> I see people blowing $80,000.00 on a new BMW.. should we tell them that is excessive to have 500hp. and make it a crime :no:


that's not far off...

i would like those of you in favor of all these laws to walk up to any world war II veteran (or their grave site) and just kick them in the nuts and spit on them...

that's what we as a country are doing....we are giving up our responsibilities, and right along with them our rights and freedoms...

we feel we are incapable of making our own decisions, so let the government make them for us...


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Has there been anything remotely related to electical in the past 60 posts?


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> what you don't seem to comprehend is this....pass all the laws you want, if people don't believe in them, they will find ways around them...
> 
> look at what the contractors who are currently in california are doing...
> 
> ...


 Year ago people didnt believe that smoking was dangerous. They even used cartoon characters and doctors to pedal cigarettes. Im sure you remember this as it was probably from your era.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

oldman said:


> so you are for more rules and regulations? not for more rules and regs? don't know what you're for? c'mon pick a side...


I don't pick sides.. each side has facts in their favor and mostly believe what I can see

I am an independent thinker and refuse to join any* side :no:*


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> not quite...i just find it fascinating that someone who is claiming the morally elitist role, uses a word that is completely incorrect....not a misspelling, but an incorrect meaning...i should send it to my friends at Princeton and Harvard, it will give them a great laugh on Monday morning...


 Please try to stay on topic sir. (snapping my fingers in your face)


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> I don't pick sides.. each side has facts in their favor and mostly believe what I can see
> 
> I am an independent thinker and refuse to join any* side :no:*


then go sit in the corner...straddling the fence and flip flopping is not a good thing...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> that's not far off...
> 
> i would like those of you in favor of all these laws to walk up to any world war II veteran (or their grave site) and just kick them in the nuts and spit on them...
> 
> ...


 OMG now your just talking crazy. seriously you were sort of holding your own for a while but now its all gone. I think its time you call it quits pops. Every time I see a Vet WWII Vietnam, Korea, I either honk my horn and give a thumbs up or shake their hands. Ive got nothing but the utmost respect for our Armed Forces.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

oldman said:


> then go sit in the corner...straddling the fence and flip flopping is not a good thing...


Why is wrong for me to pick and choose the ideas I want to believe in and support?? :blink:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I think we are all on the side of America sir. There is nothing we want more than to see our Nation be that pinacle of hope for the rest of the world to follow. But it wont happen if we throw away food, coal, gas . And if the Govt wants me to CURB my energy use, well Bygumit thats what I am going to do and you wont catch me whining about it.


Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and Lenin would have loved you....




480sparky said:


> Has there been anything remotely related to electical in the past 60 posts?


no, that's why it's gotten so many posts...



captkirk said:


> Year ago people didnt believe that smoking was dangerous. They even used cartoon characters and doctors to pedal cigarettes. Im sure you remember this as it was probably from your era.


and you're point is? banning smoking in bars/restaurants, age restrictions, etc have stopped every underage smoker and no one has died from cigarettes since these laws were enacted?


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

If you guys dont think that the Govnt is looking out for future generations than you really are ego centrics. What you call an infingment on our civil liberties is really a sacrifice that the present generations need to make so the future ones will have a future. Sacrifices that are similar to what many of our Armed Forces had to make to others would have a chance to live.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> OMG now your just talking crazy. seriously you were sort of holding your own for a while but now its all gone. I think its time you call it quits pops. Every time I see a Vet WWII Vietnam, Korea, I either honk my horn and give a thumbs up or shake their hands. Ive got nothing but the utmost respect for our Armed Forces.


yet, you argue that we should relinquish the very freedoms, privilages and rights that they fought and died for....that sir, makes you a hypocrite...

and if i were concerned with you're opinions on any debate I may or may not have, i would be in trouble...this is just 11pm sunday night funtime...


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

oldman said:


> Adolf Hitler, Mousolin and Lenin would have loved you....


Mussolini.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> If you guys dont think that the Govnt is looking out for future generations than you really are ego centrics. What you call an infingment on our civil liberties is really a sacrifice that the present generations need to make so the future ones will have a future. Sacrifices that are similar to what many of our Armed Forces had to make to others would have a chance to live.


if you believe that our current government is capable of thinking that far ahead, then I have a bridge in NY to sell you...and again, I would say that you would have been loved by all dictators through out history...you are their perfect follower...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

:001_huh:


oldman said:


> Adolf Hitler, Mousolin and Lenin would have loved you....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Sooooooooooooo your saying that its good to have smoking in public places....? Man how old are you...? :001_huh:.. OK I need to stop now because this is starting to not seem like a fair debate anymore. I actually am starting to feel sorry for you a little. Hitler, Mussolini ....? 

tell me if this guy looks like a bad guy......


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Mussolini.


you know what's funny? i actually did a quick spell check on google and still spelled it incorrectly...hey, 2 out of 3 ain't bad:whistling2:


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

oldman said:


> what you don't seem to comprehend is this....pass all the laws you want, if people don't believe in them, they will find ways around them...
> 
> look at what the contractors who are currently in california are doing...
> 
> ...


I certainly do not advocate for unnecessary laws that enrich privileged people or prevent a person from any common sense freedoms.Only that through knowledge based reason, and not simply whats cheapest or happens to be readily available we should act accordingly. I'm glad someone knows that thier are health and other effects from products and try to prevent us from killing ourselves. This is getting a little political and I 
am only a electrician and can't fix stupid.:no:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Good night all and thanks for the debate, I acually enjoyed it.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> And if the Govt wants me to CURB my energy use, well Bygumit thats what I am going to do and you wont catch me whining about it.


Finally, you have admitted what I have suspected all along. 

That kind of mentality sounds like a chicken willingly running into the slaughterhouse to have its head cut off.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

:wallbash:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

acmax said:


> I certainly do not advocate for unnecessary laws that enrich privileged people or prevent a person from any common sense freedoms.Only that through knowledge based reason, and not simply whats cheapest or happens to be readily available we should act accordingly. I'm glad someone knows that thier are health and other effects from products and try to prevent us from killing ourselves. This is getting a little political and I
> am only a electrician and can't fix stupid.:no:


You eat meat?

You drive a car?

You drink alcohol?

All dangerous.


There are risk in everything we do, I do not want the government determining what I should and should do with the basic freedoms I/we/you have.


Studies have shown that helmets wore by drivers would prohibit many deaths and brain injuries, Should they be mandated?

You think Nancy Pelosi has any common sense to determine what is good for me. GET REAL


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Peter D said:


> I've been a conservative for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in the lie of global warming nor do I believe that we are rapidly running out of resources. We have all the resources we need to generate electricity in this nation in the form of coal, nuclear power and even burning garbage. This latest nonsense is just more scare tactics to push through another massive power grab by the gov't.



Word up, Peter!

Well said. 

