Building for a green future A wave of green building laws is sweeping the nation, forcing builders to install solar panels, fluorescent light bulbs and roofs with vegetation whether they like it or not. at
Just what this nation doesn't need. More regulations forcing business to do what the people don't want. I thought this was supposed to be a free country, a constitutional republic. Not a dictatorship where the Fed tells us all what to do?
Who's going to rein in an out of control Washington DC?
I have to agree. While I am in favor of applying any type of energy saving technology where possible, the government should stay the hell out.
I cannot believe the crap this United States government does. It sickens me. I love my country but I hate the government. I doesn't matter who claims to be in charge of me. I will hate them too.
The government which governs best governs least. Some exceptions have to be made for environmental protection but this doesn't rise to that level.
Yeah, that one is really hysterical.
Did anybody hear the "president" make his speech about switch-grass, as a source for alternative auto fuel? I laffed till I like to bust.
First of all, he's as clueless about switchgrass as he is about everything other than thumping his Bible. Some idiot writes stuff for him and he reads it. Got so that he can almost read off a teleprompter without making too many mistakes. But when they have to let him out to face the public, much less the chicken press, and he has to speak impromptu, poor language-challenged soul that he is, now that is a real spectacle!
+++(For a delightful list of his goofs, go to and search for Bushisms. Editor Jacob Weisberg has collected them back to 2001 if not earlier.
Example: I think?tide turning?see, as I remember?I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of?it's easy to see a tide turn?did I say those words?"?Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006)
+++Second, neither he nor anyone else in his incompetent, ignorant, cowardly, corporate-ass-kissing administration will mention the Fuel that Dares Not Speak Its Name (for the unaware, a take-off on what used to be called "The Love that Dares Not Speak its Name", i.e. homosexuality.)
Namely Hemp -- a four-letter word, because the ignorant masses have been spun by the oilionnaires who run our country to believe you can get high on it like its cousin marijuana. Just try it; I'll stand there laffing while you choke.
Hemp has been used since pre-Biblical times for clothing, sails, ropes, hundreds of uses. It grows on the worst soil like a weed.
The oil from its seeds makes excellent, clean-burning fuel.
Taking bets on how long it will be until some f****ing politician gets around to a little research on the millennial usefulness of H- - p.
Aspasia
Not sure what that means. Nevertheless, you'd be hard-pressed to cite a single weekend during Clinton's administration in which the President didn't appear on the evening newscast with his Bible in his hand. ...but I guess that's different, right?.
If I'm not mistaken, Kennedy was the last President who routinely wrote his own material. While Johnson didn't use a teleprompter (I'm not even sure when that was invented), he didn't try to hide the fact that he was reading word for word from the paper in front of him. He had an almost animated way of turning the pages. But again ...I guess that's different.
If eloquence of speech qualified a man to be President, Louis Farrakhan would long ago have been crowned President for life.
Again, you somehow feel that this is unique to the Bush administration. Did you really step off the boat just yesterday?
Your injudicious editing removed the pertinent part of my message, which had to do with political motives for ignoring Hemp as an excellent source of fuel oil.
It did NOT deal with comparing switchgrass and grain corn, so your reply is irrelevant.
If one were to count words, one would conclude that the pertinent part of your message involved trashing the President, which would be completely off topic. Apparently, you were given the benefit of the doubt and your lead point was taken at face value.
Go back and reread your post. You cited the President's ignorance of switchgrass in the context of ethanol as an alternative auto fuel. It was neither impertinent nor irrelevant until you were corrected.
WRT hemp as a motor fuel, at the risk of parrotting other posts here, this is not a unique Bush thing. As far as I know, Clinton had a similar allergic reaction to the subject, as did George H, Reagan, Carter, etc. Do you hold that that was a result of Bush's inability to deliver a speech? (that seems to have been another pertinent part of your diatribe).
You are cherry picking.
The bottom line is that hemp is not being explored for alternative fuel use for political reasons.
(You are quite right that I am trashing the "president" who has brought tragedy upon this country and other parts of the world by allowing himself to be dangled on the puppet-strings of some very bad operators.)
But let's not lose track of the equation:
Hemp = cheap fuel.
Cherry picking? I addressed every point in your post!
Hemp may, indeed, be a cheap fuel -- but it's not the only cheap fuel. And, given a choice, all else being equal, the choice with the least amount of political baggage wins. That's reality. To suggest otherwise exposes another agenda.
WRT losing track of the equation, *YOU* are the one who keeps going off on a totally unrelated Bush bashing rant between every thought. Try sticking with the topic - your credibility will thank you for it.
Communities expanding into lower taxes is very differcult to achieve. Often a community try to prevent taxes from increasing by preventing starting families from enter the community. Since children typically increase the highest tax, school taxes, fast. This 'prevention' can be done by causing less land to build affordable houses, or making starter homes more expensive by imposing many rules.
Just an observation of some people, and their outward motives.
Maybe my tone was conveyed wrong. Since it seems like I'm defending my observations of other people. Sorry, wasnt' meant to be a generialization, just pointing out some people's 'green' motives aren't 'pure'. ;)
I am a big fan for 'open space'. Being one of those 'newer families' with a young child, trails, parks, picnic areas are our source of family time for us. Then for Daddy time, I often hit the hills with my mountain bike, and soon fly fishing. We love useful open space, but we want it help build better communities for our families and future Americans. ;)
Just my observations,
tom
But the options for people who need 'affordable' houses are endless, with respect to available space. I think you're not looking at the big picture.
I think your's is a gross overgeneralization. When someone has the financial wherewithall (that's the first time I've ever used that word in a sentence!) to buy lots of land, it's not necessarily with the intention of shutting other people out. It could be simply because they want to see lots of land when they look out the window. Or they may want to ride horses, or bikes, or ATVs - it doesn't matter. If their objective is to avoid contact with the less affluent, there are plenty of densely populated affluent communities for them to live in. The lots of land alternative really is about lots of land. Even if they're not interested in the green part, it's there. Think of it as a bonus for the rest of us.
As I said, there's plenty of open space in this country. Don't sweat it.
I've heard (and this may not be totally accurate, but I'm sure it's in the correct ballpark), that if the entire population of the earth were to be packed together at the density of Tokyo, the State of Texas would be adequate to hold them all. That gives you an idea how much empty space there is in the US - and in the rest of the world, for that matter.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.