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 http://www.washtimes.com/specialrepo...5757-4681r.htm

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?

--

Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
..

"Mike" wrote in message
oups.com...
: 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
http://www.washtimes.com/specialrepo...5757-4681r.htm
:

On Mar 18, 6:52 am, "Mike" wrote:
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.
athttp://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20070318-125757-4681r.htm

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.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
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?

--
Dittoes. Green is a good idea but I don't want it rammed down my throat by
government.
Politicians may speak well but are generally technically ignorant and can be
bought. A good example is the ethanol fuel business mess.

Frank

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:29:35 -0500, "frank.logullo"
wrote:


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
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?

--
Dittoes. Green is a good idea but I don't want it rammed down my throat by
government.
Politicians may speak well but are generally technically ignorant and can be
bought. A good example is the ethanol fuel business mess.

Frank

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 slate.com 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

On 18 Mar 2007 04:52:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

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 http://www.washtimes.com/specialrepo...5757-4681r.htm

imho:

I've noticed there is always a trend of the 'haves' to dominate the
'havenots'. This is typically done with 'enviro/open space' laws.
Once a person has a home in a nice neighborhood, they don't want to
see everyone follow them. So, they push for stricter more expensive
new homes, less land by pushing for no-dev spaces, etc.

Just an observation. I'm guessing that renters don't vote.

tom @ www.FreelancingProjects.com

On Mar 18, 10:43 pm, Just Joshin wrote:
On 18 Mar 2007 04:52:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

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.
athttp://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20070318-125757-4681r.htm

imho:

I've noticed there is always a trend of the 'haves' to dominate the
'havenots'. This is typically done with 'enviro/open space' laws.
Once a person has a home in a nice neighborhood, they don't want to
see everyone follow them. So, they push for stricter more expensive
new homes, less land by pushing for no-dev spaces, etc.

Just an observation. I'm guessing that renters don't vote

Hell yea, I'm lucky enough to have my 20 acres of Minnesota Heaven.
There seem to be almost no restrictions whatsoever as to what I do on
my place within the law of course. I can have any kind of fence, any
kind of livestock, any kind of junkyard, any kind of building I want
and three phase power too. Rural.

It's all filled up with trees and I cut them down when they get in my
way. No regular person would ever dream of bothering me out here but
there are these uptight neighbors with their plastic mansion and they
have an attitude. They actually complained that one of my trees was
leaning onto their side!!?? WTF there's nothing but trees out there.
That's the mentality that's these people have.

Then there's the tax collector. They come right up to your house like
they own the place. It makes me sick with the questions they ask. I
ought to turn my dogs loose on them. They always want to know if I
have a septic yet so they can tax it. Every damn thing you build and
own they want to tax and for what?
What good is it to have a ****ter if you have to pay for it every day
till the day you die?

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
.. .
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?

--
Dittoes. Green is a good idea but I don't want it rammed down my throat by
government.


I'm a little confused as to why y'all are blaming the federal
government for the behavior of a non-profit organization
and a bunch of individual city councils...

The feds are only setting requirements for their OWN buildings.

In article , aspasia
says...
[...]

First of all, he's as clueless about switchgrass as he is about
everything other than thumping his Bible.

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?.

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.

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.

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!

If eloquence of speech qualified a man to be President, Louis
Farrakhan would long ago have been crowned President for life.

[...]

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.)

Again, you somehow feel that this is unique to the Bush
administration. Did you really step off the boat just yesterday?

In article , aspasia
says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:29:35 -0500, "frank.logullo"
wrote:
[snip]
Politicians may speak well but are generally technically ignorant and can be
bought. A good example is the ethanol fuel business mess.

Frank

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.

Perhaps you should do a little reading:

http://healthandenergy.com/biofuels.htm

According to this report, switchgrass is about 7.6 times more
efficient than grain corn ethanol production. It's 30% cheaper for
space heating and produces about 90% less greenhouse gas than oil.
It grows readily in North America with very little effort. A recent
report that ran on the CBC suggests that, if 4% of Canada's arable
land was planted with switchgrass, that would be sufficient to
virtually eliminate oil as a heating fuel in that country. One acre
would be sufficient to heat the average Canadian home for a year.
(but what do Canadians know about heating a home?)

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:06:03 -0500, Jimbo wrote:

In article , aspasia
says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:29:35 -0500, "frank.logullo"
wrote:
[snip]
Politicians may speak well but are generally technically ignorant and can be
bought. A good example is the ethanol fuel business mess.

Frank

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.

Perhaps you should do a little reading:

http://healthandenergy.com/biofuels.htm

According to this report, switchgrass is about 7.6 times more
efficient than grain corn ethanol production. It's 30% cheaper for
space heating and produces about 90% less greenhouse gas than oil.
It grows readily in North America with very little effort. A recent
report that ran on the CBC suggests that, if 4% of Canada's arable
land was planted with switchgrass, that would be sufficient to
virtually eliminate oil as a heating fuel in that country. One acre
would be sufficient to heat the average Canadian home for a year.
(but what do Canadians know about heating a home?)

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.

On Mar 21, 4:55 am, aspasia wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:06:03 -0500, Jimbo wrote:
In article , aspasia
says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:29:35 -0500, "frank.logullo"
wrote:
[snip]
Politicians may speak well but are generally technically ignorant and can be
bought. A good example is the ethanol fuel business mess.

Frank

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.

Perhaps you should do a little reading:

http://healthandenergy.com/biofuels.htm

According to this report, switchgrass is about 7.6 times more
efficient than grain corn ethanol production. It's 30% cheaper for
space heating and produces about 90% less greenhouse gas than oil.
It grows readily in North America with very little effort. A recent
report that ran on the CBC suggests that, if 4% of Canada's arable
land was planted with switchgrass, that would be sufficient to
virtually eliminate oil as a heating fuel in that country. One acre
would be sufficient to heat the average Canadian home for a year.
(but what do Canadians know about heating a home?)