Global warming is a farce because we cannot as a people control the climate to either warm it up or cool it down.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> :001_huh:
> Sooooooooooooo your saying that its good to have smoking in public places....? Man how old are you...? :001_huh:.. OK I need to stop now because this is starting to not seem like a fair debate anymore. I actually am starting to feel sorry for you a little. Hitler, Mussolini ....?
> 
> tell me if this guy looks like a bad guy......


actually, I don't smoke and I really don't like the smell...however, I have the right to not go someplace where people smoke...and if enough people want to be smoke free, then it would be economically viable for a private business owner to ban smoking in his establishment...this is called capitalism in a free society....see, then we would have smoking establishments for those who choose to smoke, and non-smoking establishments for those who choose not to...instead, we have given up that choice....happily in the case of some...

feel sorry all you want, that's your prerogative....though, i see peter was quite correct about personal attacks, not just observations...

have a good night, and please sleep well knowing that you will get your wish. with the current economic climate, the freedoms that apparently you, yourself, fought for (and once believed in) are soon to be stripped from us. It will start small (CFL's, occupancy sensors...) but will grow...how long until electric cars are mandatory? 

i for one do not believe in your idea of America. Having family that lives in socialist countries (and having spent time there myself), I don't want to live in one...and the US is becoming one...rather quickly...

for those of you who haven't made a choice yet - decide if you want the ability to make that decision for yourself, or you want someone else to make it for you...that's really what it boils down to...

and captkrk.....good luck....never said you were a bad guy, just had bad ideas on how to get things accomplished...


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

captkirk said:


> If you dont mind I need to print this thread to show some friends at NYU...:laughing: this will make a fun Monday Morning


I bet they have lights on all night long, wasting energy, just like Peter's house. 
:laughing:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Magnettica said:


> I bet they have lights on all night long, wasting energy, just like Peter's house.
> :laughing:


intellectual elitists are the bane of societies existence....


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

oldman said:


> if you believe that our current government is capable of thinking that far ahead, then I have a bridge in NY to sell you...and again, I would say that you would have been loved by all dictators through out history...you are their perfect follower...


Why does it always have to be a bridge in New York?

Why not a bridge in St Louis, or Alexandria, VA?


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Magnettica said:


> Why does it always have to be a bridge in New York?
> 
> Why not a bridge in St Louis, or Alexandria, VA?


well, st louis the bridge is already stolen....and Alexandria is close enough to DC that the bridges already are really for sale...

so the dramatic effect only works with NY...:laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

oldman said:


> intellectual elitists are the bane of societies existence....



You mean Al Gore jetting around the country in a private jet on Earth DAy making millions of dollars.

Or that big C Barbara Strisestand (SP), telling us to drive smaller cars as she owns multiple limos and SUVs, But she needs them.

Oh the president of the Sierra Club drove a SUV (Chevy Suburban), his excuse he lives in the county and had 4 or 5 kids. Good for him not you.

OH and I am a liberal Green Wennie when it comes to the environment buy not to hypocrites.


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

brian john said:


> You eat meat?
> 
> You drive a car?
> 
> ...


 
Uh ? No I do not drink alcohol or think anything that comes from that 
pasty politician means squat. Back down Frances your nose is cold. 
Be realistic society has laws.Most that protect people like you to have a 
good life. When people like you start ranting about the laws or big brother 
you are showing your hand and are easy to bluff. God Bless The good ole US


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

acmax said:


> Uh ? No I do not drink alcohol or think anything that comes from that
> pasty politician means squat. Back down Frances your nose is cold.
> Be realistic society has laws.Most that protect people like you to have a
> good life. When people like you start ranting about the laws or big brother
> you are showing your hand and are easy to bluff. God Bless The good ole US


And this means something, I am missing your point??????


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Brian.. most people in power go by.. "do as I say.. not as I do".

Don't forget John Edwards.. multi-millionare trying to help the poor people while running around cheating on his wife


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Jan 27, 2009)

Hey I am no genius but I bet at least some of this governing is damage control for the skyrocketing amount of stupid in this country. The ol' gov't knows a lot of things about a lot of people...who is working, who is bankrupt, who is in foreclosure, who is on meds, what the education system is turning out....etc...etc....Code Red, the kids are eating paint chips again....and we got the literacy report from the public school system, turns out only 16% of the teachers passed.


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

brian john said:


> And this means something, I am missing your point??????


I posted I'm only an electrician,and can't fix stupid. This isn't a pissing match.You disagree OK that's it. Leave the lights on if your scared.:laughing:


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

captkirk said:


> :001_huh: tell me if this guy looks like a bad guy......


Is that yourself from back in the day? Where are the BC's?


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

oldman said:


> the freedoms that apparently you, yourself, fought for (and once believed in) are soon to be stripped from us. It will start small (CFL's, occupancy sensors...) but will grow...how long until electric cars are mandatory?


Yeah, and I hate all those mandatory receptacles required to serve kitchen countertops! Actually not, women want places to plug in their celphones, Ipods, and whatnots.

But this crap about AFCI's everywhere and TR receptacles... what gives?? Are we building the space shuttle or a family's dwelling?

What's funny is how we want to deregulate everything, but only actually deregulate the stuff that makes the rich more money.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

Good God, what did I help start. Let's get back to electrical for a minute.

As far as profits go, due to title 24 regulations, up slightly. Mainly due to "leasing fixtures and devices" and a little extra labor. This is in residential. What about TR outlets and AFCI's? I have never installed a TR. Not required yet. Would it be OK to skirt this on properties with no children? I have yet to install an AFCI either. As far as commercial, most of the time, on most of my jobs, I just add a simple Intermatic 24 hour time clock with an manual 2 hour wind down timer as an override. Lights are mainly controlled by toggles. Additional costs - about a grand. The main reason my profits are up is my hourly is higher, not because of T-24.

I do not "specialize" in residential. Typically about 10% of my sales come in the form of resi work. I have never advertised in the resi market. My resi work comes from contacts I make doing my commercial projects.

Those in CA who do what I do, don't do it to skirt the system. We do it to make OUR customers happy. I always tell my customers what the "rules" are and the desision is up to them. A lot of my resi customers are "facilities" type employees or other contractors or their employees, and are well aware of T-24 and the BS associated with it.

I made a comment earlier about a $400 incadescent fixture. A customers wife fell in love with a fixture she found and designed their entire kitchen around it. 

My job is to make my customers happy. If their not happy, my ole lady will have to get a 2nd job.

As far as trunk slammers go. Nope, not one. I'm a 3rd generation C-10. I couldn't compete. I get 4 times what them guys charge.


----------



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I guess it all comes down to if you believe that global warming is real. If you don't, (and by your comment i take it that you dont) than the whole argument is a moot point.
> When people waste resources we all pay for it in the long run.
> And its unfortunate that the Govt has to step in with drastic measures to get us to reprogram our habits.
> Marc if you had to pay 8.99 for that hamburger instead of 1.99 you would be less willing to throw half of it out. Which in turn would create less of a demand for beef, thus lowering the carbon footprint cattle farming causes. And the same goes with electricity, gas, coal, you name it.
> ...


Do you really beleive that cattle farming causes global warming? That claim in it of itself shows the lunacy of the globalwarming claim. Cattle have been around forever, somehow in the past few years they started destroying the world so fast that in 30 years or something it will be gone! 

Anyways that is just me getting statred but I used up my allotment of electricity for now!


----------



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

captkirk said:


> Trying to change hearts and minds will never happen. Just read some of this thread and you'll see what most of the population thinks. Apparently we have an unlimited supply of coal, global warming is a myth started by "leviton" and the like, and its cool to stay dependant on foreign oil.


 
We don't have to depend on foreign oil, there is oil available in the states if we got rid of the environmentalists. We can also go the route of the liberal French and use nuclear power.


----------



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

captkirk said:


> When people state things like i have a "right" to throw away food, and waste electricity needlessly , im really not expecting you to understand how it affects all of us and not just your wallet.
> My "attacks" arent ment to be personal and I appologize if you dont like my sense of humor so if it is really a problem why dont you just put me on your ignor list. Because its not you persay that I am attacking but your old school mentality of the "world is my oyster" that I am really jabbing at. Im sure in your circle of friends you are a swell guy so "cool your jets Starsky"


If this would be a real capitalist state and not a welfare state you wouldn't need to make laws to save energy. Energy cost money, money comes from hard work, people will only use what they can afford as they are aware they have a limited supply. In a welfare state money doesn't come from hard work therefore people have no incentive to save money or energy.


----------



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

captkirk said:


> If you guys dont think that the Govnt is looking out for future generations than you really are ego centrics. What you call an infingment on our civil liberties is really a sacrifice that the present generations need to make so the future ones will have a future. Sacrifices that are similar to what many of our Armed Forces had to make to others would have a chance to live.


Like Social Security? The government was really looking out for us there.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

In Cali, anything this side of peanut butter causes cancer, and almost any dingaling can get a legal card to buy grass. I love hotrods, try running one there. Some call Cali green, I say they smoked too much grass.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

funny thing about "stupid" is that it is subjective....those who believe that we should eat grass and ride a bike everywhere think that those who drive SUV's and use incandescent lamps are stupid....while the converse is true as well....

so, who's really stupid? guess that depends on how much you like the taste of grass


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Wireless said:


> Like Social Security? The government was really looking out for us there.


 You got that right. Won't be any left when I get there.:no:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Black4Truck said:


> Don't forget John Edwards.. multi-millionare trying to help the poor people while running around cheating on his wife


 And the bad thing is that D!ck head is from N.C.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

This is a great thread. One mpore thought. For those of you who feel that since you can't win over peoples hearts and minds, so you will force you will down their throats via legislation...

Way to go.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

oldman said:


> funny thing about "stupid" is that it is subjective....those who believe that we should eat grass and ride a bike everywhere think that those who drive SUV's and use incandescent lamps are stupid....while the converse is true as well....
> 
> so, who's really stupid? guess that depends on how much you like the taste of grass


 
Grandma Brownie seemed to keep many people pleased:laughing: Ohhh wait, the government said that wasn't proper. Grandma's a criminal, give her twenty years


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

Interesting thread and I think the word is "wacko," not "Waco." Waco is pronounced with a long A.

It is too bad that real issues such as global pollution are clouded by non-issues like poorly done legislation resulting in badly done laws and practices, but that's the real world.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

waco said:


> Interesting thread and I think the word is "wacko," not "Waco." Waco is pronounced with a long A.
> 
> It is too bad that real issues such as global pollution are clouded by non-issues like poorly done legislation resulting in badly done laws and practices, but that's the real world.


 
I'd say global pollution starts with corrupt politicians and career criminals,...you???


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

76nemo said:


> I'd say global pollution starts with corrupt politicians and career criminals,...you???


No, I can't say that conclusively. Common sense indicates we cannot exist without having some impact on the planet. The net consequences are open to debate, but I doubt the basic premise is debatable.

I do utterly disagree with knee-jerk reactionary non-solutions and I also agree that they are usually driven by the loudest special interests, but I also think we face real environmental issues which may or may not be addressed in any effective way.

In the long run, hydroelectric feeding a "smart grid" is probably the best short term solution. Dams and grids last a long time and I know photoelectric doesn't.

The answers are above my paygrade, that's for certain, which is why we elect others, isn't it? Problem is, those we elect might not be any smarter than us.

Logistics are involved and so far, most of the solutions offered seem to have ignored the logistical implications. Are CFLs really better, overall, than incandescents? I don't know.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Jan 27, 2009)

Man what a debate.........soap box time....

Nuke plants are the way to go but it will never happen on a broad scheme....

And while some of the global warming claims might be inflated, don't kid yourself, livestock farming pollutes like a motherf*cker. We are not talking free range livestock here, are you actually aware what the "farm" you probably get your meats from looks like? It's a giant warehouse crammed full of disease ridden antibiotic infested animals who piss and sh*t all over eachother, and then eventually the runoff finds it's way into rivers and streams and ultimately into our (meaning all humanity as one, let's try not to be egocentric here.....) water supply. Don't use the fact that cattle have been around forever as an attempt to deflate the claim that livestock farming is a large contributor to pollution, there is no comparison.

For the record I am not a fan of government intervention in our daily lives, but unfortunately it seems that we have gone too far too fast......suddenly everyone knows how to fix everything but nobody can agree on anything. This seems to be the time where mommy and daddy gov't have to step in and smack the sh*t out of us. So many of you sound like babies getting their pacifiers pulled from their mouths. Sometimes you get smacked even though you may not have done anything wrong, get over it. It really will not affect your life as much as you pretend to think it will. 

The world has a way of fixing itself anyhow, the Earth is a living thing and it can and will wipe us out when it wants, that is unless all the crazies with the self-fullfilling prophecies take care of that first........unfortunately I tend to think it will be the latter, for most of us anyhow.


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know that nukes are the best answer since we really have no way of managing them effectively. More efficiency probably helps, but hydroelectric is probably the most renewable and least polluting, although I don't know the full logistics scale involved.

If we had a reasonable way to manage all aspects of nukes, I'd agree with your viewpoint, but I don't think we're there and we probably won't get there as long as hydrocarbons are cheaper.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Wireless said:


> Do you really beleive that cattle farming causes global warming? That claim in it of itself shows the lunacy of the globalwarming claim. Cattle have been around forever, somehow in the past few years they started destroying the world so fast that in 30 years or something it will be gone!
> 
> Anyways that is just me getting statred but I used up my allotment of electricity for now!


 What do you think the population was back in your day...? and what is it now...? (this has a direct relation to how much food is produced and wasted)


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

miller_elex said:


> Is that yourself from back in the day? Where are the BC's?


 How did you know that I wear glasses ....? I took them off for the picture....:thumbsup:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

:laughing: Hey if you guys that are so anti fluorescent lights had you way, years and years ago we would all probably be installing much bigger services on commercial buildings to accommodate all your beloved incandescent lights. :thumbup: :laughing: :thumbsup: And we tree huggers would call it a "conspiracy" by westinghouse and GE......:laughing:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> :laughing: Hey if you guys that are so anti fluorescent lights had you way, years and years ago we would all probably be installing much bigger services on commercial buildings to accommodate all your beloved incandescent lights. :thumbup: :laughing: :thumbsup: And we tree huggers would call it a "conspiracy" by westinghouse and GE......:laughing:


Make one thing clear, I'm not anti fluorescent lights....I'm anti-anti freedom zealots. 

Some of you may feel the need to be told what to do. I'm not in that camp. 

I'm more in the favor of common sense, unfortunately 50 yrs of the dumbing down of our public education system has made common sense quite uncommon. 

So here we sit with 2 camps - one says "take responsibility for your own choices". The other says "you are incapable of making the 'right' decision, so we'll tell you what you decide"

Lord help us.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> Word up, Peter!
> 
> Well said.


Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Sometimes what I say resonates with some people, and sometimes I am vehemently opposed. Usually both of those things happen. Such is life. 

This issue in particular is driven by emotion and not common sense and logical thought processes. Throw gov't intervention into the mix and you have a dangerous combination IMO.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> I bet they have lights on all night long, wasting energy, just like Peter's house.
> :laughing:


Haha...well if you'll notice I never explicitly stated what my personal practices are with regard to conservation. I intentionally left that out of the discussion, yet that didn't stop people from throwing lots of innuendo around about me purposefully wasting resources and so forth. 

The truth is I do practice conservation _within reason._ I don't go out of my way to be "green" by any stretch. My main point in this thread, and will continue to be, that we don't need a nanny state approach to conservation.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> Peter I didnt realize you had a PHD in enviormental science...?


How could I let this one pass? :laughing: Nope, no degree in environmental science, and guess what? I don't need one. I consider myself blessed with common sense and that's all you need to have an opinion on this matter.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Peter.. could you go back to my post #77.. it was a question for you :thumbsup:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> Peter.. could you go back to my post #77.. it was a question for you :thumbsup:


I don't deny that climate change exists. I don't think it has the slightest thing to do with human influence. Even if you take an evolutionary viewpoint about the origin of the earth (which I don't,) how do you account for the climate change of ages past before the industrial age and usage of fossil fuels?


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> Make one thing clear, I'm not anti fluorescent lights....I'm anti-anti freedom zealots.
> 
> Some of you may feel the need to be told what to do. I'm not in that camp.
> 
> ...


Oh boy, I bet you were up in arms when they made it mandatory for toilets to use less water. It probably made it more difficult to flush all your [email protected]#&*. Let it go man, its over, we all get it. You dont think there is anything wrong with the environment, Americans value freedom over Global awarness, Leave all your lights on, throw food in the garbage, smoke in public, I dont care... and its obvious you dont care about your great grand childrens future or anyone elses. And if you dont think that the Gov is looking out for the future than what else can we say. You obviously have all the answers. So LLLeeeettt it go dude.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> ummmm.. what do you think is causing all the ice to melt on the north and south poles??


 
Peter.. I was asking you about ice melting.. not climate change.

Pics don't lie.. if you look at the poles now and 10 years ago, there is a BIG difference

Originally Posted by *Peter D*  
_I don't believe in the lie of global warming_


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> Peter.. I was asking you about ice melting.. not climate change.
> 
> Pics don't lie.. if you look at the poles now and 10 years ago, there is a BIG difference


Oh that's normal according to Peters logic and years of research. Hey Peter did it ever occur to you that lobbyist are behind all the "shows" you watch on the Geo channel and History channel? You know the ones that say global warming is a myth and normal...
And FWIW Peter one of the biggest causes of global warming is Deforestation.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> Peter.. I was asking you about ice melting.. not climate change.
> 
> Pics don't lie.. if you look at the poles now and 10 years ago, there is a BIG difference


So the north pole is melting. Then why is the antarctic ice not melting? Must be due to that "global warming."


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> Oh that's normal according to Peters logic and years of research.


There you go with your snide remarks again. 

If you're going to debase this discussion to personal attacks, I will not engage a single thing you are saying. The mere fact that you are attacking me rather than the arguments I am making proves you are have already lost the argument.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> There you go with your snide remarks again.
> 
> If you're going to debase this discussion to personal attacks, I will not engage a single thing you are saying. The mere fact that you are attacking me rather than the arguments I am making proves you are have already lost the argument.


 Yes you are right, I am done.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

:surrender: I really dont like to get personal or mean. I just get wound up.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Peter D said:


> So the north pole is melting. Then why is the antarctic ice not melting? Must be due to that "global warming."


I heard the antarctic is melting also.

What the "experts" say is blue water attracts heat.

White snow and ice reflects heat.

More water exposed, the faster the ice melts.

I saw this thing on Discovery Channel where they covered 3 acres of ice with a white cloth and measured the ice under the cloth and exposed to the sun.

There was twice as much ice under the cloth.

That is basic science and it was not subject to "theory" :thumbsup:

READ THIS http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23053212-11949,00.html


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> Oh boy, I bet you were up in arms when they made it mandatory for toilets to use less water. It probably made it more difficult to flush all your [email protected]#&*. Let it go man, its over, we all get it. You dont think there is anything wrong with the environment, Americans value freedom over Global awarness, Leave all your lights on, throw food in the garbage, smoke in public, I dont care... and its obvious you dont care about your great grand childrens future or anyone elses. And if you dont think that the Gov is looking out for the future than what else can we say. You obviously have all the answers. So LLLeeeettt it go dude.


And here I thought you were an intellectual. Oh well, wrong again.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Mr. Sparkle said:


> And while some of the global warming claims might be inflated, don't kid yourself, livestock farming pollutes like a motherf*cker. We are not talking free range livestock here, are you actually aware what the "farm" you probably get your meats from looks like? It's a giant warehouse crammed full of disease ridden antibiotic infested animals who piss and sh*t all over eachother, and then eventually the runoff finds it's way into rivers and streams and ultimately into our (meaning all humanity as one, let's try not to be egocentric here.....) water supply. Don't use the fact that cattle have been around forever as an attempt to deflate the claim that livestock farming is a large contributor to pollution, there is no comparison.


Ahh...what discussion about global warming wouldn't be complete without bringing up so-called "factory farming?" :laughing:

Are you aware that the massive amounts of water consumed by meat and other processing plants are because of government mandates due to USDA and other federal food health and safety guidelines? And waste water discharge and treatment is limited by other federal and state guidelines. 
So one government agency says "Use more water in your process." And another government agency says "You can only discharge X amount of treated water." That's government regulation at work for you. :thumbsup:


And FWIW, I had chicken cutlet for dinner tonight. It was probably raised in a "factory farm" in Delmarva or Georgia or Mississippi and killed and deboned by illegal aliens who can't speak English making $12 an hour. And no doubt that processing plant dumped their untreated wastewater and process waste into the nearest schoolyard to boot.  The chicken was delicious. :thumbup:

Bottom line...people need to eat. I'm not going to defend the likes of Cargill and Tyson as they certainly have skeletons in their closets. But they do provide us with an inexpensive and reliable source of meat that's largely raised by American workers on American farms. Yeah, the processing is done by many Hispanic illegals. Once upon a time that work was done by Americans before they discovered it was easier to sit at home and collect a welfare check than actually work. But I digress.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

oldman said:


> And here I thought you were an intellectual. Oh well, wrong again.


Oldman, all you need is a good bongrip my man, that will reconnect you.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

miller_elex said:


> Oldman, all you need is a good bongrip my man, that will reconnect you.


:laughing: i wish...take me to 'i don't give a ****' land...it's much simpler there


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

What about these guys???


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Magnettica said:


> Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.
> 
> What about these guys???


i think his math needs to be questioned.....how many new jobs has he already created?


