National Campaign to Save the Light Bulb

bulbFrom Freedom Action

Freedom Action this week launched a national grassroots campaign to repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs that is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012. Supporters of repealing the ban are being invited to sign a petition to Congress at ban on standard incandescent bulbs was included in comprehensive anti-energy legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress and signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush in 2007. The chief sponsors of the ban were Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

Rep. Upton, now Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has said that his committee will hold a hearing on the ban, but he has not promised to repeal it, as was erroneously reported in the press in December. The 2007 law makes the sale of standard incandescent 100-watt bulbs illegal as of January 1, 2012, 75-watt bulbs as of January 1, 2013, and 60- and 40-watt bulbs as of January 1, 2014.

Read the rest at Freedom Action and see

211 Responses to National Campaign to Save the Light Bulb

  1. Rob N. Hood February 11, 2011 at 6:15 am #

    Wonderful use of time and energy!! I propose we go one step further backwards, just because, and why not?! Let’s gather momentum for the return of whale oil lamps. It is a wonderful way to light your home and even leaves a naturally soothing scent behind. Are you with me??!! Those lazy and protected whales have had it so soft and easy for many years now. They must be really fat and easy to kill; they won’t be expecting it.

  2. Clair Voyanc February 11, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

    rob n hood… please do your homework or you might be considered a little foolish

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 12, 2011 at 8:58 am #

      Might be?

    • Hal Groar February 12, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

      A little foolish? Robbie here puts foolishness on a scale par to measuring distance to other planets. For example; the sun is 93 million miles away, about equal to Rob’s stand on incandescent bulb ban repeal from a normal person. Don’t ask about his stand on the Fed! (begin with distance between Galaxies)

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

        I think I have found an accurate description of what you mean Hal:

        “First of all, the expansion of the universe doesn’t consist of galaxies moving through some static space, but rather the “stretching” of the space itself. The light is moving through this expanding space and has to travel the initial distance plus whatever distance is added due to the universe’s expansion during the course of the journey. It’s like running on a racetrack that is being stretched — if the racetrack started off 100 meters long but got stretched to a final length of 400 meters as you were running from start to finish, then the total distance you’ve run is more than 100 meters.”

        Analogous, no?

        • Hal Groar February 15, 2011 at 9:50 pm #


      • Rob N. Hood February 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

        You really don’t recognize my above post as dripping with sarcasm and irony? Really? Wow, if not you people are really impaired. And “normal” people don’t care about light bulbs the way you ego-centric paranoiacs do.

    • Rob N. Hood February 12, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

      Homework on what? Those damn lazy non-tax paying whales crusing around like it’s always Spring break??!! Frolicking and having almost no responsiblities while we humans toil all day!?? C’mon!

  3. paul wenum February 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

    I hate mercury. You are not to eat to much fish because of its content. I like the old light bulbs that were “enviromentally friendly.” No mercury that may “kill” me. All for it, plus less cash in GE’s pocket. GE, the puppet for Pres. Obama, or is it reversed? Only time will tell.

    • Rob N. Hood February 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

      Umm, Paul. You are forgetting ONE HUGE thing, as usual. Coal that is burned for electricity to fire up those old blulbs is LOADED with mercury and in no way can be recylced the way light bulbs can. And that is where ALL or most of the mercurey entered our lakes and fish, etc. This is another DUH moment brought to you by the Right.

      • Jerk A. Knot February 14, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

        But you left the facts short also…… As normal. In accordance with EPA regulations all bituminous coal and sub-bituminous coal under go a leaching process that removes the Pyrate from the coal. That removes a majority of the Mercury from it then the Smoke scrubber capture the remainder. There are only a few Power plants in the US that are not clean Burning… But for you left wing radicals the efforts of the world to be responsiable are not enoulgh. There is no half way or common ground for you is there.

        • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 9:59 am #

          Why do you Rightys even try, I wonder? Jerk: First off- if it wasn’t for Liberals and Enviros, the coal plants wouldn’t be scrubbing anything except for the extra cash they’d earn without those pesky EPA rules. Those pollution controls came about thru action, not voluntary kindness on the part of Big Coal. Secondly, there is still mercury being discharged by coal plants. And enough so that you have to limit your consumption of fish. The two are connected my logically impaired friend.

  4. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 12, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    “Governments, investors and even the World Bank are rushing for the exits in the Great Escape from the green energy bubble.

    Solar energy appears to be the worst affected sector so far. Dow Jones reports on a startling U-turn by Britain’s ultra-green government has caught investors off guard and shock waves across the markets will likely precipitate the further rush from green energy projects to shale gas.

    The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change made the shock announcement as it revealed a comprehensive review of its Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program. Indications from data provider, Prequin are that over $1bn in earmarked funds may be lost as Britain now promises it will only hold tariffs until April 2012.

    Green Investors Feeling Betrayed by European Governments

    Britain’s decision is another nail in the coffin for Europe’s tottering green energy market. Last year the first of several crushing body blows was dealt to environmentalist dreams when the Spanish government retrospectively cut the value of its tariffs in its own U-turning energy review.

    The devastated Spanish Solar Photovoltaic Industry Association, with mass bankruptcies on the cards, is accusing their government of utter betrayal is yet to carry out a threat to sue over the ruling.

    As the green house of cards collapses Netherlands-based investment manager DIF and BNP Paribas and venture capitalists such as Future Capital Partners are rumored to be extremely fearful of further repercussions coming at a time when European public opinion is bored and fatigued after two decades of endless global warming hype.”

  5. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    I think the mercury angle is a good one. But my concern over this entire debate is the freedom angle. Liberals like to argue a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn baby if she wants to. Why can’t I choose what freaking light bulb I use? As far as energy consumption goes… I’ll put it this way: No one is helping me with my energy bill, I pay it in full every month. If I want to consume electricity it is no one’s business but mine. If I think my bill is too high I will cut back on usage myself. I don’t need anyone else to tell me how to spend my money, or how to consume energy. Whether I am using too much, or not enough, is not the concern of the electric utility, local, state, or federal government. Who are these busybodies anyway? It is none of their god****ed business!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Rob N. Hood February 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    Wow, chill pill dude. It’s JUST A LIGHT BULB!! I can see you up in arms when they had to stop killing whales too… if you had been alive then. “It’s all about Neil personal freedom to do whatever he wants” and he will act like a 2 year old to prove it. Liberals like a lot of freedoms, Neil. But we know which ones are important and which ones are not. THAT is the difference between having a discerning brain and emotional maturity, or not.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

      You don’t get to dictate what is important to me or anyone but yourself. And it’s funny that you bring up whales, seeing as how the invention of the incandescant light bulb, and the refineing of crude oil effectively ended the need for whale oil. How many whales were saved by kerosene, and the light bulb?
      “The first step that led to saving the whales was made by Dr. Abraham Gesner, a Canadian geologist. In 1849, he devised a method whereby kerosene could be distilled from petroleum. Petroleum had previously been considered either a nuisance, or a miracle cure (an idea originating with Native Americans). Earlier coal-gas methods had been used for lighting since the 1820s, but they were prohibitively expensive. Gesner’s kerosene was cheap, easy to produce, could be burned in existing lamps, and did not produce an offensive odor as did most whale oil. It could be stored indefinitely, unlike whale oil, which would eventually spoil. The American petroleum boom began in the 1850s. By the end of the decade there were 30 kerosene plants operating in the United States. The cheaper, more efficient fuel began to drive whale oil out of the market.

      The man most responsible for the commercial success of kerosene was John D. Rockefeller. In 1865, at the age of 25, he went into partnership with Samuel Andrews, the part-owner of a Cleveland refinery. Rockefeller had sensed that too much capital was being invested in finding and extracting oil, and not enough was being invested in its processing. Backed by investors, he set up a network of kerosene distilleries which would later develop into Standard Oil.

      As kerosene became generally available throughout the country, the demand for whale oil dropped precipitously. The 735-ship fleet of 1846 had shrunk to 39 by 1876. The price of sperm oil reached its high of $1.77 per gallon in 1856; by 1896 it sold for 40 cents. Yet it could not keep pace with the price of refined petroleum, which dropped from 59 cents per gallon in 1865 to a fraction over seven cents in 1895.

      Rockefeller, too, would eventually find himself having to adapt to the changing market. A new invention soon snuffed out both flame-based lighting systems. In 1879 Thomas A. Edison began marketing the incandescent light bulb he had invented the previous year. Arc-light technologies had existed since the turn of the century, but it was Edison who devised the modern, commercially feasible light bulb, which produced an even light, burned longer and brighter than oil or kerosene, and was much safer than an open flame. As the country was electrified, whale oil and kerosene were both driven from the illumination market.”

      You should choose you analogies with a bit more care. It’s just another thing that makes you look like you just might be a little foolish

      • Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

        Neil- why do you think I used whales in my analogy?! You folks are kinda slow on the uptake… Not aonly that, but you still don’t seem to understand the analogy. Ok… now I feel foolish… for you. Ah hum… here we go… ready? Pay attention: They stopped using whales for their oil for two reasons. 1. The diminishing supply of whales, due to over-hunting of course. And 2. because the THE NEW TECHNOLOGY OF ALTERNATIVES!! Do you get that last one, especially??!! Or do I have to spell it out at kindergarten language level???!! OMG

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

          You didn’t say anything like that. Of course you’re saying that’s what you meant now because I brought it up. And those new technologies back then were not considered alternatives because the light bulb replaced kerosene lamps within a few years, and kerosene replaced whale oil in about as short of a span. They replaced them because they were cheaper to produce, and thus more profitable for the suppliers. There was no mention of a shortage of whales as a reason to switch to the new technologies in fact there were no estimates to the whale population from that period at all. As far as anyone knew back then the oceans were teaming with whales. No, the switch to the new technologies happened because they were better technologies. Period. End of story. There were no laws banning the use of whale oil, or kerosene. And there were no mandates to stop using kerosene to switch to light bulbs. There really is no analogy here because there is a law right now banning a perfectly fine product, forcing everyone to buy an inferior alternative, and it contains mercury!!!
          Rob your reach is far exeeding your grasp on this subject. I recommend that you bail immediately.

          • Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

            Oh give me a break. So there was never any laws made against whaling?? You just can’t admit you either didn’t get it, or you enjoy splitting hairs to avoid debating correctly. Man up about it. You and your Cliff Clavin dictionary personality. So funny, so sad.

            People like you throughout history have fought against anything new, and have done whatever they can to avoid logic and reason.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

            Well, there IS a law against incandescent light bulbs Rob. My point is that the transition from whale oil to new technologies was not forced. Where the change now is being forced because there are many, many people, including myself, who don’t want to use CFL’s. Nobody forced anyone to switch to kerosene or the light bulb, they were just better than whale oil.
            So, what is the main argument for switching to CFL’s anyway? They save on energy costs. In fact they use 75% less energy than an incandescent light. That is fine, and dandy. If you want to use them it is perfectly fine with me. Go ahead and use them. I don’t care if you do. But, why is the government forcing everyone to use them? That is where I have a problem witht it. I have no more than two light bulbs on at any given time in my house. The amount of energy used, and what I pay, for lighting is the smallest fraction of my energy bill. And it is none of your bisiness. Nor is it the governments business. It IS a matter of freedom of choice. You’re all for a woman choosing to slay her unborn baby if she wants to. Why the he** don’t you want to allow me the choice of using what light bulb I want? If CFL’s are so great let them take over the market like kerosene, and the original light bulb did. If it turns out that it is something people want then it will push incandescents out of the market.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 12, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

      “Liberals like a lot of freedoms” – Rob
      Are you hinting that there are some freedoms that Liberals don’t like? I think you are. Let me tell you something, Conservatives like all freedoms as long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s freedoms. Where your ilk would have only certain freedoms that you like, and outlaw ones that you don’t. Smoking bans, gun control, campus free speech zones….. where does it end?

    • Jerk A. Knot February 14, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

      OH No you don’t…. you want to dictate to the whole world wich ones are more important. That is Neils point. Get a clue Rob. Freedom is the ultimate commadoty. Don’t you understand that. If it was not for the concept of it you would not be sitting in MN freezing your rear end off because there would never have been any Pilgrams…. I suggest you look deep into your self. You will find you are a slave worshiping yourself… You think every one on here is dumber than you and that you are the authority on everything yet when facts are presented you only have contempt for them and accuse everyone else of having an adjenda. It is just a light bulb… then it is just a health plan… then just one media sourse … then we will work where you dictate…… ect ect ect… STOP!!!!! You and yours have done enoulgh to corrupt the concept of freedom…. “We know wich ones are important and wich ones are not” Really?!?!?!?!

    • Hal Groar February 15, 2011 at 10:21 pm #

      So it is immature to value freedom of choice? Really Rob? Only a two year old would want to make choices on how he/she will live. Than count me in as immature! I think Neil is right…If I am too immature (at 45) to choose the way I light my home then NOBODY is mature enough to make the abortion decision. What do you say we take the really hard decisions away from the public. For example; Billy wants to go to college to become an environmental scientist but Billy’s Senator thinks Billy is better suited for bus driving. Billy’s Senator has never met Billy, never even heard of Billy, but this decision effects too many people and should be made by smarter people then Billy or his immature parents, Mary wants to start a commune for indigent folk singers on the outskirts of Walla-Walla and needs a loan to install wheel-chair access ramps to the swimming hole by the river, Mary’s Senator insists she accept drunken Country singers as well or no building permit. Mary is too immature to make the call on whether she should have to clean up various fluids that accompany such singers, so the choice is no longer hers. Your right Rob, it’s a light bulb! Oh! And it’s Health Care! Oh! And it’s smoking! Oh! And it’s guns Oh!…..the list goes on. It’s not a light bulb! It’s choice!

      • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 11:33 am #

        So you want Libertarian anarchy? Is that the point of your strange rant?

  7. Rob N. Hood February 12, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    No Neil-you are the one who just mentioned abortion in a very negative freedom impinging manner. You- not me, did that. Are you possibly beign a hypocrite Neil? Maaaaaaybbeee…..

    Smoking doesn’t infringe on others right to breathe clean carcinogenic-free air? Of course it does. Some gun control is a good thing for obvious reasons. Do Liberals want to ban all guns for all people? No, most Liberals wouldn’t go that far, and many are hunters themselves. Don’t try to paint me as someone who thinks like you- stop projecting onto me. Take responsiblity for your own beliefs about who and what you would restrict if given the chance. You already mentioned abortion. What ELSE would YOU ban?? It’s not Liberals who want all these restrictions, some yes, the ones that make intelligent sense, but all the others? Authouritarians, that’s who. And guess what? They are the same people who brainwash you to blame Liberals for their crimes and evil. Bait and switch. And you fall for it every time apparently.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 12, 2011 at 8:32 pm #

      What about the freedom of the unborn child to live a life? If a woman that you slept with five years ago comes up holding a young boys hand and says this is your son, do you strangle the child? No, of course you don’t. But if she comes up to you five weeks after you’ve slept with her and she says she’s pregnant, it’s ok to kill the child? Abortion is not birth control. It is ending a life. If you walk into a hospital and kill a baby that was born five minutes ago, you get life in prison or the death penalty. But if a doctor performs an abortion that fails to kill the baby they are allowed to suck out it’s brain with a vacuum. A mother does not have the right to choose to kill her born baby. Why does she have the right to choose to kill an unborn one? That is insane. You explain that to me Rob. How is that ok?

      As far as banning smoking, why is the product legal? If it is so deadly why is it still legal? Why is the sale and production of it not banned? It ruins lives and kills thousands annually. Oh, thats right, it would dry up a tax revenue stream.
      And the scientific evidence against passive tobbacco smoke is about as reliable as the scientific evidence for global warming. Do your homework Rob. There is debate about it, and the science is not as settled on that as you have been led to believe. So if you walk by someone sitting on a park bench smoking a cigarrette you are in no danger at all. In fact you are at a higher risk of ingesting carcinogens if you work in aluminum production, have arsenic in your drinking water, work in shoe or boot manufacturing, furniture and cabinet making, iron or steel foundries, or the rubber industry.
      Go read a book that has some facts in it.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 6:41 am #

        Did you know that two out of three people never get cancer, and more than half of heavy smokers don’t get cancer, either? How can you say that ETS causes cancer if more than half of heavy smokers never get cancer? If you ask a doctor to explain how smoking causes cancer, they will be unable to tell you how, because they don’t know exactly. A lot of researchers believe that cancer is caused by either genetics, or viruses but have yet to pinpoint a cause. Which, by the way, is exactly why no one has been able to come up with a cure either.
        If you were sitting on a park bench next to a smoker, with the smoke blowing right in your face, your risk of getting skin cancer from UV exposure would still be higher than you getting lung cancer from the ETS. You are a victim of anti smoking propaganda if you believe otherwise.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 11:05 am #

          Oh, and did you know this? I bet you don’t.

          “Although cancer-causing substances are often thought by the general public to be synthetic, there are numerous carcinogens that occur in nature, and in food plants. (Concon,1988)

          For example, tannins occur widely in plant foods and we ingest them daily in tea, coffee, and cocoa. Tannic acid has caused liver tumors in experimental animals, and may be linked to esophageal cancer in humans.

          Cycad plants are important food sources in tropical regions. Cycads contain cycasin and related azoxyglycosides that were found to cause liver and kidney tumors when fed to rats.

          Safrole, which is a liver carcinogen in rats, is found in sassafras tea, cinnamin, cocoa (trace), nutmeg, and other herbs and spices.

          Black pepper was found to be carcinogenic to experimental mice. Pyperadine and alpha-Methylpyrroline are secondary amines in black pepper which can be nitrosated to N-nitrosopiperadine, a strong carcinogen.

          Although not of plant origin, heterocyclic amines in cooked meats have been associated with stomach and other cancer formation.

          Aflatoxins and Ochratoxin A are natural toxins made by fungal food contaminants that also cause cancer in animals and humans.”

      • Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

        Nicotine shouldn’t be legal, at least as an additive, due to it being one of the most addicitng substances known to man. You bring up abortion, again. So you want to ban abortion? What makes you think you can decide that for someone else, and yet you say you are for personal freedoms??… You see? There are grey areas, sometime HUGE ones. And civilized countries do what they can to strike a BALANCE. You just want things your way, and you cannot reconcile yourself to the complexities of reality. Or of true personal freedom. Which, if I have to say it another way, isn’t completely possible in this reality, nor would you be happy about it if we achieved such a thing, as evidenced by your willingness to ban something you as a male never even have to consider personally, that is as an issue involving YOUR body, not someone elses. Penis envy in the reverse??

        You all say I believe in many or all the conspriacy theories, when it is you all that actually do. For example, conspriacy theories such as: there’s no global warming, a Left-wing plot to take over and make the USA into a communist country, and that passive cig smoke doesn’t harm you, not to to mention all the other ways you can ingest carcinogens that you list above based on …what, science that you choose to believe and yet the other science you don’t? Did it ever occur to you that since we are exposed to carcinogens in probably multiple ways, many of which are not beyond our immediate power to control, yet the ones we know we can control, like passive cig smoke, you go all bonkers about and defend it, and even say there’s no evidence to support it. Apparently you do not realize how extremely illogical and non-rational your statements are. It is really quite chilling to know there are people like you out voting every two years.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

          I see that you are still defending abortion. Yet you still have not explained how it is ok to kill a baby. Does anyone have the right to choose to kill another human being? Come on Rob, you call me a warmonger because I want to kill enemy combatants. You know like the a**holes that killed the two girls for reading a bible. You think that’d be wrong. Why do you think it’s ok to kill a baby in the womb? It’s never harmed anyone. Except for inconveniencing the mother of course. And that is punishable by death? Come on Rob, other than the woman’s “right” to choose, can you come up with any other reason why it’s ok to end the life of a fetus? I bet you can’t. I’m open to all thoughts you have on the matter.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

            Oh, and as far as making choices about my body, I can choose not to have sex if I’m not ready to deal with being a parent. Somehow I think you don’t know what I mean by that. If a girl told you she was pregnant, and that you are the father, would you encourage her to get an abortion? By the way you talk about it I’m inclined to think you might. I think any man that says it’s a womans right to choose is a liar. What he is really saying is that he’d like to continue to have no-strings-attached sex without any consequences, or responsibilities whatsoever. I know you know I’m right, but I think you will defend your position anyway. Won’t you?

          • Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

            For Neil below. You have a holier-than-thou attitude, like Paul. Gosh Beaver if only everone were as perfect as you and Paul. Wow.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

            I do not have a holier than thou additude, in fact if you recall I am not holy in any sense of the term. I believe there is a God, but I don’t follow any religions. Though I have always believed that one need not be religious to have morality. I have my own sense of what is right, and what is wrong. It just so happens that I agree with the Christians on abortion, mostly. I don’t think I’m better than you Rob. I just think that you are wrong, and I am right. And in that we are the same… just opposite.

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:12 am #

            It’s a woman’s body. If men were the ones bearing children, not only would abortion be legal but there’d be clinics on every corner.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 12:53 pm #

            That has nothing to do with anything. Ah!!! Evasion! And it’s not even original. You are paraphrasing Gloria Stienem. It’s a hypothetical statement that changes nothing. And if it’s the only thought you have on the matter, then it is obvious you have never really thought about it.
            Let’s take your main reason out of it. Other than a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body, how is it ok to destroy a fetus?

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

          I am not totally against abortion. If it is a case of rape, or incest, or if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, I think it is, though regretably, something that may have to be done. What I am against is abortion as birth control. Getting rid of it because it is an inconveniance to you. I think that is wrong. And I don’t understand why you think it is not wrong.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 7:20 pm #

            I have a question for you Rob. What would you think if your Mom chose to have an abortion when she found out she was pregnant with you? I know it’s a trick question, but think about that Rob.

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:25 am #

            Neil- you are not a woman, so in my mind you. or I even, have no rights involved in this. It’s just one of those issues that doesn’t have a perfect solution. There’s evidence that relatively few women use abortion as birth control. It’s unfortunate when it happens, but is such a small number as to make this another non-issue, that you Rightys love to blow out of proporation.

            These issues re: personal rights are very difficult for people to deal with. And logic, reasoning, and rational thinking is very important- in adddition to being unbiased, and as neutral as possible. I know that sounds cold, but it really isn’t. It’s necessary. It is very arrogant of you as a man to presume anything about this issue. Other than leaving up to the women as much as possible is best in my opinion. We already have many laws in place and women cannot just have abortions willy nilly as they wish. This is another non-issue in my opinion.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

            Oh, so it’s a non-issue. Relatively few women hmmm. Ahhh, Another one minimization! So, distract, distort, evade, insult, feign indignation, minimize, repeat in random order ad nausium. Thanks!

          • Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 10:40 am #

            Neil, statements like the one below just highlight your immature and nonsensical thinking processes. Above you call me out, or try to, re: such an act, and yet you then trump it by spouting one of actual absurdity. My statement re: what men would do if it was their bodies and choice in question stands. It is neither absurd nor irrelvant to pose such a comparison. It is apt, and appropriate, in many different ways. Only one of limited intellectual ability would think otherwise. Hint: what is the majority of the gender of the ones trying to impose limits on what a women can do for herself…???

  8. paul wenum February 12, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    It’s a simple light bulb. What will the government take away next? Soap? Oh, that’s right they have and that’s why dishes aren’t as clean when you take them out of the dishwasher. Forgot about that one. What else? That is the problem.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 7:47 am #

      It’s a piecemeal dismantleing of liberty.
      The dishwasher soap problem is actually one I deal with just about every day because I repair dishwashers. I often get calls where the customer complaint is that the dishes are not getting clean. The first question that I ask is have they started using a different soap. More times than not they will say they have. In those cases I usually end up telling them to go back to their old soap if I find no other probable causes.
      However, as far as I know, there is no federal government ban on dishwasher soap…….yet. There are some states that have banned phosphates in soap, Minnesota is one of them. So if you live in a state that has banned phosphates, (Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin), and the soap you are using works fine, don’t switch to a so called “green” soap! You are already using a formula that uses enzymes instead of phosphates, and you will be switching to a formula that uses neither, and will end up using more energy for hotter water, and more water to rinse the dishes off after your dishes don’t get clean.

  9. Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    “Piecemeal dismantling of liberty.” You got that right. That is happening all the time, (more than ever under W) and yet you are blind to the real serious stuff. You are worried about a light bulb? A hundred year old technology (approx). How ’bout we all get in a lather over the lack of horse and buggys, shall we?? People like you are steered toward non-issues and brainwashed to keep the rest of the sheeple off balance, so most of the public doesn’t get to see the really bad stuff going on with their tax dollars. The term “useful idiots” is also old, but is still used VERY effectively by the elite. You and yours are exhibit #1.

    • Dan McGrath February 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

      Note: There are still horse and buggys around and they haen’t been banned.

      Oh the light bulb is over 100 years old, so banning it’s OK, huh? How long has the wheel been in use?

      • Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 7:14 pm #

        Try “driving” one down 94. See how far you get.

        Banning selling wood alcohol for consumption was a bad idea? You see where your circular logic gets us? Right. No where.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

      Exactly which of your liberties were curtailed under Bush?

      • Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

        OMG- this is getting more surreal by the moment. I guess you need to do some homework. Talk about selective memory…. you guys are UNREAL.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

          Nice evasion. Answer the question please.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 14, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

            Rob I think you can’t name any of your liberties that were curtailed under Bush because you read it on buzzflash and a thousand other blogs that “Bush is curtailing our freedom”! “Bush is curtailing our freedom”! You read it, and believed it, but you can’t name a single liberty of yours that has been curtailed because none of them have been. It was a lie that you believed.
            Now I’ll ask you again. Exactly which of your freedoms have been curtailed under Bush?
            You can’t answer it because the only “freedom” that has been curtailed under Bush was the freedom to move through an airport security checkpoint in a timely manner.
            Now don’t tell me to google it, I want you to school me Rob. Tell me what freedoms you lost. I don’t think you can even ponder the question without getting a headache because you know it’s BS, but you want it to be true. So go ahead, I am waiting.

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 9:52 am #

            Read the Patriot Act. ’nuff said.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 1:37 pm #

            Oh, so the government needs to get a regular search warrant, instead of a wiretap order to listen to voicemail. That really infringes your civil liberties. Oh, and they can look at your cable co. records except for the records of your progam selections. Real creepy stuff. Yea, the patriot act does not rise to your shrill insistance that your liberties have been curtailed under Bush. I have read the patriot act. I don’t think you have. You are just repeating what youv’e read on your lefty blogs, and frankly have no idea what your talking about.

  10. Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    We will still have light bulbs… so you are wrong about that statement. And horse and buggys were certainly banned from areas once autos took over. Wrong, you are, on that one too; and otherwise splitting hairs and just avoiding my point.
    Three strikes and your’re out. You guys hardly make this challenging for me any more.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

      Where and when were horses and buggies banned? I can’t find any evidence of that. In fact, there were a few places where the automobile was banned. No, it took a long time for autos to replace the horse and buggy. The main reason it took so long was affordability. And of course there are some people who still use the horse and buggy like the Amish. Ever heard of them? They have not been banned from using them, of course they are required to put a reflective warning triangle on the back of the buggy. So, you are wrong….. again….. or should I say still?

      • Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 7:09 pm #

        Try “driving” one down 94. Or any other freeway for that matter. Don’t you get tired of being wrong?

    • Dan McGrath February 13, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

      I often see horse-drawn carriages Downtown Minneapolis.

      • Rob N. Hood February 14, 2011 at 10:19 am #

        Is it legal to do so everywhere Dan? No. That was my point. You people don’t know the effective way to debate is to concede a point when you are beaten. To nit-pick and split hairs does nothing more than highlight your inability or unwillingness to be responsible debaters. My main point remains: New technology has always had it detractors, not based so much on its value but on its new-ness and/or it effect on their own pesonal greed. There is a mentality/personality that exists with those mostly on the Right to do this. But they of the Right are more suscessible to brain-washing (we all are but the Right more so). And the powerful use that to their benefit. And in this case (the old lightbulb) is used as a Red-herring, a distraction.

        In addition to that- I apparently have to say the obvious: it is the role of government to make laws deemed beneficial to its society. Not that it is always correct. But in this case you are being purposefully side-tracked, and side-tracking others, from the real issues. The powerful play you all like puppets.

        I just found the below article and found it interesting. I’m not changing the subject- just thought the below might be important and pertinent to this site.

        The Cantwell-Collins bill, officially called the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act, would put a ceiling (that is, a cap) on U.S. carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. To bring fossil fuels into the nation’s economy, the oil and gas and coal companies will need to buy permits at monthly auctions. The total number of permits, fixed by the cap, will decline over time as we transition to a clean-energy economy. As the permits become more scarce, their price will go up.

        Most of the money from the permit auctions – 75% – will be returned directly to the American people in the form of equal per person “dividends” paid out monthly via ATM withdrawals, electronic deposits into bank accounts, or checks in the mail. The other 25% will be devoted to clean energy investments.

        Unlike the cap-and-trade proposals that have repeatedly failed to pass the United States Senate, the Cantwell-Collins bill has no free permit giveaways to polluters. The polluters pay. And the permits are not tradable – any more than other sorts of permits, like hunting permits or driving permits, are tradable – so that unlike cap-and-trade, the bill does not create a new sandbox for Wall Street to play in.
        If enacted into law, this cap-and-dividend policy not only will curb carbon emissions. It also will translate into very concrete practice – and into people’s pocketbooks – the principle that our country’s share of limited capacity of the Earth’s atmosphere to absorb carbon emissions belongs to all Americans in common and equal measure.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 14, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

          Pointing out where your wrong is not debating correctly? What? Are you serious? You make factless, baseless statements and expect us to just say “oh, ok, as long as your saying it it must be true”. Get outa here. And when you are challenged on something you say you throw a hissy fit and say things like we don’t know how to debate, and we are unwilling to be responsible debaters. You are 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:29 am #

            I throw a hissy fit? Isn’t that what you just did? Stop projecting. “Debating” is not what you people here normally partake in. Pointing that out is not a hissy fit. Your response however is.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

            Feign indignation.