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.

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.

It did NOT deal with comparing switchgrass and grain corn,
so your reply is irrelevant.

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).

On Mar 18, 10:43 pm, Just Joshin wrote:
On 18 Mar 2007 04:52:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

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.
athttp://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20070318-125757-4681r.htm

imho:

I've noticed there is always a trend of the 'haves' to dominate the
'havenots'. This is typically done with 'enviro/open space' laws.
Once a person has a home in a nice neighborhood, they don't want to
see everyone follow them. So, they push for stricter more expensive
new homes, less land by pushing for no-dev spaces, etc.

Just an observation. I'm guessing that renters don't vote.

tom @ www.FreelancingProjects.com

But since the 'haves' to which you refer are footing the bill for the
open spaces due largely to the smaller tax base, what's the problem?
How are they dominating anyone? It's not like the country is going to
run out of space anytime soon. That's like objecting to the type of
car they drive or the size of their TV. As long as they're spending
*their* money and not impacting anybody else, where's the harm?
Increased choices is one of the rewards of success.

On 21 Mar 2007 06:00:40 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 21, 4:55 am, aspasia wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:06:03 -0500, Jimbo wrote:
In article , aspasia
says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:29:35 -0500, "frank.logullo"
wrote:
[snip]
Politicians may speak well but are generally technically ignorant and can be
bought. A good example is the ethanol fuel business mess.

Frank

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.

Perhaps you should do a little reading:

http://healthandenergy.com/biofuels.htm

According to this report, switchgrass is about 7.6 times more
efficient than grain corn ethanol production. It's 30% cheaper for
space heating and produces about 90% less greenhouse gas than oil.
It grows readily in North America with very little effort. A recent
report that ran on the CBC suggests that, if 4% of Canada's arable
land was planted with switchgrass, that would be sufficient to
virtually eliminate oil as a heating fuel in that country. One acre
would be sufficient to heat the average Canadian home for a year.
(but what do Canadians know about heating a home?)

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.

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.

It did NOT deal with comparing switchgrass and grain corn,
so your reply is irrelevant.

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.

On Mar 18, 5:52 am, "Mike" wrote:
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.
athttp://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20070318-125757-4681r.htm

I blame Al Gore!

On Mar 21, 2:25 pm, aspasia wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 06:00:40 -0700, wrote:



On Mar 21, 4:55 am, aspasia wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:06:03 -0500, Jimbo wrote:
In article , aspasia
says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:29:35 -0500, "frank.logullo"
wrote:
[snip]
Politicians may speak well but are generally technically ignorant and can be
bought. A good example is the ethanol fuel business mess.

Frank

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.

Perhaps you should do a little reading:

http://healthandenergy.com/biofuels.htm

According to this report, switchgrass is about 7.6 times more
efficient than grain corn ethanol production. It's 30% cheaper for
space heating and produces about 90% less greenhouse gas than oil.
It grows readily in North America with very little effort. A recent
report that ran on the CBC suggests that, if 4% of Canada's arable
land was planted with switchgrass, that would be sufficient to
virtually eliminate oil as a heating fuel in that country. One acre
would be sufficient to heat the average Canadian home for a year.
(but what do Canadians know about heating a home?)

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.

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.

It did NOT deal with comparing switchgrass and grain corn,
so your reply is irrelevant.

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.

Cherry picking? I addressed every point in your post!

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.

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.

On 21 Mar 2007 10:40:54 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:43 pm, Just Joshin wrote:
On 18 Mar 2007 04:52:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

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.
athttp://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20070318-125757-4681r.htm

imho:

I've noticed there is always a trend of the 'haves' to dominate the
'havenots'. This is typically done with 'enviro/open space' laws.
Once a person has a home in a nice neighborhood, they don't want to
see everyone follow them. So, they push for stricter more expensive
new homes, less land by pushing for no-dev spaces, etc.

Just an observation. I'm guessing that renters don't vote.

tom @ www.FreelancingProjects.com

But since the 'haves' to which you refer are footing the bill for the
open spaces due largely to the smaller tax base, what's the problem?

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.

How are they dominating anyone? It's not like the country is going to
run out of space anytime soon. That's like objecting to the type of
car they drive or the size of their TV. As long as they're spending
*their* money and not impacting anybody else, where's the harm?
Increased choices is one of the rewards of success.

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

In article ,
says...
On 21 Mar 2007 10:40:54 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:43 pm, Just Joshin wrote:
On 18 Mar 2007 04:52:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

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.
athttp://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20070318-125757-4681r.htm

imho:

I've noticed there is always a trend of the 'haves' to dominate the
'havenots'. This is typically done with 'enviro/open space' laws.
Once a person has a home in a nice neighborhood, they don't want to
see everyone follow them. So, they push for stricter more expensive
new homes, less land by pushing for no-dev spaces, etc.

Just an observation. I'm guessing that renters don't vote.

tom @ www.FreelancingProjects.com

But since the 'haves' to which you refer are footing the bill for the
open spaces due largely to the smaller tax base, what's the problem?

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.

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.

Just an observation of some people, and their outward motives.

How are they dominating anyone? It's not like the country is going to
run out of space anytime soon. That's like objecting to the type of
car they drive or the size of their TV. As long as they're spending
*their* money and not impacting anybody else, where's the harm?
Increased choices is one of the rewards of success.

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 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.

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.

As I said, there's plenty of open space in this country. Don't sweat
it.

Just my observations,

tom


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.