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

*leave the plant*



Peter D said:


> Ahh...what discussion about global warming wouldn't be complete without bringing up so-called "factory farming?"
> 
> Are you aware that the massive amounts of water consumed by meat and other processing plants are because of government mandates due to USDA and other federal food health and safety guidelines? And waste water discharge and treatment is limited by other federal and state guidelines.
> So one government agency says "Use more water in your process." And another government agency says "You can only discharge X amount of treated water." That's government regulation at work for you.
> ...


let it go :no:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

acmax said:


> let it go :no:


why? so apathy can reign?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

acmax said:


> let it go :no:


Weren't you the guy who said "Energy efficiency is a responsibility for us to share whats here with our great grand children" ? I'm still laughing about that one. :laughing: Says who? You? How do you speak with such authority that it's a "responsibility?"


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

> By understanding the process of maintaining a society there has to be sacrifices,people like you are to caught up in your greed to consume to see
> how your behaviour effects anything.


And you just called me the ignorant one?? That's hilarious. :laughing::laughing:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Quote:
By understanding the process of maintaining a society there has to be sacrifices,people like you are to caught up in your greed to consume to see
how your behaviour effects anything. 

.. I pay $10,000.00 in property tax and another $5000.00 in personal tax.

How much more of a sacrifice do I have to give??


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

Peter D said:


> And you just called me the ignorant one?? That's hilarious. :laughing::laughing:


Uh ! Yes. Your statements go in circles. You make no intelligent points and are afraid of everything. Your fear has you responding like a child. There fore you spew out childish remarks to get attention. Leave the lights on the boogeyman is coming. When the right answer is given and your not listening ,just ask to hear it again. Seeking energy efficiency is really a good thing. Whats your point? On second thought you don't have a point.:laughing:


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

oldman said:


> why? so apathy can reign?


I think apathy is so deeply set in that most people today find it hard to 
have any standards. Just get on line at your favorite fast food joint and eat whatever it is their serving cause you know whats best for you.:001_huh:
Because you trust that everybody will just do the right thing all on thier own. Saving energy is a good thing.:thumbsup:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

You ll never reach them fellas. They are lost causes. And a testament as to why the Gov needs to step in and make them take their medicine. They are delusional if they think they are some kind of bastions to liberty. They are like little children that that dont want to take their medicine even though it is for their own good. They are the same people that cried every time something was instituted for the greater good. 
They present no real argument and only stamp their feet in the face of example after example. Their only rebuttals have been to say we are being lied to, and that there is some kind of conspiracy between the Gov and I guess Leviton....? we have presented them with many reasons as to why conservation and awareness is so important but they still refuse to admit they are wrong. 
Liberty....? what the hell do they know about it or the lack thereof. Some one said it earlier, If we allowed people like them to run things there would be no national parks, streams, beaches or anything for that matter. If someone wanted to protect land from development they would cry foul play, "Its my god given right....blah blah blah.
They were probably crying when we started to recycle plastic and glass. I bet they were like " Its my right to throw something in the garbage if I want to" 
Seatbelt/helmet laws- nonsense, if I want to smash my head its my right.
Water conservation- baaa phoey its my right to waste all the water I want im the one paying for it

Personally I think Peter just likes the attention. Negative as it maybe its still attention.I find it hard that anyone could be that blind with "freedom" The ****te he wrote about the chicken farm is just one big mess. He loves the cheap American food processed by immagrents...? And then I think he is trying to say that it should be Americans doing the work....? Peter if Americans were doing the work that chicken cutlet would have cost you about 12 dollars.And Im not saying that would be bad either. People would be less likly to throw it out. But Ill leave that one alone because Ill just chalk it up to he's not sure what the heck he is talking about.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

acmax said:


> I think apathy is so deeply set in that most people today find it hard to
> have any standards. Just get on line at your favorite fast food joint and eat whatever it is their serving cause you know whats best for you.:001_huh:
> Because you trust that everybody will just do the right thing all on thier own. Saving energy is a good thing.:thumbsup:


 Nicely put sir.......:clap:


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> You ll never reach them fellas. They are lost causes. And a testament as to why the Gov needs to step in and make them take their medicine. They are delusional if they think they are some kind of bastions to liberty. They are like little children that that dont want to take their medicine even though it is for their own good. They are the same people that cried every time something was instituted for the greater good.
> They present no real argument and only stamp their feet in the face of example after example. Their only rebuttals have been to say we are being lied to, and that there is some kind of conspiracy between the Gov and I guess Leviton....? we have presented them with many reasons as to why conservation and awareness is so important but they still refuse to admit they are wrong.
> Liberty....? what the hell do they know about it or the lack thereof. Some one said it earlier, If we allowed people like them to run things there would be no national parks, streams, beaches or anything for that matter. If someone wanted to protect land from development they would cry foul play, "Its my god given right....blah blah blah.
> They were probably crying when we started to recycle plastic and glass. I bet they were like " Its my right to throw something in the garbage if I want to"
> ...


that is probably the largest load of self righteous bull**** ever posted...again, if you can't convince people that you are correct, then f'em, we'll mandate them to think like we do...have at it...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> that is probably the largest load of self righteous bull**** ever posted...again, if you can't convince people that you are correct, then f'em, we'll mandate them to think like we do...have at it...


 Because the president says you are wrong....


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> Because the president says you are wrong....


oh, my bad...here, take my wallet too...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> that is probably the largest load of self righteous bull**** ever posted...again, if you can't convince people that you are correct, then f'em, we'll mandate them to think like we do...have at it...


 I bet you were mad when you couldnt smoke at the cracker barrel anymore.......:laughing:...........Just a Joke dont get angry. This thread is getting :sleeping::wallbash::thumbdown::sleep1:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Didnt you listen to your president when he said Change is comming...?


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I bet you were mad when you couldnt smoke at the cracker barrel anymore.......:laughing:...........Just a Joke dont get angry. This thread is getting :sleeping::wallbash::thumbdown::sleep1:


you obviously either don't read, or selectively remember what you want...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> you obviously either don't read, or selectively remember what you want...


 What is the point....? No one is listening to anyone. Can we all just agree conservation is good for everyone....:thumbsup:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

My joke was just comic relief. You can make one about me, you wont hurt my feelings


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> What is the point....? No one is listening to anyone. Can we all just agree conservation is good for everyone....:thumbsup:


i've agreed since the beginning...i just don't agree with the governments plan to force compliance...


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> My joke was just comic relief. You can make one about me, you wont hurt my feelings


nah, you've done a good job yourself...


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

captkirk said:


> You ll never reach them fellas. They are lost causes. And a testament as to why the Gov needs to step in and make them take their medicine. They are delusional if they think they are some kind of bastions to liberty. They are like little children that that dont want to take their medicine even though it is for their own good. They are the same people that cried every time something was instituted for the greater good.
> They present no real argument and only stamp their feet in the face of example after example. Their only rebuttals have been to say we are being lied to, and that there is some kind of conspiracy between the Gov and I guess Leviton....? we have presented them with many reasons as to why conservation and awareness is so important but they still refuse to admit they are wrong.
> Liberty....? what the hell do they know about it or the lack thereof. Some one said it earlier, If we allowed people like them to run things there would be no national parks, streams, beaches or anything for that matter. If someone wanted to protect land from development they would cry foul play, "Its my god given right....blah blah blah.
> They were probably crying when we started to recycle plastic and glass. I bet they were like " Its my right to throw something in the garbage if I want to"
> ...