  11. Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    Oh my gosh. Neil’s world famous wikipedia enhanced intelligence cannot “find” something!!! Alert the media- this is quite a moment!

    • Hal Groar February 15, 2011 at 10:46 pm #

      Rob you have lost your mind and the argument. You need a break…maybe I will call your Senator and have him mandate it for you.

      • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:34 am #

        har har har… Things get madated every day. Do I agree with all of them? No of course not. But acting like two year olds is not flattering, so you should consider that. That said- if like-minded people make enough noise about it you may get your old bulbs back. My point is and always has been this: WHY WASTE SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY ON A NON-ISSUE LIKE THIS???? And don’t give me that slippery slope BS. That’s nonsense in most cases, especially one like this. So I wait with bated breath for your response.

        There are so many other MUCH more important issues that effect your liberties out there that demand your attention. But you foolishly focus on non-issues such as this. It’s a distraction you oaf.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 1:40 pm #


          • Hal Groar February 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm #


  12. Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    Good point about the Amish, sort of. But my point still stands- and all it was is that there have always been holier-than-thou people like you all that fight the future, no matter how ignorant or wrong it makes you.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 9:00 pm #

      Iv’e seen Amish buggies on the freeway in Pennsylvania. If you drive up Hwy 52 to Harmony, MN you will see them on Hwy 52. But the point is that there was never a ban on the horse and buggy as you insist. If there was, post some evidence of it instead of just insisting that it happened. Pretend I’m from Missouri and show me!
      And I am not fighting the future, that is just silly. I love new technology. I am not a Luddite. I have my reasons for not liking CFL’s. I don’t like that there is mercury in them, and I don’t like the light spectrum that they give off. I know that doesn’t sound like good enough reasons for you, but that is what I don’t like about them. Plus I don’t care how much more energy efficient they are, as I have already established. I don’t like the fact that I will not have a choice in the matter because green leftist weenies, such as youself, have determined that it is going to somehow save the planet from global warming. That is in no way, shape, or form “fighting the future”. If I want to use CFL’s I will. If I don’t want to use them I won’t. And I don’t, so I won’t. The prism through which you are looking at this is very narrow Rob.
      And as far as saving the planet from global warm…… climate chan……global climate disruption goes, I think I have made my beliefs about that very clear… here… on GLOBAL CLIMATE SCAM DOT COM!!!!!!!

      • Rob N. Hood February 14, 2011 at 10:28 am #

        So bottom line for you, and yours, seems to be this: Other than minor personal dislikes, you don’t care about conserving energy- even though this is and undoubtedly will be the biggest issue in our future and is even pretty much so in the present. That is quite the arrogaqnt stqance to take is it not? Do you try to be a responsible citizen about everything else, but not this issue- which is maybe the BIGGEST issue of our time??!! Really Neil? Do you see how childish and ill-advised that attitude is? No, I guess you don’t.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 14, 2011 at 10:32 pm #

          Conserving energy is, and will be the biggest issue in the future? Are you kidding? Not for me it is. Why should I conserve energy? For what purpose? You have been posting here for years but you haven’t learned a thing. I know what it is you are worried about, but I don’t believe in AGW so I don’t care how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere. We could double, or tripple our CO2 output and it would not raise the status of CO2 as a trace gas, and it would not warm the atmosphere. Just as it is not warming the atmosphere now.
          Energy is produced at power plants. Power companies sell the electricity to consumers. Consumers pay for the electricity they use. If the cost of electricity goes up, consumers cut back because most consumers have a budget that they stick to. What is the issue? To what end do we have to conserve energy? Are you concerned about peak oil? Because that is a myth, new oil reserves are discovered every day. And there is lots of oil in places that would be more expensive to extract from the Earth that oil companies can access if other easier to reach sources start drying up, but they haven’t had to do that yet. No that is not the reason. It might be your reason, but I don’t see that happenning for a long, long time to come. So, as you can now see my stance is not arrogant, I have reasons for the position I take
          So what is the reason that conserving energy is the biggest issue of today, and the future? Other than the fears you have about global warming and peak oil, of course.

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:35 am #

            Ego-centric little child.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

            Insult, and minimization. And in so few words. Bravo!

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

            What more is there to say to someone who feels that arrogant, selfish, and childish? It actually takes my breath away a little bit. I knew there were Americans out there like you Neil, but I’ve honestly never gotten this close to one before, that I know of. Some people give the impression of being that ego-centric and selfish, but they seldom come right out and say it.

            But that said, let me ask you this: what do you think will be the biggest issue in the relatively near future? Can’t wait to hear this…

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

            What do I think will be the biggest issue in the relatively near future? I don’t presume to know. It’s not going to be energy with the progress oil co.s are making in N. Dakota with the Bakkan shale.
            But why is it that I’m ego-centric, selfish, and childish? I believe AGW, and warming caused by CO2 is a lie! And there are ample examples of it that are posted right here on this website. I’m not saying what I say from a position of ignoring all evidence. I didn’t trust Eyeore, or the IPCC and I found out that there were people, including scientists, who disagreed with them as well and I listened to them, and I read what they had to say. And I found that I did not get the feeling that they were lying, as I did with Eyeore, and the IPCC. And this didn’t happen overnight either. Remember, I’m sure I have stated it before, I was a true believer in the late 80’s- early 90’s. The first lie I discovered was Eyeor’s famous “The science is settled, and the debate is over”. Shortly after that I found Friends of science, a group of mostly Canadian scientists who are skeptical of AGW, and I listened to what they had to say. I didn’t just wake up one morning and decide I was going to disagree with you. And I am totally open to be proven wrong. It’s not my fault that your arguments, and insults have not swayed my beliefs. And it’s only because you use the tactics of distract, distort, evade, insult, project, and feign indignation, that you haven’t. If you can present facts without any of that other stuff, I might listen, but you don’t! The majority of what you post is propaganda from progressive, very Left leaning blogs, 80% of which is political positions, and opinions that have nothing to do with AGW. The other 20% is telling us how stupid and wrong we are.
            The main difference between you and I is this, I am here to discuss issues directly related to, or roughly surrounding the global climate debate, while you are here to propagandize your political beliefs, and chide us for not going along with you.

  13. Rob N. Hood February 13, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    There’s no reason to believe the GOP traditional values agenda has broad political appeal. Over the past decade attitudes about abortion have remained relatively static: three quarters of Americans believe that abortion should be available in some circumstances and only one quarter feels it should not be permitted at all. But abortion foes are primarily Republicans and, therefore, abortion has become a litmus test for GOP candidates; if a politician is not aggressively “pro life,” there is little chance that he or she can achieve national power in the GOP — that’s one of the reasons why New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn’t touted as a possible 2012 Presidential candidate.

    Abortion and rejection of same-sex marriage are the most visible manifestations of the Republican traditional values agenda. They are the banners that herald a conservative world-view that is radically different from that of progressives. In his landmark book, Moral Politics University of California Linguistics Professor George Lakoff examines the elemental differences between Republicans and Democrats. Most Republicans/conservatives favor a “strict father” family system, while most Democrats/progressives support a “nurturant parent” model. Lakoff explains how these alternative worldviews shape the divergent opinions about hot-button issues such as reproductive rights and pay equity.

    Men and women are viewed quite differently in the competing worldviews. The conservative “strict father” family model casts the man as the unquestioned leader of the family: father, breadwinner, and protector. Women are subordinate to men, caregivers for the children and father.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 13, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

      Pushing buttons now Rob? Now who’s thinking in black and white hmmmm? That’s all BS, and you know it. Everybody is different, and every family has it’s own dysfunctional behavior. This thing you posted is nothing but an opinion. It’s about as meaningful as a spit in the ocean. And, it is clear evidence of what was said in a recent post: You can’t win the game, so change the rules. In this case the subject. I believe we were talking about light bulbs, and new technolgies replacing old ones. Remember?

      • Rob N. Hood February 14, 2011 at 8:48 am #

        Wow. That is quite an incoherent response Neil. Make little sense, especially the statement that what I posted “is nothing but an opinion.” OMG, I’m so sorry for expressing an opinion on this site! I had no idea that we shouldn’t do that. Please accept my insincere apologies.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 9:42 am #

          I’m talking about the opinion of a member of the Fundacion IDEAS, Spain’s Socialist Party’s think tank. I have a feeling that his opinions are very biased against Republicans. I am also wondering what the link is to light bulbs, AGW, CO2, weather patterns, energy, or even alternative energy technologies. Of course it does fit nicely into your cycle distract, distort, evade, insult, feign indignation, repeat in random order ad nausium. Actually it fits three of those criteria as it distracts, distorts, and insults all at the same time. Nice work Rob.

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:37 am #

            I don’t think I’m the one that brought up abortion here. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

          I brought up abortion as an example of a choice you are appearantly all for, as opposed to a choice, which has been taken away from all Americans by law, about which light bulbs we want to use. Not as much of a stretch as Lackoff’s opinion on Republican v. Democrat family orientations.

          • Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

            That’s like comparing apples to oranges. You don’t get it. Besides… it’s just a damn light bulb. Maybe we should demand the telegraph back, or the prairie schooner, or trolly cars, or cartoons before movies, or outhouses, or child labor, or slavery, or….

    • Dan McGrath February 16, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

      Whoever brought up abortion doesn’t matter. That’s another line that has gotten too far off topic.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

        You’re right. It is something I am passionate about. I get a little carried away about that. Sorry.

  14. paul wenum February 13, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    It is not about progress going forward in the future. The main point is having “Big Brother” telling everyone what to eat, use, wear etc. Have no problem with the betterment of a society as long as we are not all forced to do what they say or else. Is the Lightbulb Police going to come to my house in the future, or the food inspectors to make sure I didn’t use salt? That’s our problem. Finally, I assume that the Amish will now have to quit using horses due to glabal warming? You know, horses do expel gases. knowing the goverment/EPA they will now require them to wear depends or they will be cat food!

  15. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2011 at 8:44 am #

    You love hyperbole… many on the Right live and breathe hyperbole. Lightbulb police? Whatever… Again- you don’t understand that you are focusing on extremely minor non-issues. What don’t you get about that? Why do you ignore the real issues that actual have significant effects on us all daily? Very “useful idiots.” By doing this you aid a abet the real criminals. Why do you persist in this role?

  16. Jerk A. Knot February 14, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    I see that Rob is still spewing his leftist arguments…. He is chilled by the fact that we vote every 2 years…. I am prowd to say I have defended that right He wants you all to shut up because he knows what freedoms you should have and thoes you should not have. I am prowd that your freedom of speach has been defended by the Army of this Republic. He wants to let you kill your babies while he calles himself a pacifist. He wants you to use a lightbulb that costs more and practically requires a HASMAT team to clean up but demands that CO2 be banned. OH MY WORD…. Rob does not drink the Kool-Aid he is the creator of it…

  17. Rob N. Hood February 14, 2011 at 4:46 pm #

    MY freedom if speech has NOT been defended by the Army of this Republic or any other. Another deluded statement from a deluded Righty. Again- as with Neil’s most recent, your response highlights several negative qualities about your ability to utilize logic and reasoning. But that is par for the Right-wing golf course.

    This is from a person (not me) who’s first half, or 27 years, of life was spent in Poland:

    “I have a perspective and practical experience with various ways of subjugating a society by a ruling class. It is quite amazing how US begins to show similarities to the late USSR – from decrepit infrastructure, to monopolization of political power by a narrow clique, ruling through a hired police muscle and whoring journalists. In both systems, a huge part of the lock on a system was/is the Orwellian language – a pure “Newspeak” in USSR, and in US elaborate twisting of reality in order to give “appearance of solidity to pure wind”, to quote Orwell.

    The difference? In USSR, the elites had power before they had money; in US, money is a path to political power. That’s important, because while USSR pretty much destroyed their economy almost at the start (Stalin collective farms, etc.) to better concentrate power, US for most of its existence had an authentically viable economy; recent destruction was propelled by greed, not by a purely political or strategic need of the ruling class. Thus, in spite of all the harm done, US still have institutions, people, and habits, associated with free enterprise (in true meaning of the term, not the one used by Wall Street). US still have the remnants of democratic power structure (although decaying rapidly), and a substantial freedom of speech (even if it does not do much to those trying to use it). However, the American society is being squeezed in a deadly embrace of a political class for hire and state/political bureaucracy serving big money interests, and assisted by disinterested, lazy, unthinking and uninformed punditry, a sorry caricature of intelligentsia. If the current trajectory continuous, in next 20 years US may very well turn into a police authoritarian state, where contestants are deemed to suffer from schizophrenia and forcibly medicated (like in late USSR). Granted, US has a fairly long way yet to reach this point – but if the plutocrats are really enthusiastic about it, and the public remains comatose…”

    • Dan McGrath February 14, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

      You don’t think the military has protected your right of free speech and every other right as well? Do you not realize how tasty America looks to foreign hostiles? Without our military we’d have been conquered and subjegated many times over and our enemies would be picking at the bones of this once great nation. The history of the world is 99% plunder of weaker nations by stornger ones. To keep our rights and our way of life, we need a military that’s unrivaled. This is a hostile, dangerous world we’re living in.

      Those are the wages of communism and the American left is trying to drag us into that abyss.

      • Rob N. Hood February 15, 2011 at 7:50 am #

        Pure delusion. It is the USA who is out and about in the world overtly and mostly covertly messing with other people’s destinies and resources. I thought we were talking about free speech anyway? BTW- we can nuke anyone out of existence 100 times over. The need to “preotect” ourselves from “foreign hostiles” ended back in the 50’s. You people are living in a demented time warp. Pure right-wing neanderthal delusion.

        • Dan McGrath February 15, 2011 at 9:52 am #

          Our nuclear stockpile is aging, not being replaced or upgraded and is being dismantled. It didn’t protect us against Al Queda on September 11th 2001, did it?

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:40 am #

            And our conventional weapons won these wars Dan? Nope. Lost both, just like Vietnam, which BTW many Liberals predicted as much. Just saying – your circular logic is useless and childish.

          • Dan McGrath February 16, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

            Libs, politicians and hippies lost Vietnam and the communist infiltration that happened then is unfortunately still with us today.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

            Don’t forget the media!

          • Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 7:08 am #

            C’mon Dan. Please answer the question. This is too bizarre a statement to leave standing. Or are you afraid to even try?

          • Dan McGrath February 18, 2011 at 11:12 am #

            I’m flippin busy! I answered. See above.

          • Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

            I for one am not, I repeat NOT, worried about our nuclear capabilities. Dan, you occasionally utter the most inane statements. Unbelievable.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 15, 2011 at 12:14 am #

      180 degrees out of phase with reality. So, why didn’t you post the rest of the comment made by one commentor called Devoidoid on the blog “The Smirking Chimp” to a post called “Egypt, USA” By a guy named David Micheal Green. I wonder why you deemed that this part of his comment should be left out of your comment?

      “However, I would rather bet that the internal contradictions and tension in the system will cause it to break down before it reaches a state of a Soviet-style demise. Reality has an amazing way of asserting itself – and at some point, the accouterments of empire WILL be on the table – 850 military bases, and all the rest. If only a Gorbachev-style figure was available to manage a dissolution…”

      If only a Gorbachev-style figure was available to manage a dissolution?????? Hmmmm. I think you were wise to leave that out Rob. Otherwise we might see what this COMMENTOR FROM ANOTHER BLOG was really talking about.
      Why on God’s green Earth would you post something that actually comes from a comment by some twit who was making a comment from some column on a progessive blog by some other guy? What is your logic, and or reasoning for doing that? It’s pathetic. And what’s even more pathetic is that you omitted something from it that gets to what the twit is really trying to say. What is the point anyway? 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 9:47 am #

      Feign indignation, distort, , distract, and insult. Four in one…. Nice!!

      • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:40 am #


  18. paul wenum February 14, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    Life is not a book or a movie. My God you are getting out of reality. Absent your cut and paste mania just what do you think, keeping insulting comments out of the equation or cannot you do that? By the way, lack of “money” is why all countries fail such as Eqypt that just got toppled and Iran is coming shortly in my opinion. A hungry populice is an angry crowd. Only in my humble opinion that it. Take it for what it is worth which is free of charge.

    • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 11:15 am #

      It’s sad for me when I see people who don’t use the brain God gave them. Sticking to a positon no matter alternative evidence is pathetic, to say the least.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

        Insult, and projection. Nice combo!

  19. lighthouse February 15, 2011 at 5:46 am #

    The unpublicised industrial politics behind the light bulb ban ban, with
    documentation and copies of official communications:

    Why supposed energy savings are not there anyway:
    with US Dept of Energy references = Under 1% overall energy savings
    from energy efficiency regulations on incandescent lights.

    All lights have their advantages, and even if there were energy savings,
    Citizens pay for the electricity they use.
    There is no energy or electricity shortage justifying limiting what
    citizens can use,
    and if there was a shortage of finite coal/oil/gas, their price rise
    limits their use anyway – without legislation.
    Emissions? Light bulbs don’t give out CO2 gas -power plants might.
    If there is an energy supply/emissions problem – deal with the problem!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 17, 2011 at 6:25 am #

      Thank you! Independent confirmation of my point of view is always nice.

    • Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

      Talk about gibberish. OMG… and Neil loves it. Of course.

  20. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2011 at 7:59 am #

    Poor Neil. Likes to wave punches in the air instead of debating the merits of a statement that he personally doesn’t understand or like. And btw nothing I left out of the above post would have changed your reaction one iota. I leave stuff out for various reasons, mostly due to keeping the posts shorter than longer per Dan’s preference. And because the point is made and needs nothing more. Stop distracting us with your tantrums, or is that the point? Distraction… is it subconscious on your part to do that so much? Or are you reading Alinksy too?

    Reality to Paul: “Lack of money”????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you kidding??????!!!!!!!!!!! Mubarek might be the RICHEST mofo on the PLANET! Did you not get that memo?! And do you know where MOST OF HIS STOLEN MONEY CAME FROM???????? You and me buddy, and the rest of us tax-paying schmucks. You are so out of the loop of reality it isn’t even funny. HE HAS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO INTO HIS COUNTRY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF HIS PEOPLE. THAT IS WHY THE PEOPLE in Egypt FINALLY GOT MADE ENOUGH TO REVOLT. That and an unemployment of a huge number. Mubarek, like the rest of the criminal wealthy elite, couldn’t care less. And our own wealthy elite are the same. And you all defend them EVERY fricking chance you get.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 15, 2011 at 9:07 pm #

      It is a simple matter of the statement having no merit whatsoever. What you think and believe is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. I know you do this on purpose, and that’s fine. I can’t stop you, but I can point out how ridiculous it is. And when I do, you escalate your ridiculousness. Really, posting something that originated as a comment from another story on another blog is about as ridiculous as it gets. Not only was it completely irrelevent to what we were talking about, it was complete and utter gibberrish. It made no cohesive statement about anything. Nothing, nada, null.
      I do like how much I am learning from you though, especially about the tactics that you Lefty’s employ. Distract, distort, insult, feign indignity, repeat ad nausium.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 3:44 am #

        Sorry, that’s: distract, distort, evade, insult, feign indignation, repeat in random order ad nausium.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 9:54 am #

          I am so sorry….. I forgot one! Projection! So it’s distract, distort, evade, insult, feign indignation, project, repeat in random order ad nausium. I’m sure there are more, and I will add them as I spot them. Thanks!

          • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:54 am #

            No you do the projection…!!! you can leave that one out… actually you people do all of them, and project it all onto me…!!!

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

            Tsk, tsk. Is that actual indignation? Sorry, I’ll leave that one out……NOT!!!!

        • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:55 am #

          The only one I’m guilty of is insult. Can’t help it- I’m human dammit.

        • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 11:17 am #

          Stomp the feet, hold the breath!!

      • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:57 am #

        The stomping of feet, the holding of breath…!!!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 9:51 am #

      Feign indignation, distort, and insult.

      • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:47 am #


  21. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2011 at 8:06 am #

    Oh and reality to Neil: what the poster was actually stating above regarding a “Gorbechev-style” leader has nothing, of course, to do with your paranoid fantasies about communists. What she meant was a leader wo was smart enough, and more importantly brave enough, to see the writing on the wall and to act accordingly for the betterment of his country. Nothing more nothing less. You need to expand you mind. It is sqeezed so tight it doesn’t seem to be functioning otimally per its manual.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 9:56 am #

      Distort, insult.

      • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:50 am #


      • Hal Groar February 17, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

        Check! That’s there!

  22. Jerk A. Knot February 15, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    Rob, Seriously, Take your MEDS… You have gone off the deep-end on this string of posts. You are telling everyone how stupid and delusional they for having the opinions they have. Yet you fail to comprehend the fact that it is our military strength that keeps us safe. You are correct we have enough NUKE’s to destroy any nation 100X over. That is why certain Despots Don’t launch there one or two ICBM’s at us. If we dismantled our military forces Flipping Mexico would be the first country to invade us to assert there claim to Texas. After all these years they still think it belongs to them. “BTW- we can nuke anyone out of existence 100 times over. The need to “protect” ourselves from “foreign hostiles” ended back in the 50’s.” These are your words. You use the most powerful weapons our military has to express why we don’t need them to protect us. Hint read what you post aloud and listen to what you are saying. The 50’s???? The USSR did not collapse until the 80’s….The height of the cold war was the 60’s and 70’s. What the heck were you doing in history class… sleeping. Ok enough of this smack down.
    Please come down here for a visit. I need to introduce you to a few of my friends in the Wounded Warrior Battalion down here. I want you to tell them to there face “MY freedom if speech has NOT been defended by the Army of this Republic or any other.”..You say Gorbechev had guts. Lets see if you have any. Don’t worry this is not a threat. Not at all because I will stand next to you in my uniform and stop the from literally crushing your Right to Freedom of Speech. Just as my Brother, Father, and Grandfather did.

    Neil this is for you.
    Bob stop spewing needless CO2 you are causing needless AGW.

  23. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

    Oh I’m so sorry (not) you don’t like my attitude about your military obsessions and military friends. Personally, I think they should be thanking me, a tax-payer, who helps pay for their choice of career and entitlements that accompany it. How do you like that perspective?? Not well I imagine, but it’s got a lot of TRUTH to it though doesn’t it?! I don’t need your response to this cuz I already know the truth, and I just stated it above. So never mind your lame response.

    BUT, please tell me what CRISIS that has occurred in the last 30 years or so, that I should be so thankful for that the regular military has SAVED MY FREEDOM of SPEECH. C’mon now, it’s an honest genuine question pertinent to your boasting. Please don’t shirk this one… and read your response out loud before you post it, just a suggestion…

    P.S. : you seem to agree with my statement about our Nukes (probable capability per country more like in the 1000’s though, not 100’s). So what exactly is your disagreement with that? I didn’t understand your reasoning or logic. Please explain further.

    And YOU DIDN’T slap me down about anything for crying out loud. HERE’s my point: (OMG- I really have to do this?!) Since the late 50’s we have had the nuclear capability to avoid any real threat of actual war. Yes, I know the the cold war continued beyond that time, and it was called COLD for THAT reason. It is you, my bewildered friend, that needs to read his posts out loud. Do you understand this now? Jeez I hope so, for your sake.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 10:54 am #

      You don’t understand the effect that military action has on our enemies. And I’m not talking about the direct action of attacking one enemy. I’m talking about the effect it has on others who would plot and plan to destroy the U.S. It makes them think twice about attacking us.
      While it’s true that almost all of the military engagements in the last 50 years have been proxy wars, and police actions in support of allies who are threatened by the spread of international communism, it can be argued that these actions have helped to stem the spread of communism. Of course you would find that to be terrible because you yourself would obviously welcome a change to communism, but it is well known that communism is not exactly famous for it’s free speech rights. So, the truth is that our military has been fighting for our free speech rights, albeit in an indirect manner. But we all know that you don’t see it that way, and will never see it that way because, let’s face it, wev’e been killing your comrades. Dratsab eimmoc.
      As far as the war on terror, I think it is obvious that international terrorists want to curtail our free speech rights by denying us a right to even take a breath to prepare to speak, by making us all dead. Of course you would have a right to say the right things if you convert to Islam for them, but that is not exactly free speach. Is it?

      • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 11:07 am #

        The below statement is for Jerk, obviously. To Neil above: You are under the delusion that there are “enemies” with significant enough power and will to try and invade this country. You have been brainswashe to beleive such tripe since you were very young. We all were. Only some of us have been able to see thru the veil of brainwashing BS and see reality. There’s no credible threat to the US. EVen during the cold war it was hyped beyond what it really was in reality (mutually assured destruction via USSR). The only real threat was during the missile crisis which both JFK and Krushchev handled very maturely and intelligently, otherwise we would have annhiliated eachother with Atomic bombs. The “Islamic threat” has been mostly manufactured (byt eh CIA) to replace the hype of the cold war with Russia, which in turn keeps the money flowing to the mic. PLAIN AND SIMPLE and yet people on the Right especially cannot grasp this reality. Someone here mentioned Mexico as a military threat to the USA. I cannot even imagine the simple mind behind such a statement. It makes me wish we did have stricter standards for voting such as intelligence means testing. That is one civil rights infringement critieria I would enthusiatically endorse.

        • Dan McGrath February 16, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

          Setting aside the fact that Mexico is a present danger to the US, without our military might, Mexico’s army would be capable of invading. Duh. Without our military, we could be conquered by Peru. Mexico’s military is only weak by comparison to our own. Remove ours, and theirs becomes pretty powerful. Why does logic and consequence escape liberals?

          • Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 3:25 pm #

            Dan, I never implied what you are saying. What I said was no one has defended my freedom of speech (except for the writers and legislators of that particular Civil Right in the first place), and that Mexico, AS THINGS STAND RIGHT NOW, is NO THREAT to us. It would take A LOT of dismantling of our armed forces before that day would come. AND I DID NOT EVER EVEN IMPLY THAT WE SHOULD DISMANTLE ANYTHING for us to be worried abou a pathetically inept country such as Mexico. You people are the strangest people I’ve ever come across. Yeah, Peru… OMG, I can’t take this much longer.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

          No Rob, I spent five years in the Army. Iv’e seen it first hand.

          • Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

            You’ve seen what exactly that has any real bearing on us being invaded and taken over by force. And I mean a REAL threat. Real, Neil…real…ok? Got it? Real… keep that in mine….real.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 18, 2011 at 7:00 am #

            No. I think it would be better if you did some traveling overseas first. Maybe then you would have a clearer understanding about it. There are things that just can’t be explained, knowledge that can’t be imparted by words. You have no idea how much we are hated in this world. Iv’e only experienced some of it. I really could not begin to explain it to you because you don’t have the basic foundation of experience in place. It would be like trying to teach you algebra, before you learned addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

          • Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 8:09 am #

            To Neil below- why didn’t you answer my simple question? Is it because your statement has no merit? Why not just answer the question? it sold help solve this whole issue- you could really put meinto my place. But you can’t… can you? Can any of you? I’ll wait…

          • Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 8:12 am #

            That above, is to Neil above. Sorry.

            To add this… Neil, did you ever really stop and think WHY we are so hated?! Hint: it ain’t “for our freedoms.” So don’t even try that hogwash. Try something else. I’ll wait…

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 18, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

            You can keep waiting. You would not understand because you don’t want to. You will dismiss anything I say anyway so….. go pound sand.

  24. Rob N. Hood February 15, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    So having you to stop your military buddies from attacking or phycically hurting a fellow American from actually exercising his freedom of speech that they are supposed to be protecitng is WHAT NOW?! You doing me a favor?? or the most preposterous, bass-ackwards statement I have heard in a LONG time?! (And believe me, my confused friend, that means a lot since I have been reading the weirdness on this site for a LONG time now.)

    Do you see how your statement about that actually makes my position stronger and yours not just weird but VERY weak?! Please say yes… otherwise I will have to question either your intelligence and/or sanity.

    • Hal Groar February 15, 2011 at 11:03 pm #

      Rob you are wrong on everything you have ever posted. That’s quite a streak you got going there! Keep it up!

      • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 7:12 am #

        Actually Hal, ALL of what I wrote above is based on simple logic. It is Jerk who apparently considers paradox, catch-22, or whatever you want to call it as sound reasoning. If you cannot also recognize that I am just sorry for you.

    • Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 10:52 am #

      Jerk – you buy the plane ticket and give me $200 spending money I will be there.

      • Jerk A. Knot February 17, 2011 at 11:01 pm #

        How about a train ticket and $50?

  25. Brezentski February 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    Hah! There are no long term trends related to intensifying weather events! Looks like the latest distraction is just another lie! AGW, Climate Change, Wierder Weather, etc. Hopefully GE will eventually run out of money and the mis-information will stop!!!

  26. paul wenum February 15, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    Brezentski brings some levity doesn’t he.

  27. Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 7:17 am #

    GE is one of our biggest and most long-standing military contractors in this country’s history. If it falls (which wouldn’t bother me one bit) that means one of two things. We’ve come to our collective senses and stopped wasting so much money on useless military gadgets/hardware OR our nation has experienced another serious economic Depression/Collapse. I hate to contemplate it but I think one will cause the other eventually. Unfortunately, based on our seemingly inability to see reality and act rationally on it, I think the collpase will occur first and our collective senses will come second.

    It is obvious why the people of Egypt would want to trade up for something better. Rather less clear, shall we say, is why the American public has for a generation now consistently chosen to go in the opposite direction.

    But that is exactly what has happened. Over the last three decades, as the Chinese middle class expanded and the Egyptian one idled, America’s has been contracting. Is that because the US economy has been stuck in neutral, or worse, in recession? Nope. GDP growth has been pretty darn healthy over those thirty years. It’s just that almost every penny of that growth has gone to the already rich, while the middle, working and poor classes continue to sink. Well, did that mal-distribution of wealth occur by accident? No, in fact, it is precisely the result of the public policies we adopted, on issues ranging from taxation to trade to labor relations to regulation to bailouts to spending priorities to corporate welfare. The net result of these has been to produce the greatest transfer of wealth in all of human history – upward, from non-elites to elites.

