Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2013, 08:58 AM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,450,688 times
Reputation: 6670

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I've been using CFL's for more than decade now in most lighting situations becsue to me it makes economic sense. As practical matter though I've also stocked up on high wattage incandescent because I actually want to be able to have light when I switch on my outside lights in the winter, since those light are usually on for such short time realistically it's pointless to have CFL anyway since they take a lot of power to cycle up.

See the problem? I'm also point out again if you have electric heat there is no benefit to CFL's and there is many people that use incandescent in situations where they need a little heat.
Frequent switching on and off (more than 20 times per day) shortens the life of a CFL, but the power consumption to cycle up the teensy ballast is miniscule.

Seattle City Light: Common Myths about CFLs

Last edited by mateo45; 02-02-2013 at 09:06 AM.. Reason: link..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2013, 10:05 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 21,994,436 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
So? Was the official stealing money? No. Was the official negotiating a better job? No.

The official was communicating with a non-profit environmental group about environmental policy. Oh how sinister! Dick Cheney was allowed to meet secretly with oil executives over oil policy but environmental officials can't communicate with environmental groups? Seems like a double standard.
Well we don't know what the hell they were doing because they wont' turn over the emails. We're not talking about Dick Cheney here are we? Why the deflection? They can communicate all they want but not on back door email channels. There is a reason they won't turn that info over. What is it? Why isn't the public allowed to know what was going on? Obviously they weren't working for the best interest of the nation or we wouldn't have this cover up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 10:07 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 21,994,436 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafo1981 View Post
Switching lightbulbs across the country could save millions of tons of CO2 going into the air. There is no real debate here. It should be done immediately.
CO2 isn't hurting anybody.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 10:10 AM
 
Location: southern california
61,288 posts, read 87,379,099 times
Reputation: 55562
we did not resolve our industrial issues thru EPA we just moved them to other countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,436,896 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Well we don't know what the hell they were doing because they wont' turn over the emails. We're not talking about Dick Cheney here are we? Why the deflection? They can communicate all they want but not on back door email channels. There is a reason they won't turn that info over. What is it? Why isn't the public allowed to know what was going on? Obviously they weren't working for the best interest of the nation or we wouldn't have this cover up.
Well that would be for the same reason that members Congress run across the street and meet people in a coffee shop rather than invite them into the building where their name is recorded.

It's called being unethical. Then again ethics doesn't come into play once you get into office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,940,856 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
So slimy politics is ok because the other side did something similar ?
Then why does the left claim they are so much better than the right when they do the same things and say "But you did it too" ?

If anything it should show you just how low down and corrupt both sides are.
The Supreme Court said that Cheney had every right to meet with the industry. So, if the court sanctions it, it isn't slimy. But now, the same people that thought Cheney was right, say it isn't ok for EPA officials to communicate with environmental groups, who have no profit motive at stake, like the oil cos did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Well we don't know what the hell they were doing because they wont' turn over the emails. We're not talking about Dick Cheney here are we? Why the deflection? They can communicate all they want but not on back door email channels. There is a reason they won't turn that info over. What is it? Why isn't the public allowed to know what was going on? Obviously they weren't working for the best interest of the nation or we wouldn't have this cover up.
We're talking about Dick Cheney here because what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- unless IOKIYAR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 11:45 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 21,994,436 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Well that would be for the same reason that members Congress run across the street and meet people in a coffee shop rather than invite them into the building where their name is recorded.

It's called being unethical. Then again ethics doesn't come into play once you get into office.
That is true. You gotta sell out to get your position in DC. Don't toe the party line and all and you don't get the money to run. That is who it's done and if you buck the system any at all you better have a big bunch of constituents back home who are with you. Lieberman is the only guy I can think of who pulled it off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 11:47 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 21,994,436 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The Supreme Court said that Cheney had every right to meet with the industry. So, if the court sanctions it, it isn't slimy. But now, the same people that thought Cheney was right, say it isn't ok for EPA officials to communicate with environmental groups, who have no profit motive at stake, like the oil cos did.
We're talking about Dick Cheney here because what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- unless IOKIYAR.
Your problem is you think it's all a game. Most folks in DC do too. Environmental groups have no motive? LOL. Your too far gone with your tit for tat games to have any sense left. Go punch your Cheney doll and stop posting nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,436,896 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The Supreme Court said that Cheney had every right to meet with the industry. So, if the court sanctions it, it isn't slimy. But now, the same people that thought Cheney was right, say it isn't ok for EPA officials to communicate with environmental groups, who have no profit motive at stake, like the oil cos did.
We're talking about Dick Cheney here because what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- unless IOKIYAR.
Well Cheney met with them AS Cheney, not some made up fictitious name.
Yet you think that's the same as what the EPA did ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,440,440 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan View Post
There's Gold {real gold} and black gold too.

Wow those Russians were dumb!
The Fort Knox Gold Mine near Fairbanks is still producing over nine tons of gold per year. In 2011 they produced 290,000 ounces of gold. At today's prices, that amounts to $479,660,000 for just one year of production.

The Red Dog Mine near Kotzebue is the world's largest producer of lead and zinc concentrate.

We paid the Russians $0.02 per acre in 1867. I think we got our money's worth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top