Why Is The S Emulating Soviet Communism?

[Little_Nemo]

@El_Kabong

I have it on good authority that this is being done specifically to defuse Commissar’s anti-‘Empire’ arguments in GD and The Pit.

I’m trying to do my part. I like to hate US soldiers but I’m a little worried. What if they find out I hate them and get mad about it? Let’s face it, those guys are in better shape than I am, outnumber me, and are heavily armed.

Would it be okay if I were to hate some less intimidating uniformed service? Like the post office or the girl scouts?

[beowulff]

@rebelson

Low flush toilets work fine for those people who can wipe their butt with one square of paper. Incandescent bulbs are being phased out by law (attempts to repeal that are underway), beginning with the 100 watt version scheduled to be gone as of Jan '12.

I have a low-flush toilet (Cadet). It’s far superior to the original 30 year old one it replaced. As far as incadescents being banned, that’s simply not true. They merely have to meet current efficiency standards, which most can’t. Good riddance.

[Little_Nemo]

@Telemark

I think the more pressing concern would be to figure out why you are shitting golf balls.

Although we now know who’s been yelling “Fore!” in the men’s room.

[Sunspace]

@Little_Nemo

The thread title is supposed to be “Why Is The US Emulating Soviet Communism?”

Okay, that [del]makes more sense[/del] is more understandable.

Is the incidence of authoritarianism bad enough in the US that your only standard of comparison is, specifically, Soviet communism? I can see where local oppression (by corporations, HOAs, government agencies, etc) would appear unpleasant and unfair no matter who was implementing it, but I don’t see the type of nationwide top-down world-oriented government propaganda apparatus that the Soviets used. If anything, the US would seem to be more vulnerable to either a corporate oppression or a inward-focused nationalist anti-foreigner oppression.

[I_Know_Nothing]

If you don’t know who the ‘S’ is, then she’s already won.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Inigo_Montoya

• stops molesting rabbit. Raises hand *

Hey! You! Leave that rabbit alone!

[yanceylebeef]

@msmith537

In Soviet Russia, The S emulates you!

I’m pretty sure it’s a bit more complicated than that.

I know that, and you know that. I was trying to keep it simple so the OP could follow.

[Ace309]

@Cat_Whisperer

I think someone’s posting from his phone…

or is ralph, yes.

[beowulff]

@Ace309

or is ralph, yes.

Don’t you mean “oe s ralPh, ye” ?

[Chefguy]

@rebelson

Low flush toilets work fine for those people who can wipe their butt with one square of paper. Incandescent bulbs are being phased out by law (attempts to repeal that are underway), beginning with the 100 watt version scheduled to be gone as of Jan '12.

Your first statement is patently untrue, which makes your entire post suspect. In fact, incandescent bulbs are NOT being phased out, but there is a requirement to make them more efficient. The incandescent bulb as we know it will probably eventually disappear on its own as more people realize the savings to be had from more efficient products. But there is not now, nor will there ever be, a requirement to purchase CFL bulbs. This is supposed to be a board to fight ignorance, not promote it.

[Der_Trihs]

@davidm

I’m still trying to figure out who or what “The S” is, and in what way it’s emulating the Soviet Union.

Superman! Or at least, one particular version…

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Little_Nemo

The thread title is supposed to be “Why Is The US Emulating Soviet Communism?”

The answer of course is that we’re not. Our system is more Maoist.

Conservatives used to say we’d end up like “Red China”, if we weren’t careful–and now it’s happening. Only now it’s the Tea Party and other laissez-faire capitalists who seem bent on taking us there. Just look at the facts of life and work in mainland China:

[ul][li]Low wages–check.[/li][li]Ineffectual consumer protections and safeguards–check.[/li][li]Limited to non-existent social entitlements–check.[/li][li]Poor environmental safeguards–check.[/li][/ul]

Now who, in the American government, seems to be more eager to bring this about here?

[Starving_Artist]

@Chefguy

Your first statement is patently untrue, which makes your entire post suspect. In fact, incandescent bulbs are NOT being phased out, but there is a requirement to make them more efficient. The incandescent bulb as we know it will probably eventually disappear on its own as more people realize the savings to be had from more efficient products. But there is not now, nor will there ever be, a requirement to purchase CFL bulbs. This is supposed to be a board to fight ignorance, not promote it.

