illegal to buy light bulbs...

[Dunkopf]

Aren't light bulbs made in China? There's a connection there somewhere.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Japanese. Even during feudal times they had a very advanced society. I had a guy explain to me the other day what the true meaning of that song "Turning Japanese" really was. It was rather disturbing. Had nothing whatsoever with Japanese customs.

How's that for off topic?

Curly fries would be on topic with CFL's

 

[Rozzie]

Quote:
If it only takes 10-15 minutes of exposure to flourescent lighting to bring on a migraine, then how can it be that replacing the incandescents in your house with flourescents is how you figured out that you had a problem? Seems to me that you would have figured that out long ago by spending more than 10-15 mintues in the grocery store, any given office building, hospital, doctor's office, shopping mall, schoolroom, tractor supply store, dentist's chair, restaurant, etc?

Forgive me, but it seems suspect that all those places and more -- at least one of which, the average person visits on the average day -- have been using flourescent lighting for years, yet it's only when incandescent bulbs are slated to be phased out by an unpopular Congress that people begin to make the claim that they trigger migraines..

Now, I'm not sayin'.....

I'm just sayin'...

I never said I didn't have migraines after being in any of those places. I did & still do if I don't wear sunglasses. I am not a doctor, therefore I had to be diagnosed before putting the pieces of the puzzle together. With all due respect, don't assume. The fact is that because my ceilings are not as high as those in office buildings or stores, I get migraines faster at home than I would in a place with high ceilings. BTW, no, I am not an average person and don't necessarily visit those places on the average day.
BTW, my situation has nothing to do with the incandescents being phased out--I've stocked up on them for a long time just because I don't WANT to run out for fear of the health repercussions. My choice to be vocal about it has everything to do with this news that they may be phased out. I am not alone in having this problem. And I don't CLAIM that they trigger migraines, I have a diagnosis from a couple of doctors (real ones...not message board wannabes) and am currently on daily meds to keep them at bay.
And I AM just sayin'...

I believe you. My grandmother has had a similar issue with migraines for decades. She gets severe migraines from them. If they flicker AT ALL then it is even worse. However, even the home bulbs are a problem. She has to wear really dark sunglasses when she's in places that have fluorescent bulbs. It helps some but doesn't totally prevent her from getting a migraine from them.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
That's not entirely true. It all depends on your definition of "economy." If you define it as GDP and employment, that would theoretically count as "getting us out." But almost all of the production improvement came from building bombs, ships, airplanes, and tanks, rather than consumer goods. In fact, there was almost no production of houses, cars, and similar items during the war, and the living standard generally went down. I'm not denying that all the war production was necessary, but World War Two offered no economic improvement to the citizens. As for employment, sending 11,000,000 men overseas to get shot would certainly improve the statistics, but again, it did nothing for the economy as it affected most of America. All of that, besides, had to be financed by either tax dollars or printed dollars, which would take money out of the economy either way.

The economy itself actually improved dramatically after the War was over and the control of the economy was greatly reduced.

 

[Organics North]

Quote:
That's not entirely true. It all depends on your definition of "economy." If you define it as GDP and employment, that would theoretically count as "getting us out." But almost all of the production improvement came from building bombs, ships, airplanes, and tanks, rather than consumer goods. In fact, there was almost no production of houses, cars, and similar items during the war, and the living standard generally went down. I'm not denying that all the war production was necessary, but World War Two offered no economic improvement to the citizens. As for employment, sending 11,000,000 men overseas to get shot would certainly improve the statistics, but again, it did nothing for the economy as it affected most of America. All of that, besides, had to be financed by either tax dollars or printed dollars, which would take money out of the economy either way.

The economy itself actually improved dramatically after the War was over and the control of the economy was greatly reduced.

I must agree with Q9 and with the lack of economic boosts during a war. Economic gains can be seen in the rebuilding efforts after a war, but war economies are far worse than depression economies..
I say this with some confidence. My father came over from Germany before the war broke out. He joined the US military at 17, and went back over. I had family on both sides of WWII. It was hard times to keep the most basic food on the table. (Especially in Europe!)
England would have fallen as the rest of Europe. The Russians on the eastern front were worn out and very weak. If not for USA intervention, The Axis would have taken what it wanted. I am a conspiracy theory person.. I feel the USA intelligence knew the Japs were going to bomb pearl harbor. Without the bombing of pearl harbor the USA citizenry was not supportive of getting involved in the war. The powers of the time let it happen so they get support for the war!........ Hmmm, Kind of reminds me of 911....

ON

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I think they both were allowed to happen.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
That's not entirely true. It all depends on your definition of "economy." If you define it as GDP and employment, that would theoretically count as "getting us out." But almost all of the production improvement came from building bombs, ships, airplanes, and tanks, rather than consumer goods. In fact, there was almost no production of houses, cars, and similar items during the war, and the living standard generally went down. I'm not denying that all the war production was necessary, but World War Two offered no economic improvement to the citizens. As for employment, sending 11,000,000 men overseas to get shot would certainly improve the statistics, but again, it did nothing for the economy as it affected most of America. All of that, besides, had to be financed by either tax dollars or printed dollars, which would take money out of the economy either way.The economy itself actually improved dramatically after the War was over and the control of the economy was greatly reduced.

There was a lot more money made and a lot of people put to work. Housing starts were not a s major of a concern in the 40's. Buying a house was much more difficult than it is now. The country went from high unemployment to relatively low unemployment and the GDP went up. The only reason times were hard is because of rationing. A lot of stuff was severely rationed to send to the troops and to keep the war machine rolling. People weren't hurting for jobs and money though. Just didn't have rubber and coffee. Along with a host of other things. Not because the economy was hurting.

I don't believe they knew about the attack very much before the attack happened. It was just basic ineptitude. The military has to go through their chain of command and each commander has to approve info before it is passed on. The military is all about CYA. The 24 hrs they wasted doing the CYA routine allowed Pearl Harbor to be destroyed. I thought 911 might have been a conspiracy designed to get us in to war. It has come out that Bush started making plans on different ways to justify a war with Iraq in just the last week. They finally got info released from meetings with him , Cheney and Rummy. Freedom of information act finally came through. Don't think anything will come of it though. Obama has said he won't go after Bush for war crimes. I can't believe Bush was evil enough to plan for the twin towers to be attacked. I just can't go there. I firmly believed he led us in to the war based on info he knew was false.

As for the financing. The fed doesn't run on a fixed budget like the states do. That's why the deficit isn't hurting us right now. It will have to be paid but it isn't money that has to be paid immediately. It's not like they said the war is going to cost 2 billion dollars so get some gold from Ft Knox. I guess it's all a matter of perspective and the books you chose to read.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
That's not entirely true. It all depends on your definition of "economy." If you define it as GDP and employment, that would theoretically count as "getting us out." But almost all of the production improvement came from building bombs, ships, airplanes, and tanks, rather than consumer goods. In fact, there was almost no production of houses, cars, and similar items during the war, and the living standard generally went down. I'm not denying that all the war production was necessary, but World War Two offered no economic improvement to the citizens. As for employment, sending 11,000,000 men overseas to get shot would certainly improve the statistics, but again, it did nothing for the economy as it affected most of America. All of that, besides, had to be financed by either tax dollars or printed dollars, which would take money out of the economy either way.

The economy itself actually improved dramatically after the War was over and the control of the economy was greatly reduced.

I must agree with Q9 and with the lack of economic boosts during a war. Economic gains can be seen in the rebuilding efforts after a war, but war economies are far worse than depression economies..
I say this with some confidence. My father came over from Germany before the war broke out. He joined the US military at 17, and went back over. I had family on both sides of WWII. It was hard times to keep the most basic food on the table. (Especially in Europe!)
England would have fallen as the rest of Europe. The Russians on the eastern front were worn out and very weak. If not for USA intervention, The Axis would have taken what it wanted. I am a conspiracy theory person.. I feel the USA intelligence knew the Japs were going to bomb pearl harbor. Without the bombing of pearl harbor the USA citizenry was not supportive of getting involved in the war. The powers of the time let it happen so they get support for the war!........ Hmmm, Kind of reminds me of 911....

ON

I typically avoid conspiracy theories, but as for Pearl Harbor... If you haven't already, Google "McCollum Memo." It was declassified in 1994 under the Freedom of Information Act. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it, it's so freaking creepy.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I assume you mean this page of that report.

Had not read that one but there is several warning reports between the time the Japan fleet set sail an the attack that were all held up indefinitely at some level from Hawaii

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Precisely. The part underlined in red really creeps me out. It's such a stereotypical conspiracy that I still have trouble believing it. Still, that's what the evidence points to.

 

[cmjust0]

I don't see how it points to a conspiracy...just a man itching to go to war.

I dunno if you two have seen the movie "Zombieland," but there's a scene where Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) asks Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) if he's going to shoot Wichita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, respectively).

His reply is:

"Only if they shoot at me. Oooooh, let's hope they shoot at me."


Kinda the same deal.. To me, it seems much more juvenile than conspiratorial.