    On the political side, the imperfect democracy of the past has turned into rather a shell of a democracy today. It’s an open question what would happen if the public tried to restore a real democracy to this country, through, say, a constitutional amendment providing for thorough campaign finance reform, with the result of divorcing money from politics and producing legislation crafted in the public interest, not for special interests. It may well be that we’re so far down the line now that such an attempt would be met with violent repression, thus necessitating an Egypt-like reaction from below. Or it may be that such change is still possible. What is absolutely clear, however, is that nobody is talking that talk right now, let alone walking that walk.

  28. Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    OMG. YOU ARE BIRCHERS!!!!!!! Well finally you come out of the commie-paranoid closet. Jeez Dan, I really can’t believe you believe that. It blows me away… I mean that. It just blows my mind.

    It’s truly no wonder we all can’t get along on this planet without wars, civil and otherwise. There seems to be a HUGE chasm between people like me, and people like you. We certainly see the world 180 degrees differently. It just never ceases to amaze me though, I don’t know why. I could write a dissertaion (on that too) on what you just said above and why you are so unbelievably wrong, and cite it emperically, scientifically, logically, rationally and reasonably, not to mention spiritually and religiously too probably. Wow. I gotta stop beating my head against this wall called the Right-wing. It is so depressing and scary. It really gives me such little hope for mankind… it really does.

    But let me say this Dan. The ONLY way we would have “won” in Vietnam is by nuking them (which was seriously considered by the dumber righter-wing of the military, of course, similarly to them dying to pre-emptively nuke the USSR, which would have annhliated both countries. The only way to win such wars, Iraq and Afghanistan included, in my opinion would be to do just that. Afgahnistan may be the exception, but we’ll never know since Bush the dunce dropped the ball there by illegally invading Iraq. And need I remind you that they people we fought against in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are mostly people defending THEIR HOMELAND. You got that? No, you never will get that… Only you LOVE to talk about our revolution and how we fought against our oppressors and invaders (the British and the French). But we weren’t terrorists, oh no. We were freedom fighters. Everyone else are terrorists. Guess what? Britian pretty much thought of us as terrorists back then. Get it now? No? didn’t think so.

  29. Rob N. Hood February 16, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    The above was meant for below Dan’s revelational post. Obviously. Dan, I have to ask though (God help me) what “communist infiltration” is still with us today? Help me out here… I gotta know.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 17, 2011 at 6:39 am #

      Look in a mirror. Geeeeesh………………

      • Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 7:20 am #

        Neil, please enlighten me as to how I am a communist infiltrator. I’d really like to know.

        And if you think our media is Leftist or even communist in any way… well, I just feel sorry for you I guess. Our media is firmly corporate, which at the moment, and for all times past except for maybe in the late 50’s early 60’s, has been Right, not Left. Even in the 50’s and 60’s it was not what I would consider Leftist. It was more sanely in the middle. It has drifted so much to the Right that is has become like TASS was for Russians.

        But I know, you are deluded otherwise. I need to stop trying to communicate with you people. It’s just depressing. It’s like trying to communicate with aliens from another planet or dimension. And Paul, re: below, all I can say is shame on you for buying a freezer from the only truly evil (in your mind) corporation on the planet. And if you didn’t buy it, you should place it somewhere safe and set it on fire. You know, put your money where your mouth is.

      • Hal Groar February 17, 2011 at 10:22 pm #

        There and somewhere in the D.C. area…

        • Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 8:13 am #

          Huh, wtf? Hal… c’mon. Don’t be so odd. Spit it out.

          • Hal Groar February 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

            Rob try to keep up, Neil told you to look in the mirror, I recommended to also look in the D.C. area…is that spit far enough for you?

    • Dan McGrath February 18, 2011 at 11:09 am #

      I could post a really really long list of examples, but that’s really not necessary. There are communists in the White House! I’m not saying Obama himself is a communist (though it wouldn’t at all surprise me) – but he sure surrounds himself with them. Van Jones is a prime example. Berweck another. Don’t forget Ayers.

  30. paul wenum February 16, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    I do have a GE freezer. Love the discourse.

  31. Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 7:42 am #

    Don’t beleive what I’ve been saying? It is as undeniable as a pregnancy. Let’s start with the evidence:

    1. The Bribe: Why do the Plutocrats spend tens of billions on conservative think tanks, Republican campaigns, and GOP lobbyists’ salaries? (Sure, they try to buy Democrats as well, to control both parties, but – see next two questions – which party has been bought?)

    2. Republican Acceptance: Since Reagan’s time, the Republican agenda has slavishly matched the Plutocrats’ demands: lower taxes and less government regulation.

    3. Democratic Rejection: Despite shameful bribe-taking by “Blue Dogs” and other individual Democrats on specific legislation, the Democratic party as a whole opposes tax cuts for the wealthy and is responsible for almost all environmental, safety and financial regulations (such as the financial regulatory overhaul in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act).

    4. The Payoff: Here’s what our government (Republican since 1980 except for Clinton’s eight years) has delivered to the Plutocrats: from 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent. [2] Presently, despite staggering deficits and the distress of 14.8 million unemployed, the top 1 percent of Americans enjoy tax rates a third lower than in 1970.

    5. If Republicans are not governing on behalf of their rich patrons, what else explains this massive upward redistribution of American wealth?

    6. “Wait!” You might protest. “Perhaps the rich are getting richer for other reasons, like — ahem — smart people coping better with globalization than average people.” “Or, um, coincidence?”

    7. No dice. If there was ever any argument for innocence of intent or accidental outcome in the Plutocrats’ ongoing payoff, it vanished during December of 2010, when Republicans threatened to block extension of unemployment insurance unless tax cuts for America’s richest 2% were extended.

    8. It was a revealing moment. Prosperity and huge bonuses had returned to the Wall Street firms which caused the recession and to the corporations which had shipped jobs overseas, yet the millions of workers they had left jobless were suffering terribly. Fairness demanded the insurance extension, and so did 66% of the American public.

    9. By holding unemployment insurance extension hostage in exchange for billionaire tax cuts, Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner defied both public opinion and fairness — and added $900 billion to our ballooning deficit. Showing neither shame nor remorse, they stood naked for all to see as extortionists for their Plutocrat patrons.

    10. The problem with the hijacked Republican party goes deeper than the gluttonous enrichment of the Plutocrats in control.

    11. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1816 letter to George Logan: I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

    12. Then came Lincoln’s worrisome vision, cited above, of how Plutocrats — “the money power of the country” — could destroy our republic.

    13. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court judges have lacked the wisdom and foresight of Jefferson and Lincoln. In the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision, the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    14. The 1886 decision was a key stepping-stone toward the devastating 2010 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission decision by the Roberts Supreme Court, which opened the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns.

    15. These decisions make it perfectly legal for corporations to buy control of American democracy, to replace our government “of, by and for” the people with a government “by and for” big corporations.

    16. The difference is as profound as it is obvious: People have everyday human concerns about jobs, security, and the welfare of their kids and grandkids. And they possess normal human feelings such as patriotism and fairness.

    17. Corporations, in contrast, have no grandchildren, no morality, no patriotism. With corporations in control of government, government exists only to increase corporate profits and rich people’s wealth — at any cost to America’s environment and the lives and welfare of its citizens.

    18. To corporations, taxes are anathema, even for schools and infrastructure, because they reduce profits. It’s that simple. “America really needs infrastructure? Well, don’t expect me to pay for it. Go borrow some more from China and pay it back later.”

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 17, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

      Rob, you are beginning to bore the he** out of me.

      • Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 8:02 am #

        Awww, wittle Neil is unhappy, again. waaa

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

          Rob, I’m happy as a clam. You have your panties twisted in a bunch. Because you are boring me I move on and find something else to do. No unhappiness involved whatsoever. You are a broken record. You have become completely predictable. And every time you post something it is like reading the same crap over and over…… because it is the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

  32. Rob N. Hood February 17, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    While I wait… I keep forgetting to draw your attention to the fact that this light-bulb hijacking was signed into law by your lovable goof ball George W. How do you reconcile that with all things W or Right are good and all things Left are bad? Sorry for all these pesky questions…

    • Hal Groar February 17, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

      GW made some major mistakes! I fault him for the light bulb idiocy, for the RX drug “reform” as well as a spending WAY TOO MUCH! I do not fault him for the tripling of the debt in the last two years, which Barry keeps doing. I loved your diatribe about Republicans…no facts just accusatory rhetoric! Your on a roll Rob! Keep up the streak!

      • Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 8:05 am #

        Hal- Where’s your facts re: the tripling of the debt in two year? Reagan created a huge deficit, as did W. Not to mention the collapsing economy, which could (ya think?) have something to do with the current state of affairs????? Hal, before you accuse anyone of anything, maybe you should stop and think. Or not…

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

        There are those who will undoubtedly point to the large deficits run up on a yearly basis under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as proof that what is happening under Obama is just business as usual. And they would be wrong.

        Under Reagan and under Bush the U.S. economy grew, and strongly, making the annual new debt to GDP ratio something that could be absorbed as increased revenues filled federal coffers. Under Obama, the new spending along with the projected tax increases that will occur when he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire will lead to a decline in future federal revenues, making the new total debt–nearly half of which has been amassed under the current president alone–something that may handicap the U.S. economy for at least a generation

  33. paul wenum February 17, 2011 at 9:32 pm #

    Robbie Boy sounds like Bill Ahers doesn’t he. Is there a connection? Sounds like Chicago circa 1968. More hate of the republicans, of course 68 was Democrats. Can you please give us all a breakdown, case and verse on the foibles of the Democrats in the same time period with bribes and evidence? I am extremely awaiting your correct response as well as others on this site and we request details not allegations about republicans that any neophyte can make. We await your usual caustic response.

    • Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 8:01 am #

      I have criticized the Dems many many times, Obama too. I even state I probably won’t vote for him again, and moybe not for any Dem. So how does your rant fit into reality Saint Paul? Well, by gosh, as usual not at all. Bringing up “bribes” from 1968, is one of the lamest things you’ve posted yet. And that is saying a lot. Wow. Bribery is the life’s blood of US politicians, of all stripes, in case you haven’t noticed. Especially legal bribery, which is probably even worse for us than the illegal kind. Oh, why am I even bothering? Depressing.

  34. Jerk A. Knot February 17, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

    I am telling you guys Rob is neither a Commie nor a liberal. He is just a self centered ego driven quack job conspiracy theorist. Every one of his assertions are unsustainable and he can not back them up with any facts… He will claim a fact but refuses to back them with independent references. He does this because the facts he claims are not in existence. 90% of his posts are cut and past and most of them are opinion pieces without supporting analysis.

    • Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 7:54 am #

      How’s that different from you or anyone else here? Just because Neil “backs up” his assertions (no one else seems to do so) with right-wing based sources, THAT makes his, or your, “opinions” any better? No. I put things here to be considered, thought upon, and yes to challenge you, the sheeple. We all need to be shaken and woken up. We all need to be challenged. Do I shirk from your challenges, no, I don’t think so. I fight back with more informtion to be considered. Your world view is much too narrow. But no worries, I’m about to give up on this, it appears to be a waste of time and emotion. Then you all can go back to your circle jerk of sameness.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

        You’ve said that 1,000 times, yet here you are. Still here. You won’t be satisfied untill everyone agrees with you. It’s an ego driven compulsion. You know so much better than the rest of us rubes about everything. We’re just blind little mice running around in the dark and you are going to save us with the shining light of your wisdom and knowledge, come he** or high water. You’re not going anywhere.

  35. Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 7:49 am #

    While we wait for Dan… or anyone else to answer that question…

    The laws and government services which make our society livable are merely an onerous burden to the Plutocrats. Their objective is stated candidly in the famous Grover Norquist quote: “Our goal is to shrink the government to the size where you can drown it in a bathtub.” A reckless, almost suicidal goal, for weak governments invite anarchy. (got that Dan, and you other “Patriots”??)

    And how are the Plutocrats doing in their dangerous quest? They’re winning, and their wins beget more wins. Example: in 2001, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court helped Bush gain the Presidency. That enabled Bush to appoint Alito and Roberts to the Court, which decided the 2010 Citizens United case (cited above) in favor of the Plutocrats, which will allow unlimited and anonymous funding for future Republican (and Democratic) election campaigns.

    The nightmare premonitions of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln have materialized before us in the hijacked Republican party. No longer “of, by and for the people,” it’s “by and for General Dynamics, GE, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, BP, News Corp (etc.).” Please pause and reflect on that: one of our two major parties has been captured by Plutocrats — half of American democracy has already been lost. The other party is working hard to catch up.

    Like Lincoln, we should all “tremble for the safety of our country.”

  36. Rob N. Hood February 18, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    In case we all forgot what the question was for Dan, it is this: Explain, please, how the USA is currently infiltrated by communism and/or effecting us presently?

  37. paul wenum February 18, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    Mr. Stealing Hood cannot read or if he can he would have read your response. Notice that he does not like to read what he disagrees with. Typical Left wing Progressive!

    • Rob N. Hood February 20, 2011 at 8:44 am #

      Nope. I really don’t see Dan’s response. Cut and paste it for me… please. Prove me stupid or wrong, I need to read it and then I will respond, as you know I always do. Why do you persist in trying to make me look like you? You project.

  38. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 19, 2011 at 6:39 am #
    “As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the ever-evolving computer-driven climate models that presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological processes that combine to determine the state of earth’s climate into a set of mathematical equations out of which their forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all of those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did — which we don’t — could we correctly reduce them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future?
    Some people answer these questions in the affirmative. However, as may be seen in the body of this report, real-world observations fail to confirm essentially all of the alarming predictions of significant increases in the frequency and severity of droughts, floods and hurricanes that climate models suggest should occur in response to a global warming of the magnitude that was experienced by the earth over the past two centuries as it gradually recovered from the much-lower-than-present temperatures characteristic of the depths of the Little Ice Age. And other observations have shown that the rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the development of the Industrial Revolution have actually been good for the planet, as they have significantly enhanced the plant productivity and vegetative water use efficiency of earth’s natural and agro-ecosystems, leading to a significant “greening of the earth.”

  39. Rob N. Hood February 19, 2011 at 8:22 am #

    Lame Dan. Very Lame. I don’t see any explaination re: the above, anywhere. Don’t blame you though. Hard premise to defend let alone explain.

  40. Rob N. Hood February 19, 2011 at 8:23 am #

    Don’t know why the “reply” is being placed in different spots. Anyway, you are challenged.

  41. Rob N. Hood February 19, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    The Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that in almost all circumstances, “a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities.” Yet, because the Justices of the Supreme Court have exempted themselves from this Code, conservative Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito have all participated in high-dollar fundraisers for right-wing political causes. In response to this unethical — but technically legal — conduct by these three justices, Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is pushing a bill that would end the Supreme Court’s immunity to federal ethics law. Murphy’s bill would make Scalia, Thomas and Alito’s fundraising activities unambiguously illegal.

  42. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 20, 2011 at 12:16 am #

    If you type in the box at the that’s at the end of all comments you are posting a reply to the original story. If you click reply at the end of a comment and the box appears there you are replying to that comment. Each new comment for the original story will be starting a new gray box, you can see this clearer if you look at Dan’s posts, his boxes are a darker gray. If you reply to a comment you are continueing a thread. If you reply to the story, you are starting a new thread.

  43. V February 20, 2011 at 10:21 am #


    H2O + CO2 –> H2CO3

    Rain water combines with atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce carbonic acid.


    Molecules and compounds (such as CO2) are held together by valence electrons, electrolysis causes dissociation due to influx of electrons. Atoms looking for the electron have many to choose from in an electron rich field, as a result they no longer need to share a valence electron and therefore the molecules or compounds fall apart into energy rich constituents, ions.

    During thunderstorms the atmosphere gets cleaned in two ways; first: wash out, rain combines with CO2 creating carbonic acid which gets absorbed by land and sea; second: dissociation, disintegration of molecules and/or compounds through electrolysis which produce energy rich atoms, ions.

    Nature has funny ways of Regulating and knowing itself best 😉

  44. Brezentski February 20, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    I don’t like CFL because they are expensive and they don’t seem to last as advertised. I know that can fixtures are known to decrease their life, but I have several and I’m not going back to lamps with shades. I also don’t like the EMF that CFLs generate. I get a bunch of noise in my stereo from those pesky things in the basement. Besides, I’ve read articles about how the EMF pollutes the entire circuit and can shorten the lifespan of other electronics. I’d gladly use LED, but way too expensive right now.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 21, 2011 at 7:05 am #

      I had not heard of that. Thanks!

  45. Hal Groar February 21, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

    Dan? You don’t spend every waking hour monitoring the comments on this site? What, your job more important then our buddy Rob and his cherry picking eyes? Apparently Rob thinks he deserves an answer and refuses to read the one you posted. Yes I know it has been pointed out a number of times…Ol’ Rob won’t go home. Then he calls out the “scared” card. Is this as funny to everyone else as it is to me?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 22, 2011 at 12:51 am #

      I for one thought he (Rob) would never stop! I posted more comments on this one story than I have in about a year, just to see if he would give up. You got to give him credit for tenacity. Either the guy is taking Red Bull interveiniously, or it is a team effort by some organization, as I have postulated in the past. It might even be some unorganized thing like college room mates taking turns, just having fun, I don’t know. But there is something odd about Rob. Maybe he’s ADD, or OCD, whatever it is I’m sure there is a D in it. Maybe it’s BKD. That’s Black Knight Disorder. As in the Black Knight from Monty Python’s Holy grail. You cut off his legs, arms, and head but he still keeps talking shizzle!

      • Dan McGrath February 22, 2011 at 9:52 am #

        Perhaps he originates from a program along these lines?

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 22, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

          Maybe. I just think there is something terribly wrong with our Rob. How many times does the average person put up with rejection? I mean post after post after post, rejection after rejection after rejection. He’s had a few good points, maybe two, or three, but geeez he doesn’t let up with the right wing bashing, or the Liberal talking points of the day, and it’s non-stop! So if I understand what’s in that link you posted, it’s several or more people sending things, and it looks like it all comes from the same computer? Is that what that’s about? I don’t understand what the purpose of that would be especially for the Air Force. And if Rob N Hood is the same kind of thing, I don’t think it’s the Air Force doing it.

          • Dan McGrath February 22, 2011 at 8:08 pm #

            No. It allows one person to have multiple, phony online personas for infiltration, agitiation, etc. It’s an intellegence community tool that’s suppoed to be used overseas – but you can see how it could easily be employed domestically, too. I’m not saying Rob’s using Air Force systems, but maybe something similar? Rob’s probably not part of so sophisticated an operation, though, because he’s never provided a valid email address when posing comments. I’d think an application like the the “Online Persona Managment System” would include valid email addresses for added realism.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 23, 2011 at 5:31 am #

            Oh! Ok. Thanks for splainin that. But my kooky theory is that there is more than one person posting comments as Rob N Hood, that would be the inverse of this. Who knows. Probably never know.

          • Hal Groar February 23, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

            I liked the BKD idea, very funny. I don’t think Rob is part of a major operation, or any sort of operation. I think Rob learned a new tool on his laptop with the “cut and paste” and uses it on everything! In the beginning he was afraid of “right clicking” anything due to it’s close association with a certain political mindset, then he found out how handy it was and decided to use it as a tool to annoy the “right” . It is a theory, a work in progress. Any comments welcome!

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD February 23, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

            “What are you gonna do, bleed on me?”

  46. paul wenum February 22, 2011 at 7:32 pm #

    My God, all about a light bulb? Still saving my old ones. Good discourse!

    • Hal Groar February 23, 2011 at 1:37 pm #

      Paul I still have stockpile of them in my basement. It will be ten years before I have to buy a CFL.

  47. paul wenum February 22, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    Thanks Dan, love it. The FIA comes in handy doesn’t it.

  48. paul wenum February 22, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    Thanks Dan, now will go to the voter ID site. Hope it is growing with support.

  49. paul wenum February 23, 2011 at 12:42 am #

    Rob N Steal, sleep well as I will, because I’m tired. aren’t you? Tough being old and a conservative like me. Oops, that’s right. You would never know would
    you. Old Scots hardly sleep when disgruntled. Final thought. I guess I will have to go back to work for a living. A man must earn his keep wouldn’t you agree?

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.