Democratic confusion: no to emergency security measures, yes to thermostat control - Page 5

Stylerod · 01-14-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I doubt this is the only thing they are doing to try and solve the issue.

Your numbers may work in a vacuum, but the real world never works that way.

You have got to be fucking kidding!

I guess they are only doing this to new houses and houses with major renovations. In other words, no significant amount of current homes will get these thermostats. Which to me makes it seem they are spending money for NOTHING. They can't handle what they got and only being able to shut down the electricity in almost no % of homes will do nothing to fix their problem.

It's a moronic idea. It's useless. It's invasive. It's Democrats wanting to show they can throw money at a problem and not piss off their enviro-nutjob supporters by doing something like that would work like making nuclear energy plants or, God forbid, build wind farms.

They are so fucking pathetic

Stylerod · 01-14-2008, 05:54 PM

Have any of you ever worked in an office building? Have any of you watched people almost come to blows because it's cold on one side of the office but hot on the other and people start fighting over the thermostat? Then, of course, Management has to put a lock on it and they are getting pestered because some 55 year old with heat flashes is sweating while 90lb waif girl is shivering in her sweater.

Well, now that is going to happen in some homes in CA. Not being able to control the thermostat in your own home is a HUGE invasion of privacy. And if you give the government the ability to control it they will control it a lot more then they are saying now. Amazing you guys on the left are buying into all this. Pathetic actually.

garbagemanlb · 01-14-2008, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Have any of you ever worked in an office building? Have any of you watched people almost come to blows because it's cold on one side of the office but hot on the other and people start fighting over the thermostat? Then, of course, Management has to put a lock on it and they are getting pestered because some 55 year old with heat flashes is sweating while 90lb waif girl is shivering in her sweater.

Well, now that is going to happen in some homes in CA. Not being able to control the thermostat in your own home is a HUGE invasion of privacy. And if you give the government the ability to control it they will control it a lot more then they are saying now. Amazing you guys on the left are buying into all this. Pathetic actually.

I think it is bullshit. Just like I think banning gay marriage, drug legalization, , the patriot act and assisted suicide is also an invasion of privacy.

Your party is far from clean when it comes to government infringing on individual liberties.

Scrum · 01-14-2008, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Have any of you ever worked in an office building? Have any of you watched people almost come to blows because it's cold on one side of the office but hot on the other and people start fighting over the thermostat? Then, of course, Management has to put a lock on it and they are getting pestered because some 55 year old with heat flashes is sweating while 90lb waif girl is shivering in her sweater.

Well, now that is going to happen in some homes in CA. Not being able to control the thermostat in your own home is a HUGE invasion of privacy. And if you give the government the ability to control it they will control it a lot more then they are saying now. Amazing you guys on the left are buying into all this. Pathetic actually.

You do realize these devices are only going to operate during specific times to keep the rolling brownouts from shutting down the infrastructure, right?

ballz2wallz · 01-14-2008, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

You do realize these devices are only going to operate during specific times to keep the rolling brownouts from shutting down the infrastructure, right?

You do realize that increased national security is to keep you alive, right?

motivez · 01-14-2008, 07:32 PM

There's a little difference though, the power companies already have the legal ability to control your thermostat by shutting off power to your house entirely if there's a need.

The Bush Administration, by contrast, illegally violated our laws, the Constitution, and thus our civil liberties.

I don't approve of this though, I think there's better solutions that involve less government intrusion into personal choices

ballz2wallz · 01-14-2008, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

There's a little difference though, the power companies already have the legal ability to control your thermostat by shutting off power to your house entirely if there's a need.

Exactly why the government doesn't need to be involved.

There's little difference when the government passes a law for both.

motivez · 01-14-2008, 08:12 PM

Like I said, I don't agree with this. I think there's better ways that avoid less personal intrusions into your home.. what's next, telling people how hot their showers can be at certain times of the day?

I suspect (like with most things similar to this), that the best intentions are involved, but we all know which road was paved with the best intentions.

ballz2wallz · 01-14-2008, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Like I said, I don't agree with this. I think there's better ways that avoid less personal intrusions into your home.. what's next, telling people how hot their showers can be at certain times of the day?

Now you're starting to sound like a conservative!

What's next, telling people where they can smoke? What's next, telling people what they can eat? What's next, telling people they have to pay for other people's healtcare? What's next, telling people to wear seatbelts? The list goes on and on!

motivez · 01-14-2008, 08:20 PM

I see what you did there.. combining a bunch of similar sounding things! But some of those are different, and some are more like this situation (most obviously telling people what they can eat and forcing them to wear seat belts), but it's probably best reserved for a separate thread

ballz2wallz · 01-14-2008, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I see what you did there.. combining a bunch of similar sounding things! But some of those are different, and some are more like this situation (most obviously telling people what they can eat and forcing them to wear seat belts), but it's probably best reserved for a separate thread

Eh, they're not really that different...it's all the government telling you what to do, how to live, and what's 'best' for you. But you can label it any way you want.

garbagemanlb · 01-14-2008, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Now you're starting to sound like a conservative!

What's next, telling people where they can smoke? What's next, telling people what they can eat? What's next, telling people they have to pay for other people's healtcare? What's next, telling people to wear seatbelts? The list goes on and on!

What's next, telling other people what gender partner they can or cannot marry? Telling terminally ill patients when they can or cannot end their lives? Telling adults what they can or cannot ingest into their own bodies?

Wait, I guess only the Democrats intrude into our personal lives.

motivez · 01-14-2008, 08:29 PM

Well, there's other issues at play in some of the other ones, ie: taking an action which can impact the health of someone with smoking, for example.. of course, some disagree with the scientific research that's been done on the issue, but it's still a valid difference.

motivez · 01-14-2008, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

What's next, telling other people what gender partner they can or cannot marry? Telling terminally ill patients when they can or cannot end their lives? Telling adults what they can or cannot ingest into their own bodies?

Yeah, I mean, both parties do it. They just have different motivations for doing it.

garbagemanlb · 01-14-2008, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, I mean, both parties do it. They just have different motivations for doing it.

Apparently Ballz thinks his party is above such nonsense!

ballz2wallz · 01-14-2008, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Apparently Ballz thinks his party is above such nonsense!

I never said that. I hate it all.

My party just does it less

Stylerod · 01-14-2008, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

You do realize these devices are only going to operate during specific times to keep the rolling brownouts from shutting down the infrastructure, right?

How? They can't keep it up with existing homes. And they are only going to do this on new homes? What about the ones that are already there that they can't keep powered? It's stupid. Someone on their side please explain this to me. Because it makes no sense.

Stylerod · 01-14-2008, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

What's next, telling other people what gender partner they can or cannot marry? Telling terminally ill patients when they can or cannot end their lives? Telling adults what they can or cannot ingest into their own bodies?

Wait, I guess only the Democrats intrude into our personal lives.

Wait. Are you telling me the Democratic party is trying to legalize drugs and allow assisted suicide?

You need to show me that on the DNC website. I'll wait patiently for a link!

garbagemanlb · 01-14-2008, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wait. Are you telling me the Democratic party is trying to legalize drugs and allow assisted suicide?

You need to show me that on the DNC website. I'll wait patiently for a link!

It sure as hell hasn't been the Democrats who have been bitching and moaning about Assisted suicide here in Oregon.