Skip to comments.The light bulb ban provides a useful window into the mindset of liberals:
Posted on 01/03/2014 6:49:32 AM PST by Rusty0604
Regardless of party affiliations, true conservatives have made the old fashioned light bulban unassuming household iteminto a symbol for something much larger. But what, exactly? At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it has become symbolic of the fight between liberty and tyranny.
The light bulb ban provides a useful window into the mindset of liberals. Heres how they see the issue: energy-saving bulbs are better, therefore the others should be illegal. The pattern repeats itself in nearly every other realm: they determine the best policy, then impose it in a top down manner with no regard for states, localities, or individuals. Arguing with them about choice is futile because they cannot fathom the idea that the debate has nothing to do with which bulb is better, but rather who gets to decide.
Why cant the government do that? The answer is simple: because Americans might choose the wrong one!
Liberals famous reverence for choice arose only because they couldnt bring themselves to utter the word abortion in a debate that is clearly about that very thing. Consequently, the word choice has been used so frequently in reference to the gruesome procedure that it is now universally understood to mean abortion. When a reporter asks a politician where he stands on the issue of choice people understand without any further context what the reporter means. (Hint: not light bulbs.)
Im pro-choice too; pro-light bulb choice, that is
(Excerpt) Read more at no-pasaran.blogspot.com ...
Anyone have any liberal acquaintances or family members that deny that such a ban exists?
I find it “illuminating” that they deny such a thing,
because it shows that they don’t believe that government
would overstep to that extent.
It’s an opening - drive the point home.
Should the government decide what light bulbs you can use and why?
It just came to me: “Trickle Down Tyranny”
We need to mock them ceaselessly-—and never buy in to their ridiculous bulls**t.
13% of power plant usage is for lighting.
Conventional incandescent bulbs produce 10% light, 90% heat.
The government gets involved in requests for new power plants and their associated infrastructure (power lines, etc.). The government also gets pushed to create a wise energy policy (allow drilling, fracking, pipelines, etc.). So, yes, the government mandated more efficient light bulbs.
I’m not a big fan of CFLs - we have a few in the house. However, I love LEDs. As quickly as they develop LEDs which fit in our budget, we replace our conventional bulbs.
I’m not a big fan of our local power company. Why give them more business than I have to?
Except that this was the work of REPUBLICAN Fred Upton and REPUBLICAN George W. Bush (follow the CFL lobbying money...)
BINGO! We Have a Winner!
LED bulbs contain Arsenic, and fluorescent bulbs generate Ultraviolet light.
Arsenic in landfills yields arsenic in groundwater plus skin cancer from fluorescent lights - - - hmmmmm? Forward!
Looks like Obama Socialized Health Insurance Tax (OSHIT) has arrived just in time to “fix” the planned poisoning by the Liberal Lightbulb Law (LLL)! Forward!
The Obamacrats have thus discovered even more unintended Scientific consequences in their Utopian Obamanation! Forward!
FORWARD! FORWARD! FORWARD!
( Obamacrat John “Benghazi Coverup” Boehner must so proud - - - . )
If you live in an all-electric house, those incandescent bulbs are helping to keep your house warmer in the winter. There’s little or no advantage to using CFL or LED bulbs, at least during the colder times of the year.
If a politician writes a Bill like a Liberal, and votes like a Liberal, and celebrates the signing of a Liberal Bill into a Federal Law like a Liberal, then that politician is a Liberal, even if the last name is Dole, McCain, Romney, Bush, Upton, McConnell, Boehner; Cantor, or Ryan.
“Judge politicians by what they do, and not by what they say.”
Bottom line is, they don’t believe in the free market or freedom of choice generally (see Obamacare).
So even when they happen to stumble upon a good idea, they ruin it by making it mandated by the federal government.
Just yesterday here in Minnesota, a democrat state legislator introduced a bill to make the app that allows you to track down your missing cellphone MANDATORY. You and I would say, let the manufacturers treat it as a feature to attract buyers to their product versus another one, but they see themselves as the arbiter of what you need and so you don’t get a choice (even if it raises the price of the item).
I live in the upper midwest. Our high on Monday is predicted to be -15 degrees. My highest heating bill in the past 8 years has been $163. My highest electric bill during air conditioning weather, has been $249. Heating the house by light bulbs isn’t very efficient, and it’s expensive to pay for the A/C to offset their heat during the summer. So, again, I’ll buy LED bulbs.
I’m all for saving money, just not the government mandating what kind of bulbs I can or can’t buy. For certain applications, I would prefer to purchase a 100 watt to 150 watt bulb - like the lamp next to my bed or sofa, where I might be reading. It’s not going to be left on for long periods of time, so the extra energy usage is negligible.
Another insane proposal. People are just too stupid to decide for themselves if they want to purchase an app?
PS....are you one of those people with light bulbs that save the planet and a huge TV screen for your viewing pleasure?
It’s about the freedom to choose, not whether one form of lighting is more efficient or not.
The Minnesota legislature isn't in session yet.
Lest we forget. A Republican proposed the ban and George W. Bush signed it!
I find it hard to believe that FedGov would regulate something as absurd as what kind of light bulb we can use. That’s as absurd as if they regulated how much water a toilet can flush or how big a soft drink we could buy. No one really wants that much government in their lives, do they?