Your right  We live in US ,freedom of speech. That's thier right and it comes with the territory. Even when it nonsense.If the answer is right, and everyone disagrees. Will that make the answer change, or their decision
to disagree? Now that's a law question:thumbup:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> i've agreed since the beginning...i just don't agree with the governments plan to force compliance...


 well can we take it one step further and agree that conservation left up to the general public will not happen. And in most cases only get worse?


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> well can we take it one step further and agree that conservation left up to the general public will not happen. And in most cases only get worse?


see, that's where you lose me...teach the general public (not indoctrinate like our current educational system) and you'd be surprised...

ironically, conservatives tend to hold the general public in higher regards than the liberals who claim they want to help...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> see, that's where you lose me...teach the general public (not indoctrinate like our current educational system) and you'd be surprised...
> 
> ironically, conservatives tend to hold the general public in higher regards than the liberals who claim they want to help...


I really believe that simply teaching has not worked. Look at the size of our (American) automobiles in the past 15 years. Can you also tell me why the rest of the planet is forced to drive smaller more fuel efficient vehicles, but in this country you have moms picking up their children in 12 MPG Gas guzzlers. There are many people that think its our divine right to drive what ever we want without any sort of consiquences to the enviorment or the people that we get our oil from. The American car companies are the ones lagging behind in their thinking.
Where is this education you are speaking of...? 
And mind you this is only one small example of the lack of "education" of our people.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth9.htm
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth2.htm

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute

make your own decisions....


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I really believe that simply teaching has not worked. Look at the size of our (American) automobiles in the past 15 years. Can you also tell me why the rest of the planet is forced to drive smaller more fuel efficient vehicles, but in this country you have moms picking up their children in 12 MPG Gas guzzlers. There are many people that think its our divine right to drive what ever we want without any sort of consiquences to the enviorment or the people that we get our oil from. The American car companies are the ones lagging behind in their thinking.
> Where is this education you are speaking of...?
> And mind you this is only one small example of the lack of "education" of our people.


the great thing about this country is this....you are perfectly free to move to one of those other countries...you are not forced to stay here...

ironically, it's the same education system that created a country that voted in the last elections....

oh ****, can I change my vote? we need to stop people from being stupid...my mistake...


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

oldman said:


> see, that's where you lose me...teach the general public (not indoctrinate like our current educational system) and you'd be surprised...
> 
> ironically, conservatives tend to hold the general public in higher regards than the liberals who claim they want to help...


Hold them in fear, hold them from the truth and on and on:whistling2: You said the schools are failing to properly educate . so how does the learning take place? Saving energy is a good thing. Your old like me you remember the nonsense that took place when the lead was taken out of our gasoline.I mean come on you think we would of done that without regulations?Make your choice on everything and you have chaos.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Just quickly skimming through some of the info, it kind of remind me of some of Senator McCain's speeches. I too can work the google and bring up just as many articles supporting the other side of the fence. Its obvious you are set in your ways. But IMO there is too much evidence already showing the damage we are causing to the planet. 
Personally I think our demise will come way before the enviorment becomes a real problem and the end of the world will come from some idiot country that has nukes. So lets just leave it at that.
And please please please believe me I really am not a bad guy I just get a little amped up when it comes to debating about things like the enviorment among some other things. Sometimes my jokes are a little smart assyand off keyand for that I do appologize .


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

Ok One more point than I jump. MOST PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWERS:whistling2: THEY WANT TO BE LEAD AND TOLD WHAT TO DO. THATS HOW THEY WHERE RAISED. And they are really OK with it.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.
> 
> What about these guys???



$4 billion/200K residences (guess) saving up to $20 annually. I would rather wipe my ass with that $20, than have the government step in and force me to save it.

Hey Shatner, you a hunter by any chance?


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

knowshorts said:


> $4 billion/200K residences (guess) saving up to $20 annually. I would rather wipe my ass with that $20, than have the government step in and force me to save it.
> 
> Hey Shatner, you a hunter by any chance?


nope


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

If I was a hunter they wouldn't call me "The Elk Whisperer"


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

captkirk said:


> Can you also tell me why the rest of the planet is forced to drive smaller more fuel efficient vehicles, but in this country you have moms picking up their children in 12 MPG Gas guzzlers. There are many people that think its our divine right to drive what ever we want without any sort of consiquences to the enviorment or the people that we get our oil from.


If we stopped subsidizing our addiction to oil with the bodies of our young, maybe then. . . . 

. . . didn't take but a glance around the Persian Gulf to know why we are there. Its not to protect the freedom of the Arabs. Seen Ras Tanura lately? Is that the largest industrial monster in the world or what?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

acmax said:


> Uh ! Yes. Your statements go in circles. You make no intelligent points and are afraid of everything. Your fear has you responding like a child. There fore you spew out childish remarks to get attention. Leave the lights on the boogeyman is coming. When the right answer is given and your not listening ,just ask to hear it again. Seeking energy efficiency is really a good thing. Whats your point? On second thought you don't have a point.:laughing:



Once again, you must resort to personal attacks because you cannot make an effective argument. That's what always happens when you lose - attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. 

Have you ever heard the expression "Give someone an inch of rope to hang themselves, and they take a mile"? Both you and captkirk are quite good at doing that.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> Can you also tell me why the rest of the planet is forced to drive smaller more fuel efficient vehicles, but in this country you have moms picking up their children in 12 MPG Gas guzzlers.


I guess you're not getting this whole "free society" thing, aren't you?


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

captkirk said:


> in this country you have moms picking up their children in 12 MPG Gas guzzlers.


I am not a mom and I get 12.5 MPG


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

Peter D said:


> Once again, you must resort to personal attacks because you cannot make an effective argument. That's what always happens when you lose - attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
> 
> Have you ever heard the expression "Give someone an inch of rope to hang themselves, and they take a mile"? Both you and captkirk are quite good at doing that.


:laughing::laughing: You are just making noise now. Energy saving is a good thing. I see
in your posts nothing backing your rant. You put no substance to any of your words, and I describe that as unintelligent. Bring something to back your position on how willful disregard to facts gives you claim. Say for example, saving energy cause's ??????????????


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

Ac, again you miss the point. Neither Peter, nor I, are advocating destruction of resources. We simply believe that a police state is not the answer. 

Now it is obvious that you have the "right" point of view, and anyone who disagrees is just an ignorant idiot who wants to kill women and eat children, while polluting and destroying the earth. 

There are no real facts, just opinions. And all opinions can point to some scientific fact. And in a free society, we are able to believe whatever opinion we like. 

The only thing is whether you want to make that decision for yourself, or be told what decision you believe in.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

There is nothing wrong with being an environmentalist. Some of you are just too extreme. The resources brought up in this thread so far: electricity, water, oil, and wood. All these are renewable resources. We are not going to run out in our lifetime, or for the next 100 generations. 

You cant theoretically waste electricity. Only so much is generated daily. You use what you use. They got really smart dudes trying to figure out the magic number to make. Blackouts can occur. We have rolling blackouts here and the utility claims we are using too much power. That is only partially true. It costs money for the utility to purchase power and the rates are much cheaper at night. If they can turn off a couple circuits (neighborhoods) and it can prevent them from purchasing additional energy from somewhere else, it saves them a lot of money. Why do they think they tell you to run dishwashers and laundry and night? It's a lot cheaper for them. 

