Skip to comments.
Correspondence from Senator Lieberman re: Light bulb ban
Reply from Sen. Lieberman
Posted on 12/16/2011 11:42:49 AM PST by matt04
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
I have yet to own a CFL that last as long as the packaging says it will. Shockingly, he also ignore my concerns about the mercury content of the CFLs.
1
posted on
12/16/2011 11:42:59 AM PST
by
matt04
To: matt04
First, I want to make clear that there is no pending legislation that calls for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.Quite true, Joe. That legislation was passed in 2007 and, due to some unfortunate laws of physics, effectively bans the sale of 100 watt incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012. Another lesson in how to politicians bend the truth.
To: matt04
A-holes,,, and I haven’t seen repub move to roll this back. Just watch, the ground wont repeal this.
3
posted on
12/16/2011 11:50:45 AM PST
by
DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
To: matt04
My electric company has sent me enough of these new bulbs to last the rest of life for free. Now if they actually
fit our light fixtures I might be able to use a few.
To: matt04
Switching to mostly LED..will never buy GE products.
5
posted on
12/16/2011 11:54:42 AM PST
by
Leep
To: Leep
Most definitely will NEVER buy merc bulbs!
6
posted on
12/16/2011 11:56:06 AM PST
by
Leep
To: matt04
First, I want to make clear that there is no pending legislation that calls for a ban on incandescent light bulbs. He's technically correct in a roundabout, oily politician sort of way. See the incandescent light bulb was technically never banned by the 2007 legislation, the efficiency standards were just set so high that no incandescent bulb could ever meet them. A ban in all but name. Sort of like Obamas eventual goal to ban use of fossil fuels, he knows an outright ban would never fly, but he can accomplish the same goal by setting efficiency and pollution control standards so high it's effectively a ban.
7
posted on
12/16/2011 11:57:27 AM PST
by
apillar
To: matt04
These stupid new bulbs don’t last any longer than incandescent bulbs.
The last one I replaced broke in my hand when I removed it.
They make my tomato soup look green.
I’m going to call John F’n Kerry and complain.
8
posted on
12/16/2011 11:57:35 AM PST
by
donhunt
(Certified and proud "Son of a Bitch".)
To: donhunt
I have an entire shelf in the basement loaded with the incandecent bulbs. At least enough to last a lifetime.
I am sure I am not alone.
9
posted on
12/16/2011 12:02:39 PM PST
by
Jim from C-Town
(The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
To: matt04
Shockingly, he also ignore my concerns about the mercury content of the CFLs. Pssst, you got the bug letter.
To: apillar
Call it a solar simulator.
11
posted on
12/16/2011 12:10:39 PM PST
by
Paladin2
To: donhunt
The last one I replaced brokeDid you know that there's a 3 page pdf on how to safely clean up a broken CFL?
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
12
posted on
12/16/2011 12:11:25 PM PST
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
To: donhunt
These stupid new bulbs dont last any longer than incandescent bulbs. I have them everywhere in my home. I'm not a Greenie. The reason why I bought them was:
1) I was sick of replacing the old style bulbs once a month.
2) They save me money
I've had them for more than 2 years and not one of them has needed to be replaced.
That being said, I think the consumer should have the choice and government should STAY OUT.
13
posted on
12/16/2011 12:14:58 PM PST
by
tsowellfan
(http://www.cafenetamerica.com)
To: matt04
Where are all the fake environmentalists as our government is forcing mercury into our homes and landfills (nobody on earth follows the EPA rules on disposing CFLS)? You know the anti-American communist who lost their hero in the USSR and turned to the environmental movement as their tool to destroy the USA.
Lets force everyone in congress and the executive branch to have all their bulbs changed to CFLs and if we are lucky they will all be exposed to mercury.
14
posted on
12/16/2011 12:15:10 PM PST
by
Wurlitzer
(Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
To: InterceptPoint
First, I want to make clear that there is no pending legislation that calls for a ban on incandescent light bulbs
Quite true, Joe. That legislation was passed in 2007 and, due to some unfortunate laws of physics, effectively bans the sale of 100 watt incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012. Another lesson in how to politicians bend the truth.
He did say PENDING LEGISTRATION...:-)
15
posted on
12/16/2011 12:19:14 PM PST
by
ExCTCitizen
(If we stay home in November '12... Don't complain if 0 shreds the constitution!!!)
To: matt04
Enticed, Joe? Is that what you call enticement? I have a suggestion as to what you can do with a curly light bulb.
16
posted on
12/16/2011 12:40:39 PM PST
by
NonValueAdded
("At a time like this, we can't afford the luxury of thinking!")
Try getting them to come on below 32 degrees
17
posted on
12/16/2011 12:46:18 PM PST
by
white17x
To: matt04
Why must those who work for us, lie?
My leg is wet and there is not a cloud in the sky.
Throw them all out and then throw their replacements out until they figure out who they work for.
18
posted on
12/16/2011 1:01:54 PM PST
by
hadaclueonce
("Endeavor to persevere.")
To: matt04
Whether there is a ban on incandescent light bulbs or not, they were still successful in driving out the last remaining light bulb manufacturing plant from the United States.
-PJ
19
posted on
12/16/2011 1:07:12 PM PST
by
Political Junkie Too
(If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
To: InterceptPoint
That legislation was passed in 2007 and, due to some unfortunate laws of physics, effectively bans the sale of 100 watt incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012. Another lesson in how to politicians bend the truth.
What I tell them:
Sure you didn't "ban" them, but imagine I pass a rule like this:
Liberals have freedom of speech but they have to tell the absolute truth without any spin. You would be effectively silenced and yet I could say I have not banned liberal speech.
20
posted on
12/16/2011 1:23:01 PM PST
by
Peet
(Cogito ergo dubito.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson