
Leader
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Snow and Ice in the South
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by johnsullivan View Post
To be honest, I do not remember how , much, because I have bought a lot of things besides roof snow guards. I'll find the cheque to tell you the correct price. But as I remember I paid nearly 2000$ for snow guards and installation.
Double Ouch
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by fire49 View Post
How much???
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by johnsullivan View PostIf you often have such cold weather with snow I'll suggest you to protect your house and make it safer. You can install metal roof snow guards. They dom not cost a lot and can protect your head from the snow that will slide from your roof. Such a simple thing that can save your life in such situations.
How much???
Leave a comment:
-
If you often have such cold weather with snow I'll suggest you to protect your house and make it safer. You can install metal roof snow guards. They dom not cost a lot and can protect your head from the snow that will slide from your roof. Such a simple thing that can save your life in such situations.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostVehicle fuel standards, as an example. The cost of engineering those standards, and more importantly, the cost to the public in terms of repair bills associated with the increased complexity of the engines required to meet those standards, are a perfect example. The problem is that the environmentalists want to eliminate all pollution, despite the costs. Republicans want to eliminate pollution where the coasts to business, consumers and society as a whole are reasonable and the reductions are significant enough to warrant the costs.
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostAnd for the record, I do believe that manmade global warming is a load of crap.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by captnjak View PostWhat possible opposition could you mount against reducing greenhouse gases? And even if you could (you surely can't) why would you? This is where the wheels come off in this debate. If you are against the federal government, or anyone else for that matter, reducing greenhouse gases then you are in favor of pollution. Why is it nonsense to want to reduce pollution?
Vehicle fuel standards, as an example. The cost of engineering those standards, and more importantly, the cost to the public in terms of repair bills associated with the increased complexity of the engines required to meet those standards, are a perfect example. The problem is that the environmentalists want to eliminate all pollution, despite the costs. Republicans want to eliminate pollution where the coasts to business, consumers and society as a whole are reasonable and the reductions are significant enough to warrant the costs.
And for the record, I do believe that manmade global warming is a load of crap.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by WVFD705 View PostNot saying reducing greenhouse gases is a bad thing, and some regulation of greenhouse gases is a good thing. But the problem is that when the government regulates to the point it becomes cheaper for manufacturing and industry to move overseas, it does. Cheap labor isn't the only reason things are being manufactured in China.
It is possible for the feds to increase regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions here, but for net global emissions to increase as businesses simply move to areas with fewer regulations.
We can only control what we can control.
Manufacturing has NOT moved overseas because of government regulation run amok. That is a fairy tale told by big business to get people who believe in small government on their side. They have gone overseas because it is drastically cheaper to build factories and hire employees. Very likely that there are income tax advantages too. Less regulation is just a small by-product compared to the costs I mentioned.
Leave a comment:
-
Not saying reducing greenhouse gases is a bad thing, and some regulation of greenhouse gases is a good thing. But the problem is that when the government regulates to the point it becomes cheaper for manufacturing and industry to move overseas, it does. Cheap labor isn't the only reason things are being manufactured in China.
It is possible for the feds to increase regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions here, but for net global emissions to increase as businesses simply move to areas with fewer regulations.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostI guess you're right. After all the republicans want dirty air and dirty water.
Keystone Pipeline. Happy now?
I saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostI guess you're right. After all the republicans want dirty air and dirty water.
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostKeystone Pipeline. Happy now?
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostI saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by scfire86 View PostBecause clean air and water are such a bother. How much poison do you want to eat and drink?
Huh? Is this a tourettes remark?
Keystone Pipeline. Happy now?
I saw today that Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gases produced by the federal government by 40%. Nonsense. I'll have to idle my car extra long in the driveway tomorrow morning to celebrate.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostThe fact is that the EPA has run amuck with ridiculously stringent clean water regulations. Most Republicans support reasonable loosening of some of those restrictions.
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostKeystone Pipelines.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by scfire86 View PostLike which ones and what do they consider reasonable regulations?
Please be specific.
The fact is that the EPA has run amuck with ridiculously stringent clean water regulations. Most Republicans support reasonable loosening of some of those restrictions.
Keystone Pipelines.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LaFireEducator View PostNot at all.
I think there are many Republicans today that make reasonable environmental arguments, given the compromises need to continue the use of fossil fuels and bring manufacturing back to the US, while at the same time not financially overburdening the business sector and allowing for reasonable profit margins.
Please be specific.
Leave a comment:
300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)
Collapse
Upper 300x250
Collapse
Taboola
Collapse
Leader
Collapse
Leave a comment: