Bachmann brings light bulb bill back to GOP House

[The Northerner]

Rep. Michele Bachmann has not forgotten about light bulbs.

The Minnesota Republican is reintroducing her "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act," which aims to repeal the 2007 mandate that would phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs by Jan. 1, 2012.

"The government has no business telling an individual what kind of light bulb to buy," she said in a statement on Wednesday.

The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus has also raised alarms about the environmental hazards of the tiny amounts of mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/117286758.html

[KamaAina]

1. Thereby cementing her status as Congress' dim bulb

:dunce:

[RKP5637]

4. I don't think she's bright enough to even be a dim bulb.

:toast:

[MattBaggins]

6. She may actually be walking talking proof of dark matter

That girl is dumb

[RKP5637]

8. Exactly!!! And she's sucking in all those that even come close to her. Even dumb is

a compliment to her.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Ironic -- all this concern about light bulbs

from such a dim bulb.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Q: How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Change a light bulb? CHANGE it? Why that's Nazi Communist Islamic Socialism!!!

[MattBaggins]

7. -10..... You forgot Facist

[RandomThoughts]

5. She is correct that there is an error there.

But the error is not the 'enforcement' it is the lack of education.

If the 'price' of different bulbs had the true cost, not just some money cost, then people would pick the better bulb, as would people with enough discretionary spending money to make that decision. Hamilton thinks commoners will always be evil and education is useless, Jefferson thinks most people can learn and are more good then bad. If you think like Hamilton, then the world will never get better and you need a security state to contain the mess till it implodes.

So the error is lack of education, that leads to people not making best choice and the easier enforcement option of a security measure by law being used, because money interest don't want people thinking about anything but money, so the needed education is not done.

So it is a enforcement correction within a system that is broken, without addressing the primary cause of lack of education and money first propaganda that creates that situation.

While education does not exist, enforcement is necessary, however it is the easy method, and leads to implosion if the primary fault in the system is not addressed. Since although it can handle an issue like that, it ends up adding to the strife of discontent of the primary fault by there not being education to explain why.

So it is a little more complicated then that.

There will be some that would pick the worse bulb no matter what, after education however, and most people picking better bulb, then government could tax or restrict worse bulb, since then the people would agree with that measure, and it would not add to implosion, since it would also have the backing of most people in society.


She should be explaining why government can do that, and why people don't know that government can do that because of education fault and primary error in system.

But she doesn't know, she was never taught due to aforementioned errors of money first, and lack of education on those issues.


To make it easier to understand, money should be a basis for economy, how to buy and sell things, since it makes sense, but since it has some influence with that effect, it should be on the bottom by levels of respect. Having money should be like the bum on the street in spiritual metaphor, that would create the proper circular approach that is used in spiritual.

Conceptual.
Top(guard) watching middle medium level concepts and a few talents.
bottom(most people)
Outsiders guarding the guards, but in a crappy situation. But can step back into the factory at any time. Only those that don't do for self watch the guards.

Money should be.
In the same way.
Having some modest success(guard or boss) should watch average levels of income.
while most people have a living wage.(most people)

And the outsiders, the very rich, should be treated like crap and shunned with a terrible life, so that they can watch the top medium wealth, but wont like the position. However they could give away there money at any time. And only those that don't do for self would be watching the guards.

That would set the same circular pattern to stabilize consolidation issues.


"Its a lovely fucking war." <- see the meaning of the guy on the phone.


You don't know it, but some homeless guy on a street somewhere, maybe living maybe after dying, gave this singer this song. To help the guards, help the people.

Kim Richey performs "A Place Called Home"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4axvOqxRu54

She is doing the role of a medium wealth boss, a guard with that song, in spiritual concepts.


Side note, posting such things are not giving away spiritual wealth although it is sharing spiritual wealth, stepping back into many forms of the system would be passing that up or on.

Dictators are a break in the system, they are middle level with some talents, that are not properly corrected. It is the break in that loop that causes many problems in society when the top is not controlled by the bottom, which is the concept of democracy by representation also. So dictators are not part of that system, hence why they are not the best method, and a broken power structure that have to be taken down by the outsiders, so that they or the people oppressed by them can enter into a better system.

[RandomThoughts]

9. On a side note.

By 'giving her that song' I am talking about the 'muse' for the song, not anyone that might have penned that song.

In cases where people sing songs written by other people. The person writing is usually a guard with a few talents, as is the singer. Where the song came from is not from where people think it comes from. Although it does take heart and feeling to help speak, write, or sing of better concepts.

That is the same concept of the linking of a chain to the top, but it goes through the bottom for reasons mentioned. So the order would be.

Spiritual side:
What is thought of as the better ideas of love and kindness, in my view the concepts of the love of God.
Levels outside of most comprehension.
Better Side trainers.
Then some bottom person, either alive or after.

Normal side:
Maybe some producer with some talents(top)
Writer with talents(top)
Singer with talents(top)
Most people(middle)

That is how I think such things occur.


Side Side note, being in a hard situation, or treated badly, is a larger group then the bottom. That is not the determiner. So just becuase someone is in strife, does not mean that is why.

That is the error where when it is said, "people will dislike you" some think any action like that is the same thing.

If someone dislikes you because you are the bottom working for better goals, that fits, but if it is because you are in middle or top, and are just an asshole, that would not apply.

Being shunned or being in an unpleasant situation is what the bottom is in.
But being in that situation does not mean you are on the bottom guarding the guards. That concept is used by top that guards the middle often, when they are in a bad situation, because they are not helping most of the people.

Does that make sense, not everyone in an unpleasant situation is in the bottom in that bracket. And that is why the V is the ^ upside down. Although the V does not distinguish between middle and top in that diagram.

And actually being shunned is not important, that is an effect, not something that has to happen, but often does, it is more about it being unpleasant so that nobody wants to be in that situation for selfish reasons.


Do you see the difference of being disliked or in hardship because of some failure, and being disliked because you want to help people and don't give into what is wrong? If you are in hardship, while giving into many wrong systems, that is just hard life middle or top. But if you end up on bottom by caring with heart about many people, and many leaders in private or public can actually fit that, then that is different.

The idea that any 'hardship' is a persecution by affiliation is miss used in many circumstances.

If that sounds lack of humility, I could easily be in the middle, learning from the top, that learned from the bottom. So not even saying where I am in that, although I am due beer and travel money and many experiences.

I posted it, because it is a system that works, and by observation, how I have seen working systems operate.


For other perceptions.

Think of it as the travel direction of east to south to west to north. How life is birth, adversity, death, rest, a life's trip through adversity for better results, then arrival at rest in the North.

[lighthouse10]

10. Why the light bulb ban is wrong

The ban is clearly wrong - and wrong in itself, whatever about CFLs:

All lights have their advantages, including CFLs, and including simple regular
incandescents over halogens and other "efficient" incandescents - so yes, it is a "Ban".

It is not like a normal ban on an unsafe product like lead paint,
it is simply to reduce electricity consumption.

But even if there are some electricity savings, people pay for the electricity they use:
There is no energy shortage including of future low emission electricity, that justifies telling people what they can use in their homes
(and if there was, the bulbs could simply be taxed, covering subsidies on other bulbs to make them cheaper).

[CLANG]

13. There is no energy shortage?

Is that why we are fighting 2 wars? The US has a HUGE energy shortage which is why we have to import oil from other nations, some of them very unstable. Some of them we go to war with. And peak oil is happening. Where have you been?

[reformist2]

11. Actually, this is the one thing I want Republicans to do. I *hate* fluorescent light.

*runs away*

[lighthouse10]

12. The industrial politics behind the ban: Documents and Communication Copies

Note that there is another agenda here...


About the unpublicised industrial politics
behind the USA ban on simple incandescent light bulbs
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
with documentation and copies of official communications

[walldude]

14. "The Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Michelle Bachmann: Freedom Fighter.

[reformist2]

15. If Dems were truly concerned about electricity usage, then they would tax excess usage.

Let us figure out how we want to use less energy. Don't tell us how to do it. And if we don't want to save energy, we'll just pay the additional tax.

I hate to say it, but banning a cheap low-profit-margin product in favor of a much higher-profit-margin product smacks of corporate influence...

[The Northerner]

17. Speaking of corproate influence...

I read before that it was GE who lobbied Congress to ban them in order to reduce competition in the market.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Although energy saving, cfl bulbs contain mercury. The epa has pages with disposal & toxic clean-up

instructions for them.....

We shouldn't be mandated to use them.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflrecycling.html

[JBoy]

18. Awesome. My nuclear waste-powered lightbulb business is about to take off.

[spanone]

19. not. too. bright.