You also can't theoretically waste water. If you water your lawn and wash down your driveway, that water will do one of four things. Absorb into plant life, turn into ground water, evaporate, or run down storm drains. So you think evaporation is bad? It doesn't disappear, it will come back to earth. If the water does hit the storm drains, it will eventually hit the oceans, and once again evaporate.

Oil is a renewable resource. As long as crap is dying on this planet, oil will be underground. It just takes a lot longer to be created. But remember, things have been dying and decomposing everyday since the day life forms first started showing up on this planet. We do not have to be dependent on foreign oil. We have plenty here. If the reindeer don't like it, they will move and adapt like every other semi intelligent species on this planet. 

There is so much wood, you wouldn't believe, and it's renewable. Have you ever been to a forest that has been properly managed? They are beatiful. Not that I am in favor of clearcuts. But, most clearcuts I have seen have been replaced with new trees. But selective harvesting makes the forest so much healthier. I have seen areas in forests, where loggers have yet to get to and the trees are so thick, no sunlight could get through the canopy, and the ground is covered two feet deep with needles and dead foilage. Not a single mammal or bird for miles. Dig underneath all the needles, you won't be able to find a bug or a worm. No life what so ever. Thin the trees out, burn the dead, reguvenate the soil, let sunlight and water in, and you now have a healthy forest. Yet the "environmentalists" don't want that.


Too many words to spell check...


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

oldman said:


> Ac, again you miss the point. Neither Peter, nor I, are advocating destruction of resources. We simply believe that a police state is not the answer.
> 
> Now it is obvious that you have the "right" point of view, and anyone who disagrees is just an ignorant idiot who wants to kill women and eat children, while polluting and destroying the earth.
> 
> ...


 
Very well put. And thank God we live in a country that allows all people to be heard. Having debates on issues that effect everything can only lead to better decisions. I am aware of some of my shortfalls and need to be reminded of others. I also think it's why Baskin Robbins offers 31 flavors.:thumbup:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

:bangin:


Peter D said:


> I guess you're not getting this whole "free society" thing, aren't you?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Just checking in.

Anything electrical in this thread the last 40 posts or so?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> :bangin:


So what's your point? Do you want to drag all those soccer moms and perhaps even drsprarky in their big trucks out to be shot? What's your solution? Just come out and say it - you would be happy if those kinds of vehicles are banned. 

Let me ask you something - what kind of vehicles do you drive?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Just checking in.
> 
> Anything electrical in this thread the last 40 posts or so?


Go away, Tool.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 11, 2008)

480sparky said:


> Just checking in.
> 
> Anything electrical in this thread the last 40 posts or so?



Nope. Just Patrick Henry vs. Joseph Stalin.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Just checking in.
> 
> Anything electrical in this thread the last 40 posts or so?


Nope....were just having a good ole time throwing pickles at each other:2guns::bangin:


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> So what's your point? Do you want to drag all those soccer moms and perhaps even drsprarky in their big trucks out to be shot? What's your solution? Just come out and say it - you would be happy if those kinds of vehicles are banned.
> 
> Let me ask you something - what kind of vehicles do you drive?


 Work-sprinter
personal- ford focus (2 dr)


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> So what's your point? Do you want to drag all those soccer moms and perhaps even drsprarky in their big trucks out to be shot? What's your solution? Just come out and say it - you would be happy if those kinds of vehicles are banned.
> 
> Let me ask you something - what kind of vehicles do you drive?


Im not even gonna touch the vehicle issue. That one is surely to cause a looonnnggg argument.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

You know what gives me a chuckle and make me scratch my head. I remember a post in which you were saying " gee I dont know what everyone is crying about TR Receps and AFCI breakers, whats the big deal......? What does it cost like another 4-600 bucks on a new house" 
I like how you pick and chose what is ok for the Govnt to make us install. Those are ok but fluorescent lighting is enough to make you mad.....:001_huh: whats even scarier is the idea of conservation is enough to make you break out the stars and stripes and a copy of the constitution........(againg......scratching my head)


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

*Peter D*

Flip Flopper


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

AFCI's are credited with saving how many lives-:confused1: but have cost Electricians how much money in call backs.....


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

well, i for one have always argued against afci's...


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> The ****te he wrote about the chicken farm is just one big mess. He loves the cheap American food processed by immagrents...?


As a matter of fact I do. I love the variety of and quality of food we have in this nation. It's truly a testament to what a great country this is. As for immigrants, I am against illegal immigration, but for legal immigration. I was simply pointing out that a good many immigrants, legal or otherwise, are employed in the processing of the food we eat. I sure wish that were not so, but I am grateful for their efforts. 




> And then I think he is trying to say that it should be Americans doing the work....?


Yes, Americans and legal immigrants. However, since our borders are wide open and we have an international socialist in the White House, they aren't likely to be closed anytime soon. But, regardless, millions of illegals are here and doing jobs that were once filled by US citizens, so something needs to be done about that. I say send them all home, but that's not likely to happen. 



> if Americans were doing the work that chicken cutlet would have cost you about 12 dollars.


Can you show me your computation for that? I'm pretty sure that menial jobs like poultry processing pay the same whether you are an illegal alien or US citizen. What should someone who works that kind of job make an hour anyway? $20? $30? 




> And Im not saying that would be bad either. People would be less likly to throw it out.


I never throw away chicken. It's too delicious to throw away. 



> But Ill leave that one alone because Ill just chalk it up to he's not sure what the heck he is talking about.


Yeah, that must be it. :laughing:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> Im not even gonna touch the vehicle issue. That one is surely to cause a looonnnggg argument.


No, please do. I want to see the depth of your socialism.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Peter D said:


> No, please do. I want to see the depth of your socialism.


I'm far from socialist.....I am just for conservation. And what ever it takes to reduce our reliance of foreign oil. And if that means the guy with the boat on his big SUV has to drive a Ford ranger than so be it. Why dont we drive big huge cars anymore like the steel monsters of the 60's and 70's..? Why does the rest of the world make due with less? why do we all have such a feeling of entitlement? We are like the big Fat kid in the sand box that wants all the toys for himself. Oh boy (im just waiting for the flood gates to open)


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Peter D said:


> Go away, Tool.


Roger! Getting lost now, sir!


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

But like I said earlier, deforestation is the biggest cause for global warming, not the guy with the boat on his SUV. I just dont like that we get most of our oil from people that want to erraticate us.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I'm far from socialist.....I am just for conservation. And what ever it takes to reduce our reliance of foreign oil. And if that means the guy with the boat on his big SUV has to drive a Ford ranger than so be it. Why dont we drive big huge cars anymore like the steel monsters of the 60's and 70's..? Why does the rest of the world make due with less? why do we all have such a feeling of entitlement? We are like the big Fat kid in the sand box that wants all the toys for himself. Oh boy (im just waiting for the flood gates to open)


no floodgate...you are more than able to leave here and move to one of those other countries...you will then be with like minded people...problem solved....

i bet you would move next to a race track that has been there for 50 yrs, then fight to shut it down because it makes too much noise...


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Roger! Getting lost now, sir!


Thanks. Now don't come back now, ya hear!


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

oldman said:


> no floodgate...you are more than able to leave here and move to one of those other countries...you will then be with like minded people...problem solved....
> 
> i bet you would move next to a race track that has been there for 50 yrs, then fight to shut it down because it makes too much noise...


 Im not a tottal douche bag. I can play nice. I would love to move to England or Australia "before" I die, unfortunatly they are not so recipricating when it comes to immigration. IMO life is too short not to see other parts of the world.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

captkirk said:


> Im not a tottal douche bag. I can play nice. I would love to move to England or Australia "before" I die, unfortunatly they are not so recipricating when it comes to immigration. IMO life is too short not to see other parts of the world.


I love to travel and have visited and lived in others parts of this world BUT. America beats them all hands down. England is not that great wonderful country you dream of in your overly liberal mind. The muslims are populating the country, the skin heads are there. Guess what it is like any place wonderful to visit. (Actually I love England)

Conservative/liberal here conservationist.

In the liberal camp find something you like there is a group against it. From free speech, to dirt bikes, jet skis, hunting, guns, camping, cars, skiing, fishing to name a few.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

So I finally took a little closer look at that energy bill. It would seem that it had some "BIG" bombs in it.. Wow ....I dont think it stands a chance personally. It would singlehandedly disable this country. 

Brian I am far from a liberal. I just have a little bit of tree hugger in me. Which drives my wife nuts. I totally agree with you on USA being tops. I spent a summer in Scotland and fell in love with it. Nothing more than that.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

captkirk said:


> So I finally took a little closer look at that energy bill. It would seem that it had some "BIG" bombs in it.. Wow ....I dont think it stands a chance personally. It would singlehandedly disable this country.


You finally saw the light. There's hope for you yet.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> So I finally took a little closer look at that energy bill. It would seem that it had some "BIG" bombs in it.. Wow ....I dont think it stands a chance personally. It would singlehandedly disable this country.
> 
> Brian I am far from a liberal. I just have a little bit of tree hugger in me. Which drives my wife nuts. I totally agree with you on USA being tops. I spent a summer in Scotland and fell in love with it. Nothing more than that.


you have a democratic congress that already passed it...you just got a veto proof super majority senate today (Al Franken won his lawsuit and is the new Senator from MN)..and you have a man in the white house who is the puppet for someone (you don't come out of nowhere, as an unknown Junior Senator and win the presidency just because)....

it'll get passed...maybe not this time, but within a year and with little change to it's current form...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

I never said I totally agreed with it. I was really trying to make the point that it would be prudent for every American to conserve a little, thats all. I had a long conversation with my brother about it and it is acually kind of scary. There is some real bad things in it. There is no way in hell it will pass in COngress. I dont think there is a better system of Govt in the world than this country.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I never said I totally agreed with it. I was really trying to make the point that it would be prudent for every American to conserve a little, thats all. I had a long conversation with my brother about it and it is acually kind of scary. There is some real bad things in it. There is no way in hell it will pass in COngress. I dont think there is a better system of Govt in the world than this country.



Tony- you miss the reason that people like me are so scared...it already passed the House....

Nancy Pelosi controls the Senate...it's a lame duck senate...The dems are Veto Proof...the republicans can't do a damn thing to stop it...

and Obama is in favor of it (or at least the people he answers to are)...

it's a done deal...

we used to have the best government in the world - we ****ed it up in the last election...


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Maybe next time I'll do a little more reading before I open my mouth.

(Tony just unsheathed his sword and layed it at the feet of Peter D and Oldman)

FWIW I think the president didnt even know all the details in it and has backtracked a bit. Remember his promise of no new taxes for anyone making under 250,000........:whistling2:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Having Nancy Pelosi in control of ANYTHING is scary enough. 

That women would have trouble controlling a hand held battery powered device.

That big battle over the CIA lying to her (cough) seems to have disappeared off the radar.

In simple terms.. we're all screwed :blink:


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

oldman said:


> Tony- you miss the reason that people like me are so scared...it already passed the House....
> 
> Nancy Pelosi controls the Senate...it's a lame duck senate...The dems are Veto Proof...the republicans can't do a damn thing to stop it...
> 
> ...


"Nancy Pelosi controls the senate?" Interesting.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

waco said:


> "Nancy Pelosi controls the senate?" Interesting.


you don't agree?


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Actually... Stretch Pelosi is the speaker of the House, 3rd in line to be president  and Senator Reid (D-Nevada) is the majority leader of the Senate.

Ridiculous how some of the 44 democrats who voted nay on the tax & kill bill did so because it didn't go far enough!


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> Actually... Stretch Pelosi


 
:laughing::laughing:


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

captkirk said:


> Maybe next time I'll do a little more reading before I open my mouth.
> 
> (Tony just unsheathed his sword and layed it at the feet of Peter D and Oldman)
> 
> FWIW I think the president didnt even know all the details in it and has backtracked a bit. Remember his promise of no new taxes for anyone making under 250,000........:whistling2:



I'm glad to see you're aware of how damaging this bill would be. That's good news. I also see that you're a Marine. Oooh-rah my friend, I'm an old Navy Seabee myself (R-NMCB 21, Lakehurst, NJ). 

As far as Obama not taxing anyone making less than $250,000 p/ year, that's a crock of you know what. There aren't enough people who earn more than that to pay for all the spending that's gone on over the first 6 months of his administration. You, and me, and all the other "little EC's" across this great country are going to pay for it, especially if you smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, or drink soda. Taxes on those are going up soon, including those who earn less than $250k. 

However, since some of this stimulus money is geared towards "going green", as an industry we can definitely benefit from it. I personally don't know too many people who would be able to pay for $100,000 solar system on their house, but they are eligible for a 30% tax credit on the system and that includes labor and material associated with the job. I think the likely route I might take is to see if there are any local schools or businesses eligible for the tax credit -- and who also have access to the stimulus money -- and go do some work there. Just a thought. 

There is a great article(s) in this months REMODELING magazine educating the small business owner on the American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). :thumbup:


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> :laughing::laughing:


Do you listen to Levin too? :laughing:


----------



## acmax (Apr 20, 2009)

Peter D said:


> No, please do. I want to see the depth of your socialism.


You can't see anything your heads up your *ss. Let it be. Energy saving is a good thing.And your not quiet up on the level of comprehension to understand political dialog, or the parallels that exist.I still have not seen what you present to back the oppositional argument you continue to defend.You needed to be potty trained and I don't think you complained about that.:laughing:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> Do you listen to Levin too? :laughing:


 
Yes.. I enjoy his show.. along with Glen Beck and Sean Hannity


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Levin is the master.

hey what part of long island are you from?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

acmax said:


> Energy saving is a good thing.And your not quiet up on the level of comprehension to understand political dialog, or the parallels that exist.I still have not seen what you present to back the oppositional argument you continue to defend.You needed to be potty trained and I don't think you complained about that.:laughing:


You obviously have some axe to grind with me in this thread because you keep singling me out with your ridiculous comments and accusations. Why? What is your problem? Are you trying to make me mad? Because it's not going to happen. I don't know you and I don't care what you think about me or my opinions. 

And you're the one with comprehension problems apparently. I have *never* said that energy conservation is a bad thing. I have been speaking out against government mandated energy conservation. Start reading this thread from the beginning and get back to me.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Hey Pete... can you just turn out the lights already? You're peeing everyone off. :laughing:

Btw, I have fluorescent light bulbs all over the house already. But that is my choice.


----------