There’s a difference between outlawing one thing vs. requiring another, but the result can be the same.From Wiki:

In the United States, federal law has scheduled the most common incandescent light bulbs to be phased out by 2014, to be replaced with more energy-efficient light bulbs.

So, while there may not be a requirement to purchase CFL bulbs, the government, by outlawing incandescents, accomplishes the same result.

[Chefguy]

@Starving_Artist

There’s a difference between outlawing one thing vs. requiring another, but the result can be the same.From Wiki:

So, while there may not be a requirement to purchase CFL bulbs, the government, by outlawing incandescents, accomplishes the same result.

Wrong answer, pardner. Phasing out the most common bulbs for more energy efficient light bulbs doesn’t mean they are disappearing. It means they are being changed in order to be more efficient. If you change a car engine to make it burn fuel more efficiently, you haven’t outlawed the engine.

[Chefguy]

Too late for edit window. From a 2011 article in the NYT:

Late in his second term, George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires light bulb makers to improve the efficiency of incandescent bulbs by 25 percent. The details of the law dictated a phase-out of the manufacture of certain bulbs **in their current incarnation, starting with 100-watt bulbs next January.

The law does not ban the use or manufacture of all incandescent bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of compact fluorescent ones. It simply requires that companies make some of their incandescent bulbs work a bit better, meeting a series of rolling deadlines between 2012 and 2014. **

Furthermore, all sorts of exemptions are written into the law, which means that all sorts of bulbs are getting a free pass and can keep their energy-guzzling ways indefinitely, including “specialty bulbs” like the Edison bulbs favored by Mr. Henault, as well as three-way bulbs, silver-bottomed bulbs, chandelier bulbs, refrigerator bulbs, plant lights and many, many others.

Bolding mine.

[Starving_Artist]

Further reading on the subject indicates that what has been mandated is that bulbs be 30% or more energy-efficient than current incandescent bulbs (considerably more than “a bit”, IMO), with efficiency standards starting with 100-watt bulbs in 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in 2014. So presumably, incandescents will still be available after that time provided they can meet these standards, as Phillips is reported to be doing with a new “hybrid” incandescent called the “Halogena Energy Saver”. From the link:

Prompted by U.S. legislation mandating increased bulb efficiency by 2012, new “hybrid” incandescent bulbs have been introduced by Philips. The “Halogena Energy Saver” incandescent is 30 percent more efficient than traditional designs, using a special chamber to reflect formerly wasted heat back to the filament to provide additional lighting power.

So it looks like some sort of incandescent bulb may be available after 2014, assuming they are affordable and sell well enough to remain on the market. Still, we can safely say that incandescents as we’ve always known them have indeed been outlawed and will be a thing of the past starting in 2014.

[Chefguy]

@Starving_Artist

Further reading on the subject indicates that what has been mandated is that bulbs be 30% or more energy-efficient than current incandescent bulbs (considerably more than “a bit”, IMO), with efficiency standards starting with 100-watt bulbs in 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in 2014. So presumably, incandescents will still be available after that time provided they can meet these standards, as Phillips is reported to be doing with a new “hybrid” incandescent called the “Halogena Energy Saver”. From the link:

So it looks like some sort of incandescent bulb may be available after 2014, assuming they are affordable and sell well enough to remain on the market. Still, we can safely say that incandescents as we’ve always known them have indeed been outlawed and will be a thing of the past starting in 2014.

With that additional qualification, I will agree. There has been a lot of erroneous press put out on this issue not only by the usual haters, but also by what are generally considered to be reliable sources. The majority of Americans believe that the bulbs are being banned altogether, and I can’t really blame them for thinking that. I’d be willing to bet that most from the right think that this occurred during the Obama administration.

[Munch]

Just wanted to point out that we’ve now gone to page two, and the OP has yet to come in and correct the misunderstanding that multiple people have asked him to clarify regarding who the fuck “the S” is (yeah, I’ve figured it out). I think if we all tried a little bit, we might could get ralph to actually focus himself for 10 seconds and be coherent.

[njtt]

@Munch

I think if we all tried a little bit, we might could get ralph to actually focus himself for 10 seconds and be coherent.

You are just an incurable optimist, aren’t you!

[YogSothoth]

There’s nothing wrong with social planning :rolleyes: