# How DARE You Take A Nice Relaxing Shower!



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

For anyone who has ever taken a timed shower or gone to a laundromat to cut down on their household utilities bills, it should not come as a surprise that an efficient showerhead is an easy way to cut costs. Likewise, luxury shower and bath lovers might consider the extra energy cost of multiple showerheads to be a worthy sacrifice for the daily spa experience. Either way, the choice is a personal one made based on preference or financial constraints.

Or is it?

Of the many microscopic issues in which the Department of Energy (DOE) involves itself, one of the most ridiculous could be showerhead flow-capacity limits. In the name of conservation, a federal law limits the amount of water that can pass through a nozzle to 2.5 gallons per minute. The law was designed to limit both water and energy use related to pumping the water.
Until recently, a loophole that allowed multi-nozzled showerheads (with each individual nozzle meeting the flow-capacity limit) put this personal choice where it belongs: in the hands of consumers. Showerheads with three or even eight nozzles could be purchased by homebuilders to equip luxury bathrooms as long as the per-nozzle water-flow limit was followed. Regrettably, the DOE decided that alternatives to the standard showerhead could no longer be allowed and, in May, sought to close the legal gap. A redefinition of showerheads is expected.


more:http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/12/doe-reinvades-showerhead-use/


I really have no further comment on this at this point. :indif:


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

Well, you can still have your 8 headed nozzles.

Of course, all eight will just drip but.. you know. :teehee:




I have to say I wish my water pressure was that high. We have a decent shower but no way is it 2.5gals per minute. Too many other factors between well and shower slow it all down.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

I agree the showerhead things sucks...on the other hand, part of solving some of the problems we are seeing WILL require sacrifices---as individuals we have to remove ourselves from the "if I want it, I should have it" mentality that has gotten us to where we are today.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> I agree the showerhead things sucks...on the other hand, part of solving some of the problems we are seeing WILL require sacrifices---as individuals we have to remove ourselves from the "if I want it, I should have it" mentality that has gotten us to where we are today.


So you think the Government can tell you what you can and can't do to the nth degree?

Sorry I don't have that much faith or trust in the scum government.. I don't trust a politician of any persuasion enough to allow him to tell me "what's best for me"..

Just look at Jessie Jackson for example, he drives a big SUV to a "green convention" Typical hypocrite who is in it only for the money and could really care less about those he claims to help..

Imagine how many people could be helped if he drove a Ford Focus or something similar instead of wasting the money on a SUV...

But I keep forgetting, He is an ELITE LIBERAL!


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

You see the 1.6 amd .6 numbers on the toilets & urinals - all mandated flows for many years now.

There is much more of this than we realize. The govt, to save ourselves, tells us what to do.

Any one little piece, well it does make some sense, can see the point I guess.

but taken as whole, we are just told what to do any more.

--->Paul


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> So you think the Government can tell you what you can and can't do to the nth degree?
> 
> Sorry I don't have that much faith or trust in the scum government.. I don't trust a politician of any persuasion enough to allow him to tell me "what's best for me"..
> 
> ...


I think that we have to stop living as though the only thing that matters is what we want.

I would not give any "elite liberal" a pass on this.


----------



## Wis Bang 2 (Jan 12, 2010)

When I replaced my shower head, the low flow was a plastic washer in the opening, slight pressure w/ a screwdriver and it popped right out...


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

I gues they don't realize that if you don't have enough water to rinse off, you will just take a longer shower?

Are these the same people that decided dishwashers need to use less so there would be less water pollution? I guess they forgot that it's the detergent that was the problem. 2 TB of detergent in either 5 or 9 gallons of water is still 2 TB of detergent.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

WELL.... *I* still have my 5 gallon super tanker toilets--they came with the place and I have no intention of replacing them. 

Restricted shower heads? Hah. No doubt there would be a very workable way around that for anyone who is mechanically inclined.

Didn't Jesse Jackson's SUV get stolen and stripped? 

Prince Charles had some comment a few weeks ago urging people to not take 'long' showers but instead to take "refreshing 5 minute showers". I suppose if you sat on your backside in an office all day pusing paper and pecking a keyboard in air conditioned comfort, that would be just ducky. But for those of us who do physical WORK, and who get sweaty and actually dirty in pursuit of providing food and income for our families, 5 minutes ain't enough to refresh anything. It takes me longer than that to start at the top and scrub my way down--wash my hair first, then put conditioner on it (have to have conditioner, sorry, my hair is quite long and thick and has enough gray in it to make it unruly) and then start scrubbing--face and neck, all the way down to my toes. I scrub every square inch of my body, then rinse hair and everything else. That takes more than 5 minutes. Sorry, ain't gonna be stinky and dirty for anyone, not even the government.

The government may try to reduce the quality of people's lives with their endless restrictions and regulations, but I cannot comply when it comes to basic cleanliness and sanitation.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Prince Charles is an organic farmer of great reputation and gets plenty filthy very often huffing manure around etc.. no, really. He is quite famous for it.

And as far as the government telling us what we can and cannot do.. toughy, that.
If we would exercise a little control on our own.. but no.
Waste of everything in the US is shameful. We are so used to having all the fresh clean water that we can use that we even flush our poop with beautiful, fresh, clean water. (that is a crying shame, I think. I want a tank that stores the water from my shower to be used to flush my toilet)

And what Jesse Jackson or anyone else should have absolutely no bearing as to what others do. That makes no sense.

But a on/off switch can be found on the head that allow you to maintain the perfect temp without letting the shower run while you soap up. We have one. Get wet, turn it off. Soap up, turn on the switch, rinse off.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> I think that we have to stop living as though the only thing that matters is what we want.
> 
> I would not give any "elite liberal" a pass on this.


You're missing my point.
Since when does the government "know best"?

Look at the waste they have now, yet they want to tell/force me how not to waste water..

I have no problem with these luxury showers if you can afford to run them. I can't, but that doesn't mean I should be able to tell my neighbor he shouldn't have one..

Lets take it a step farther, Why do you have a car or truck.. Those that live in the city don't need them so why do you?

The government isn't the all knowing end to anything.

I can only assume personal freedom means nothing to you. Notice that is an assumption from your remarks. Why is your hair blond, black, brown, blue? Should we all be the same according to this type of government control?

If you have more then 2 pairs of shoes/boots then you have too many and the government should be allowed to ban you from buying them.. Well at least with the thinking that they should be allowed to control everything..

I can also only assume that you believe people won't make the right choices, since you want to regulate their every movement...

Thanks, but no thanks, I'll think for my self and don't need you or the Government doing it for me..


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> I agree the showerhead things sucks...on the other hand, part of solving some of the problems we are seeing WILL require sacrifices---as individuals we have to remove ourselves from the "if I want it, I should have it" mentality that has gotten us to where we are today.


Always people talk about sacrifice when limiting free choice is involved..but never when government entitlements are concerned...you are all for govt. mandated sacrifices..so how about we eliminate all welfare.. that sacrifice will save much more for this country than shower management ...or do we not want that kind of sacrifice?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> You're missing my point.
> Since when does the government "know best"?
> 
> Look at the waste they have now, yet they want to tell/force me how not to waste water..
> ...


I never said the government knows "best"--however the idea that people should get whatever they want and can afford without thought to overall good is ridiculous....we have a responsibility to others in the present and the future and continuing to use resources as if they are endless is a problem that we have to address. Like someone else said, if people were more apt to be conservative with resources (AKA personal accountability) then we wouldn't have government even needing to step in..but that is not how we function---our society is me, me, me.

Not sure if your car/truck question was for me but if it was, I will respond. 

Yes, I have a car--a Kia Spectra and I drive around 600 miles per month. I limit my usage as much as I possibly can but due to the limited bus service and family obligations out of town, it is not possible for me to be completely without a car...I DO however do everything I can to conserve gas usage--from buying as fuel efficient of a car that I could afford at the time to clumping my errands together to riding the bus when possible. Sadly, I am in a minority.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Always people talk about sacrifice when limiting free choice is involved..but never when government entitlements are concerned...you are all for govt. mandated sacrifices..so how about we eliminate all welfare.. that sacrifice will save much more for this country than shower management ...or do we not want that kind of sacrifice?


I think across the board elimination of welfare would be counterproductive, but I am certainly in support of stricter guidelines, streamlining the process and decreasing some programs.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> I think across the board elimination of welfare would be* counterproductive*, but I am certainly in support of stricter guidelines, streamlining the process and decreasing some programs.


In what way?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> In what way?


For example, if you have an individual who is working but still qualifies for some food assistance and suddenly you pull that assistance back you place the person in a position to either not pay other bills, not eat, or steal to eat..better to "wean" them off programs.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Phoebesmum said:


> I think that we have to stop living as though the only thing that matters is what we want.
> 
> I would not give any "elite liberal" a pass on this.


The question is, is it wise to hand the government that much power over every detail of our lives..


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> I never said the government knows "best"--however the idea that people should get whatever they want and can afford without thought to overall good is ridiculous....we have a responsibility to others in the present and the future and continuing to use resources as if they are endless is a problem that we have to address. Like someone else said, if people were more apt to be conservative with resources (AKA personal accountability) then we wouldn't have government even needing to step in..but that is not how we function---our society is me, me, me.
> 
> Not sure if your car/truck question was for me but if it was, I will respond.
> 
> Yes, I have a car--a Kia Spectra and I drive around 600 miles per month. I limit my usage as much as I possibly can but due to the limited bus service and family obligations out of town, it is not possible for me to be completely without a car...I DO however do everything I can to conserve gas usage--from buying as fuel efficient of a car that I could afford at the time to clumping my errands together to riding the bus when possible. Sadly, I am in a minority.


Ok, but how much scrap do you haul in your foreign made car? Where my truck hauls a minimum of 1000 lbs of scrap a month.. This is stuff that would have ended up in the landfill. Most of it is stuff those like yourself throw out..
I take those old computers, TV's, VCR's, CD players, shelves, bed frames, electric motors etc and scrap them.. Most people just throw the stuff away.
I spend the time to tear them down to there separate components are recycle them..

So since you think you are so "responsible" how many of those items have you thrown out over your life time?

I'm not trying to scold you or anything, I'm pointing out that we all are different in what we do and what we need..

Yet you want EVERYONE to follow some debatable law by debatable politicians...
They have their own agenda as to why they want to limit shower heads, and it isn't about water, it's about control! 

You see we all are different, yet you want to limit everyone to a "certain limit" decided by those in the government..


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

When I remodeled our master bath it took 15 minutes, a drill and a pair of curved needle nose pliers to customize our three new showerheads.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Heck, it takes more than 5 minutes to bathe my disabled grandmother who has Alzheimers. I'd love to see some government agent try to bathe a delusional granny who has just smeared feces all over herself. 

Oh, wait, she'd be dead, due to Obamacare, and we wouldn't have to worry about wasting water on her....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> I never said the government knows "best"--however the idea that people should get whatever they want and can afford without thought to overall good is ridiculous....*we have a responsibility to others in the present and the future and continuing to use resources as if they are endless is a problem that we have to address. Like someone else said, if people were more apt to be conservative with resources (AKA personal accountability) then we wouldn't have government even needing to step in..but that is not how we function---our society is me, me, me.*
> 
> Not sure if your car/truck question was for me but if it was, I will respond.
> 
> Yes, I have a car--a Kia Spectra and I drive around 600 miles per month. I limit my usage as much as I possibly can but due to the limited bus service and family obligations out of town, it is not possible for me to be completely without a car...I DO however do everything I can to conserve gas usage--from buying as fuel efficient of a car that I could afford at the time to clumping my errands together to riding the bus when possible. Sadly, I am in a minority.



In my state, there are over 5 million illegal aliens. They ALL use OUR natural resources. That means BILLIONS of gallons of water wasted by folks who shouldn't even be here. Millions of gallons of fuel, wasted. Power, same thing. When our govenment does something about this problem, maybe, just maybe, i'll start paying more attention. Untill then, don't tell me how to take a shower. Do you really think that our elected public servents only take 5 min showers? Of course they don't. If you think they do, well what can i say!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I'll play Devil's advocate.

It not about control of the taxpayer and not so much about saving energy.

It's mostly about saving water, or more specifically, processed water. 

Most cities are growing at very rapid rates, but the often meager sources of fresh water, can't even begin to keep up with the growth. CA, CO , AZ parts of TX, have always had water issues, which are only getting worse. Most other states have some type of fresh water issues, due to residential and insdutrial growth.

20 million people taking a high-flow 20 minute shower, is a lot of water. same with 20 million 5 gal toilet flushes.

Fresh water sources are not infinite, even for the homesteader. Those big "walking irrigators" for farm fields, suck up the aquifier, raising salinity levels for homestead drinking wells. electricity and softener salt, get eaten while we zone out under the hot shower.

It's just like everything else. If we can't do what right on our own, then big brother has to come along and force us.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I'll play Devil's advocate.
> 
> It not about control of the taxpayer and not so much about saving energy.
> 
> ...


So, your saying that we the citizens, should suffer more big government, because they aren't willing to enforce federal imigration laws and side with un-balanced environmentalists? We have the same amount of water available we always had. We just have activist judges who rule that a little fish is more important than food or fresh water for humans, and elected public servants that refuse to enforce imigration laws. That's the problem!


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

I think it's good to conserve resourses where we can as responsible stewards of the enviornment. That being said not because some beauracrat tells me to.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> So, your saying that we the citizens, should suffer more big government, because they aren't willing to enforce federal imigration laws and side with un-balanced environmentalists? We have the same amount of water available we always had. We just have activist judges who rule that a little fish is more important than food or fresh water for humans, and elected public servants that refuse to enforce imigration laws. That's the problem!


Immigration reform, or what ever, is a tough dragon to slay. We all know that.

Accusing illegal immigrants of swilling up all of our fresh water and therfore causing our water shortages, is just silly, IMO. 

Sure we have always had the same amount of water. It's just never been were we need it and it's getting harder to get it there. CA knows that more than anybody. That state would have remained the desert it once was, if water had not been brought in from eslwhere. Water has always been a complex and verry political problem in many places, for a hundred years. 

Users wasting water (and we all do it) does not help the problem at all.


----------



## Kmac15 (May 19, 2007)

Well, what about my neighbors in ground pool, or the sprinklers that come on at the local restaurants lawn even when it is raining?

This started when ''they" decided that we would not even be allowed to decided what kind of toilet to buy. 

I can see incentives to buy things that are better for the environment, but I draw the line at being told that the decision is being made for me.

I can see a black market forming, hiding plumbing features in wheel wells or under a babys car seat as you cross the border. 

No officer, we have nothing to declare.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Immigration reform, or what ever, is a tough dragon to slay. We all know that.
> 
> *Accusing illegal immigrants of swilling up all of our fresh water and therfore causing our water shortages, is just silly, IMO. *
> 
> ...


Why is it silly?

You said it, that is YOUR opinon. I live here. Illegal imigrants use BILLIONS OF GALLONS of water per year. I'll say it again, Billions(with a capitol B) of gallons of water. (not to mention fuel, and other resources) If they wern't here, much less strain. Not to hard to understand, really.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Can someone please explain to me how taking a long shower wastes water?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> I'll play Devil's advocate.
> 
> It not about control of the taxpayer and not so much about saving energy.
> 
> ...


The problem with your thoughts here is that Cities are forcing us to connect to their lines. So the idea of them not being able to provide the quantity of clean water is a problem of their own making.. In our area they keep extending the water and sewer lines out past their legal city limits. They then force those they pass to hook up to their lines at a home owners expense.. The average cost around here is $6000 per hook up, so that is about $12,000 for domestic and sewer. Well that is a lot of money for some of us... The problem is we don't have the option to stay with our wells and septic systems..We are forced by threat of law to hook up to their junk systems and then we get a monthly bill on top of it...

So it is about control and power and not about water or energy savings...


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

What I see recurring through this thread is "when X is solved, THEN I will do Y" and THAT attitude is the problem! We have to STOP thinking "it's all about me" and start thinking as a community to solve many of these problems.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Water goes up, then it comes back down. It isn't going anywhere.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> What I see recurring through this thread is "when X is solved, THEN I will do Y" and THAT attitude is the problem! We have to STOP thinking "it's all about me" and start thinking as a community to solve many of these problems.


Sorry what you see is those of us fighting for freedom and the right to it.

You seem more then willing to give freedom up in the name of (what ever the latest crisis is). I'm not!
I don't trust the politicians of any stripe. They in the long run are not there for our benefit, but there for their benefit....

It's not about "me" it about the right to do as I see fit for my family.

WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But I guess you don't understand those words and why some of us don't want Government interference.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> Water goes up, then it comes back down. It isn't going anywhere.


This is an EXCEEDINGLY simplified view of the water cycle.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> Sorry what you see is those of us fighting for freedom and the right to it.
> 
> You seem more then willing to give freedom up in the name of (what ever the latest crisis is). I'm not!
> I don't trust the politicians of any stripe. They in the long run are not there for our benefit, but there for their benefit....
> ...


I do understand those words AND your viewpoint...I just don't agree with it.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> It's just like everything else. If we can't do what right on our own, then big brother has to come along and force us.


Ouch, so you have no problem with government taking control of every aspect of our lives.. Which history shows will be abused once that degree of power is obtained.

Personally I think they should just jack water rates higher in metro areas where the water is most wasted. Jack the price up until people conserve on their own.

The reason people in the U.S. waste so much, is because things are so cheap and easy to get for them. Because they can waste it and have no real incentive not to. Giving government more control isn't necessary, just raise the prices, let the people cut back or pay more. The price is going to go up as the resource is depleted anyway.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> I do understand those words AND your viewpoint...I just don't agree with it.


So Government is the all knowing?

I can only assume (note I said assume) that you don't believe in the Constitution?
You say you know what is says, Yet,
You would allow Government to control every aspect of our lives?

I'm lost as to why you would be in a self reliance/homesteading forum?

If personal responsibility doesn't account anything, and only government can regulate us, then why be here? 

I seriously fail to see or understand that!


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> So Government is the all knowing?
> 
> I can only assume (note I said assume) that you don't believe in the Constitution?
> You say you know what is says, Yet,
> ...


I believe in the Constitution however I also believe that it is not a stagnant document and I do not believe the government is attempting to control every aspect of our lives.

As for why I am in a self reliance/homesteading forum? Because I very much believe in working towards self-reliance...homesteading does not belong only to conservatives or liberals...it is a way of life that people of many political and social leanings participate in.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> I believe in the Constitution however I also believe that it is not a stagnant document and I do not believe the government is attempting to control every aspect of our lives.
> 
> As for why I am in a self reliance/homesteading forum? Because I very much believe in working towards self-reliance...homesteading does not belong only to conservatives or liberals...it is a way of life that people of many political and social leanings participate in.


Sorry but your political leanings don't go with self reliance. When you expect the government to tell you "what's best for you"

Also the Constitution limits the power of the government, yet you want to give them more, so again your political leanings don't jive with self reliance..

I guess I'm one of the few who believe if I can't afford it then I don't buy it. I take my responsibilities seriously and pay my own way. I don't expect the government to give me hand outs or tell me how to live my life..

It is up to me to find my way through life, not the governments job to pay for my way...


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> Sorry but your political leanings don't go with self reliance. When you expect the government to tell you "what's best for you"
> 
> Also the Constitution limits the power of the government, yet you want to give them more, so again your political leanings don't jive with self reliance..
> 
> ...


I also do not buy what I cannot pay cash for and I take my responsibilities seriously...but I also acknowledge the REALITY that a lot of people do NOT take responsibility and will only change when forced to through laws or price hikes. Self reliance and homesteading are NOT the pleasure of conservatives only...

The Constitution is a changing document and was never intended to be stagnant...ie we see all the ammendments to the Constitution. If you wanted the Constitution to be an be-all-end-all document, we would have to take it back to the FIRST version, with no ammendments, including ammendments for voting age, women's voting, slavery, etc....as time goes on, society changes and the Constitution, as a living document, changes with it.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> I also do not buy what I cannot pay cash for and I take my responsibilities seriously...but I also acknowledge the REALITY that a lot of people do NOT take responsibility and will only change when forced to through laws or price hikes. Self reliance and homesteading are NOT the pleasure of conservatives only...
> 
> The Constitution is a changing document and was never intended to be stagnant...ie we see all the ammendments to the Constitution. If you wanted the Constitution to be an be-all-end-all document, we would have to take it back to the FIRST version, with no ammendments, including ammendments for voting age, women's voting, slavery, etc....as time goes on, society changes and the Constitution, as a living document, changes with it.


And for those who refuse to take care of their own responsibilities, let them suffer the consequences of their actions.. 

Now I know why you think they way you do, you think the Constitution can be bent to suit your political views...

You don't care if they violate it, just as long as you and yours get the benefits...

Figures!


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> And for those who refuse to take care of their own responsibilities, let them suffer the consequences of their actions..
> 
> Now I know why you think they way you do, you think the Constitution can be bent to suit your political views...
> 
> ...


LOL not at all what I said. I agree that we need to start making people more responsible but simply pulling all assistance programs will result in a LOT of problems...we need to establish firmer guidelines, closer monitoring and less incentive to stay on assistance programs. Also, a problem comes in when YOUR "right" to do whatever you want interferes with MY "right" to have water or clean ground or any of a variety of other things...how do you propose handling those issues?


----------



## Terminus (Aug 23, 2005)

One of my favorite Heinlein quotes:

_Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire_. 

Homesteading is about self reliance, I donât understand how someone can be OK with wanting other people to be to be controlled and on the other hand say they want to live their life in a *self reliant *manner. IMHO they are exclusive conditions.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Terminus said:


> One of my favorite Heinlein quotes:
> 
> _Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire_.
> 
> Homesteading is about self reliance, I donât understand how someone can be OK with wanting other people to be to be controlled and on the other hand say they want to live their life in a *self reliant *manner. IMHO they are exclusive conditions.


It is possible to be self reliant AND follow guidelines and laws.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> It is possible to be self reliant AND follow guidelines and laws.



The very need that you have for laws governing how much water you can use taking your shower is a direct contradiction of being self reliant...a self reliant person knows how to conserve.. do you understand I do not need nor want any law to tell me or anyone else how to conserve water... I detest the thought of any law telling me what to do* BECAUSE *I am self reliant and a conservative..by that very definition I conserve and I rely on my common sense and experience to know what to do not on any govt. telling me what to do...those who need that much management are definitely not self reliant and anyone who advocates that much govt control is not interested in any self reliance...but prefers a socialist world... have it if you will.. but not here in America...might I suggest Venezuela? You can take my DIL's place.. she is an American now for that reason.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> The very need that you have for laws governing how much water you can use taking your shower is a direct contradiction of being self reliant...a self reliant person knows how to conserve.. do you understand I do not need nor want any law to tell me or anyone else how to conserve water... I detest the thought of any law telling me what to do* BECAUSE *I am self reliant and a conservative..by that very definition I conserve and I rely on my common sense and experience to know what to do not on any govt. telling me what to do...those who need that much management are definitely not self reliant and anyone who advocates that much govt control is not interested in any self reliance...but prefers a socialist world... have it if you will.. but not here in America...might I suggest Venezuela? You can take my DIL's place.. she is an American now for that reason.


Yes, YOU are self reliant, but the problem is all the people who are NOT. I think that should be clear.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> Yes, YOU are self reliant, but the problem is *all the people who are NOT.* I think that should be clear.


They don't have to be...we have freedom of choice in this country..


----------



## mem (Oct 28, 2005)

I think that we can all agree that MOST of us here have some common sense and can be responsible. But what about the rest of the world? If people's choices only affect them, then I think the government should have no business telling them what they can or cannot do. If someone's choice is going to adversely affect others, then yes, I do think that their is a need for government regulation.


----------



## Terminus (Aug 23, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> It is possible to be self reliant AND follow guidelines and laws.


Strawman argument â Itâs not a question of following regulations and law, the point I was making is that if you desire to be self reliant, then you should allow others the same respect and not impose your arbitrary rules on other people. Water shower flow rates and the amount of gal per flush are as arbitrary as laws come. They are feel good laws that can achieve the goal of saving water by using market forces by charging more for water and sewage.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I look at it this way, I paid for the land I'm getting the water from, as well as the pump that brings it out of the ground. The water is mine, and I can stand under it as long as I want, and then it goes back into the ground to be used the next time I want to take a shower. 

The government can try to regulate the shower heads all they like. Anyone ever taken a look at a shower head? They're pretty simple devices, easy to modify, and if necessary easy to make. I learned to take very quick showers when I was serving aboard submarines, and I also learned the value of freedom. I'm no longer on a submarine, so I will continue to enjoy my long showers


----------



## Kmac15 (May 19, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> I look at it this way, I paid for the land I'm getting the water from, as well as the pump that brings it out of the ground. The water is mine, and I can stand under it as long as I want, and then it goes back into the ground to be used the next time I want to take a shower.
> 
> The government can try to regulate the shower heads all they like. Anyone ever taken a look at a shower head? They're pretty simple devices, easy to modify, and if necessary easy to make. I learned to take very quick showers when I was serving aboard submarines, and I also learned the value of freedom. I'm no longer on a submarine, so I will continue to enjoy my long showers


HOLLYWOODS :bouncy: (sorry, thread drift LOL)


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

I agree Jim. We catch most of our outdoor water--for gardens and animals. We have a well that we use for potable water purposes. We are hooked up to municipal water but are only charged the minimum (term of the home loan we took to move this place years ago). We provide our water for ourselves, and that's a huge part of being self sufficient.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

JuliaAnn said:


> I agree Jim. We catch most of our outdoor water--for gardens and animals. We have a well that we use for potable water purposes. We are hooked up to municipal water but are only charged the minimum (term of the home loan we took to move this place years ago). We provide our water for ourselves, and that's a huge part of being self sufficient.


We have a well and two springs. I'm developing one of them now, and will start restoring the other after winter is over. Every drop of water we use winds up back where we got it sooner or later. That cycle has been going on as long as the world has been here, and doesn't appear to be stopping any time soon.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> I look at it this way, I paid for the land I'm getting the water from, as well as the pump that brings it out of the ground. The water is mine, and I can stand under it as long as I want, and then it goes back into the ground to be used the next time I want to take a shower.
> 
> The government can try to regulate the shower heads all they like. Anyone ever taken a look at a shower head? They're pretty simple devices, easy to modify, and if necessary easy to make. I learned to take very quick showers when I was serving aboard submarines, and I also learned the value of freedom. I'm no longer on a submarine, so I will continue to enjoy my long showers


That's what I was thinking as I read this thread. I have my well and pump. My electricity for the pump is solar energy. I'll take as long of a shower as I want.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> This is an EXCEEDINGLY simplified view of the water cycle.


Yup, and that's why the Goverment needs to stay out of it.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> Yup, and that's why the Goverment needs to stay out of it.


Wrong--that is why you need to learn about the water cycle before you make such overly simplified statements as a reason to NOT regulate water flow.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txrider said:


> The question is, is it wise to hand the government that much power over every detail of our lives..


We have not granted the government nearly this much power... they have simply usurped these powers because the people fell asleep and allowed them to. Here is what their powers consist of...... as granted them by "we the people", Article one, section eight is where all the powers granted to the federal government are derived from. Note that the tenth amendment limits them to those powers ONLY. 

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

I do not see anything there about showerheads, or about 95 percent of anything else they involve themselves with.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

This is the way I see it--IF you own your own land, your own well, your own water...then absolutely you have every right to use as much water as you like with the understanding that if your well goes dry it is your problem. However, if like many of us, a person is hooked to a municipal water supply, then in the interest of everyone on the water supply having equal access I think it is perfectly fine for the government to implement these kinds of water regulation plans. For those with your own land, use the water as you like--no one is going to come to your home and demand to verify that your shower head is low flow.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> Wrong--that is why you need to learn about the water cycle before you make such overly simplified statements as a reason to NOT regulate water flow.


My water on my land is just fine. Now, if there are places that have too many people in an area that dosen't have enought water to sustain the population, then address that issue and keep the Goverment out of Mother Nature. But no, as a Lib. you would rather have too many people-so the Goverment can collect all those Taxes to fund all your pet Gov. projects.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> My water on my land is just fine. Now, if there are places that have too many people in an area that dosen't have enought water to sustain the population, then address that issue and keep the Goverment out of Mother Nature. But no, as a Lib. you would rather have too many people-so the Goverment can collect all those Taxes to fund all your pet Gov. projects.


Not at all..I just acknowledge that the likelihood of getting people to move to deal with water shortage problems is next to nil so we are left dealing with water shortages in other ways. I understand what you are saying and in the ideal world we would have people better distributed population-wise as a way of dealing with water shortages...but that is not reality.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> This is the way I see it--IF you own your own land, your own well, your own water...then absolutely you have every right to use as much water as you like with the understanding that if your well goes dry it is your problem. However, if like many of us, a person is hooked to a municipal water supply, then in the interest of everyone on the water supply having equal access* I think it is perfectly fine for the government to implement these kinds of water regulation plans.* For those with your own land, use the water as you like--no one is going to come to your home and demand to verify that your shower head is low flow.



Yes if in fact two things are true:

1) the buyer of the resource agrees when having water turned on at their residence
2) the property owner has other options..ie) drill their own well on their lot if they do not choose to be limited by the govt in how they shower.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

As a long haired girl, I feel very discriminated against. I will have to cut my hair short in order to rinse out shampoo and conditioner.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

beccachow said:


> As a long haired girl, I feel very discriminated against. I will have to cut my hair short in order to rinse out shampoo and conditioner.


same here Becky, ever think of going with dread locks?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

A shower head is easy enough to unscrew, and then you have all the water that the pipes will allow through.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Yes if in fact two things are true:
> 
> 1) the buyer of the resource agrees when having water turned on at their residence
> 2) the property owner has other options..ie) drill their own well on their lot if they do not choose to be limited by the govt in how they shower.


Yes, IF the property is not already hooked up to municipal water when the purchase of the home takes place then I think they should be allowed to drill their own well...if the house is already on municipal water, then by purchasing the home, the purchaser has, by default, agreed to be on municipal water.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

beccachow said:


> As a long haired girl, I feel very discriminated against. I will have to cut my hair short in order to rinse out shampoo and conditioner.


No one is limiting the length of time you can take a shower, you can take all day to rinse your hair if need be--the regulations just want you to use less water while doing so.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> No one is limiting the length of time you can take a shower, you can take all day to rinse your hair if need be--the regulations just want you to use less water while doing so.


You seem to be fairly well informed about this. Could you please cite the article of the constitution which gives Congress the authority to regulate anything regarding my shower?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

deaconjim said:


> You seem to be fairly well informed about this. Could you please cite the article of the constitution which gives Congress the authority to regulate anything regarding my shower?


You know as well as I do that there is nothing in the constitution that talks about water regulation...

I think the arguement could be made that:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

*The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties*, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare *of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

does allow Congress to create regulations when the welfare of the whole would be at risk due to water shortages.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> You know as well as I do that there is nothing in the constitution that talks about water regulation...
> 
> I think the arguement could be made that:
> 
> ...



Oh that good old General Welfare clause.....


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Oh that good old General Welfare clause.....


It's great isn't it? Allows us to take care of the general population...perhaps like the founding fathers MEANT since they included it.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> You know as well as I do that there is nothing in the constitution that talks about water regulation...
> 
> I think the arguement could be made that:
> 
> ...


What are the limits of the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

deaconjim said:


> What are the limits of the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution?


You tell me.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> You tell me.


Your view appears to be much broader than mine. I'm just wondering if you believe there are any limits placed on Congress that cannot be skirted using this clause.

I agree with James Madison on the issue. The general welfare clause is an introduction to the powers that are later innumerated in Article 1 Section 8, and does not in itself grant the Congress any other powers.


----------



## dezingg (Feb 25, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A shower head is easy enough to unscrew, and then you have all the water that the pipes will allow through.


I was wondering what garden sprinklers might work, like one of those adjustable brass nozzles? You'd have to adapt from 1/2" pipe thread to 3/4" hose thread though. 

It's a world of choices. Make your own list of where to cut and where to splurge.

Then there's the other guy ... someone wants to start a new rock/gravel quarry in the county. Expected water use was 20,000 gallons a day. They're trying to come up with a lower water usage plan.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

deaconjim said:


> Your view appears to be much broader than mine. I'm just wondering if you believe there are any limits placed on Congress that cannot be skirted using this clause.
> 
> I agree with James Madison on the issue. The general welfare clause is an introduction to the powers that are later innumerated in Article 1 Section 8, and does not in itself grant the Congress any other powers.


Yes, we are very different in our views.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> Yes, we are very different in our views.


I've explained my view, but I'm still waiting to hear yours. Are there any limits to the powers given to the Congress by the general welfare clause and if so, what defines them?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

deaconjim said:


> I've explained my view, but I'm still waiting to hear yours. Are there any limits to the powers given to the Congress by the general welfare clause and if so, what defines them?


The limitations are set by the public's needs/welfare.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> The limitations are set by the public's needs/welfare.


Is not that Communism :bow:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> The limitations are set by the public's needs/welfare.


So, if the public decides they need something, it's the governments obligation to provide it? Where does it stop? How many trillions in debt are we supposed to suffer? That is so against what this country is all about! Great googly moogly!

Maybe the general welfare clause is/ has been mis-used for so long, folks like you have come to expect the government will take care of you from cradle to grave. What happened to personal responsability?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Is not that Communism :bow:


In it's most insidious form! Some folks want America to be the next country to try that failed system. Shame on them.

"To each, according to their needs".


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> So, if the public decides they need something, it's the governments obligation to provide it? Where does it stop? How many trillions in debt are we supposed to suffer? That is so against what this country is all about! Great googly moogly!
> 
> Maybe the general welfare clause is/ has been mis-used for so long, folks like you have come to expect the government will take care of you from cradle to grave. What happened to personal responsability?


I don't expect the government to care for ME...I expect the government to care for the welfare of all. I think we do need to reduce/improve many welfare programs and return people to a more self sufficient mode, but I also think the government has to step in to many things to make sure that the welfare of all is taken care of....


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> I don't expect the government to care for ME..*.I expect the government to care for the welfare of all.* I think we do need to reduce/improve many welfare programs and return people to a more self sufficient mode, but I also think the government has to step in to many things to make sure that the welfare of all is taken care of....


I am confused...are you saying this is what you _want_ or are you saying that this is what you think the clause means? What limits the powers of the federal government?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> I am confused...are you saying this is what you want or are you saying that this is what you think the clause means? IYO, what limits the federal government?


I am saying the clause allows Congress to ensure the general welfare of people in the US is taken care of....I do not want nor do I need any type of government assistance but I understand that some people do. The limits of the federal government are in the constitution but ALSO in the people--the types of politicians that are elected represent (or as SUPPOSED to represent) the desires of the people. If you want Congress to have less controll, then you have to get the right people voted in. I personally WANT a government that is willing to regulate environmental issues so I am okay with the way we are heading in those terms.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Well I guess O needs a water Czar he could then appoint comrades i mean union members to time everyones shower times . You know call before you shower  Also add a extra tax to all car washes extra for big cars no drying as this takes electric :awh: Yes and no hand drying as this could hamper food supply's from working up hunger or in case of heat stroke use Obamacare :bouncy::bouncy:

There is no end to Gov. control once started 

Coming next shower on at 6:00 off at 6:05 brought to you by the new G P S Crap & Spade Bathroom Co :nana:


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> I am saying the clause allows Congress to ensure the general welfare of people in the US is taken care of....I do not want nor do I need any type of government assistance but I understand that some people do. The limits of the federal government are in the constitution but ALSO in the people--the types of politicians that are elected represent (or as SUPPOSED to represent) the desires of the people. If you want Congress to have less controll, then you have to get the right people voted in. I personally WANT a government that is willing to regulate environmental issues so I am okay with the way we are heading in those terms.


I think you might ought to find your HS history/Government/Poly Sci/Civics teacher and have him or her fired..just saying


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Aintlifegrand said:


> What limits the powers of the federal government?


Seems like not too much anymore.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> I think you might ought to find your HS history/Government/Poly Sci/Civics teacher and have him or her fired..just saying


LOL yea cause THAT is where all my opinions came from!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> LOL yea cause THAT is where all my opinions came from!


That explains a lot! Sad really!


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> That explains a lot! Sad really!


What? That I educated myself BEYOND high school?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> That explains a lot! Sad really!


Makes me proud i quit school :clap::bouncy:


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

:doh:


Sawmill Jim said:


> Makes me proud i quit school :clap::bouncy:


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> LOL yea cause THAT is where all my opinions came from!


I am not talking about your opinion.. I am referring to what should be your basic High School level understanding of the constitution....


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> What? That I *educated* myself BEYOND high school?



Is that what you are calling it? Okay then let me rephrase..go to the college where you graduated and demand a refund


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Is that what you are calling it? Okay then let me rephrase..go to the college where you graduated and demand a refund


Why? Because I don't agree with YOU? LOL I would gladly have paid MORE for that honor.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> No one is limiting the length of time you can take a shower, you can take all day to rinse your hair if need be--the regulations just want you to use less water while doing so.


Wondering...so if I need to take 10 minutes under a low powered head to rinse all the stuff from my hair, doesn't that take more heat and electric, and ultimately MORE water, than would 30 seconds under a high powered nozzle? (No offense to you personally, just a thought I had). Just saying that as usual, this stuff isn't well thought out and will most likely be counter-productive.

Of course my issue isn't the showers themselves, just the thought of MORE regulation under the guise of "for my own good."


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> The limitations are set by the public's needs/welfare.


Our founding fathers went through a lot of trouble to write a constitution that specified exactly the powers of each branch of government. If you study the history of that document, you will find that they were quite concerned about abuse of government power, and it makes sense that they were as specific as they could be. Then, in an effort to reinforce those limits, they wrote the 10th amendment which states:



> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Does this sound consistent with your view that the authors of the Constitution have written in a clause deliberately designed to give the Congress virtually unlimited powers? According to your view, if Congress decided that it was in the public's welfare that they should hold office for life, they could do so and there would be no Constitutional way to stop them. Does that really make sense to you?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> What? That I educated myself BEYOND high school?


That you didn't pay attention, or actually study what the founders of this great country had to say.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> I am saying the clause allows Congress to ensure the general welfare of people in the US is taken care of....I do not want nor do I need any type of government assistance but I understand that some people do. The limits of the federal government are in the constitution but ALSO in the people--the types of politicians that are elected represent (or as SUPPOSED to represent) the desires of the people. If you want Congress to have less controll, then you have to get the right people voted in. I personally WANT a government that is willing to regulate environmental issues so I am okay with the way we are heading in those terms.


I tell ya what, since you think that libs are soooo smart, how about we agree, they can fix all the problems of the world, as long as they keep the Goverment out of it. If they can't do that, they aren't so smart are they?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

beccachow said:


> Wondering...so if I need to take 10 minutes under a low powered head to rinse all the stuff from my hair, doesn't that take more heat and electric, and ultimately MORE water, than would 30 seconds under a high powered nozzle? (No offense to you personally, just a thought I had). Just saying that as usual, this stuff isn't well thought out and will most likely be counter-productive.
> 
> Of course my issue isn't the showers themselves, just the thought of MORE regulation under the guise of "for my own good."


Just like those wonderful water saving toilets-now you have to flush twice. Brilliant I'd say.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> It's great isn't it? Allows us to take care of the general population...perhaps like the founding fathers MEANT since they included it.


Oh gosh I just read this- "allows us to take care of" you are them and you are taking care of me. This just says it all about the "elite" libs doesn't it.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Just like those wonderful water saving toilets-now you have to flush twice. Brilliant I'd say.
__________________
Just be thankful you got a good one . I got one and defeated the saver feature:clap: But don't tell the craper Czar :run::run:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> Yes, we are very different in our views.


You are very different in your views as compared to the founding fathers too evidently.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> In it's most insidious form! Some folks want America to be the next country to try that failed system. Shame on them.
> 
> "To each, according to their needs".


I think you're right, but I also think that once they get it they won't like it, but by then it will be too late.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> You know as well as I do that there is nothing in the constitution that talks about water regulation...
> 
> I think the arguement could be made that:
> 
> ...


Ok, I fixed your bolding so it actually reflects that authors intent. I think if you will re-evaluate your estimation of the purpose of our Constitution, and use an open mind it may clear things up a bit for everyone. A glance at the preamble will instantly tell you what they had in mind..... several separate states.... small countries if you will... joining themselves together for the betterment of those states. The Consitution provides the format for a government "of the several states" not the people, The individual states retained the right to govern themselves. The federal government is there to insure that the states do not infringe upon the rights of the people, protect the states from outside forces, and from the federal government itself. It powers are well defined in section 8 of article one of the Constitution. It was never intended to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That line is out of Lincolns Gettysburg address. (one of the most flagrant violators or our Constitution to date I might add) Its a governing body of sovereign states.... very similar to the more modern European Union.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Libs read differently :help: Comprehension 101 out the window 

No one is responsible for their self this is the age of collective salvation or that is what the O said


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Seeing as how I'm all alone tonight, I'm going to get my bottle of Rose Boquet bubble bath, and I'm going to light some candles, and I'm going to fill up the old claw foot bathtub with a half a water heater's worth of hot water, and sink into the fragrant bubbles up to my chin. This tub is so big, when I'm in it you can barely see the top of my head. No telling how many gallons it holds.

And when the water starts getting cold, I'll use my toes to pull the plug, let the tub drain down just far enough, replace the plug again using my toes, and refill the tub AGAIN with the other half of the water in the water heater. 

Just for fun, and relaxation, because I can. 

AH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Water conservation is for idiots on city water or stupid enough to be living in a severe drought zone.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

Wow, I had no idea they now have laws on how much water can flow from a shower head! I bought a water conservative shower head with the off/on switch simply because I have a slow recovery well. It makes since to have lower pressure lasting long enough to get the shampoo rinsed, than to have the water vanish part way through the shower. There's very few things as uncomfortable as getting out of the shower to run out to the pump house and re-prime the pump then back into the shower to rinse the shampoo from your hair.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Prismseed said:


> Water conservation is for idiots on city water or stupid enough to be living in a severe drought zone.


Since most of our nations population is on city water I think water conservation does make a bit of sense. It requires a lot of energy and resources to bring that water to the tap. I just do not see the need for laws being required to reach that goal.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Quote "I just do not see the need for laws being required to reach that goal."

And this is the point of the whole argument. Laws being passed for each and every issue that someone comes up with; a government run by people who believe they have the supreme right to intrude into every facet of how the proletariat live their lives. Cant' eat this, can't drink that, can't drive particular vehicles, can't live in this place, can't protect yourself, can't can't can't can't. 

It's a nanny state that is spinning out of control, faster and faster all the time.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

JuliaAnn said:


> Quote "I just do not see the need for laws being required to reach that goal."
> 
> And this is the point of the whole argument. Laws being passed for each and every issue that someone comes up with; a government run by people who believe they have the supreme right to intrude into every facet of how the proletariat live their lives. Cant' eat this, can't drink that, can't drive particular vehicles, can't live in this place, can't protect yourself, can't can't can't can't.
> 
> It's a nanny state that is spinning out of control, faster and faster all the time.


It is not necessary to legislate every good idea into a requirement. If it's really a good idea, most folks will go along with it anyway.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> It is not necessary to legislate every good idea into a requirement. If it's really a good idea, most folks will go along with it anyway.


And if we don't like that tag on our mattress we gunna tare it off too ound:


----------



## mountainlaurel (Mar 5, 2010)

I'm just wondering when the gov' will start restricting the use of toilet paper? We have way more stoppage calls with these 1.6 liter water closets than we did with the old ones. Too much T.P. for the flush


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mountainlaurel said:


> I'm just wondering when the gov' will start restricting the use of toilet paper? We have way more stoppage calls with these 1.6 liter water closets than we did with the old ones. Too much T.P. for the flush


I cant imagine normally intelligent folks trying to flush corn cobs. People do the strangest things sometimes.


----------



## mountainlaurel (Mar 5, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I cant imagine normally intelligent folks trying to flush corn cobs. People do the strangest things sometimes.


Honey, if you only knew what some of the things our guys auger out of them toilets, you'd really wonder if there is such a thing as an intelligent person


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> It's great isn't it? Allows us to take care of the general population...*perhaps like the founding fathers MEANT* since they included it.


You need to do some research before you lie like that!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> The limitations are set by the public's needs/welfare.


So as long as their are lazy people you expect those of us to take care of them.

I find that attitude appalling. You expect the tax payer to pay for every thing everyone wants. 
When for 
1. They didn't work for it.
2. You/government don't have the Right to my money or property.


But of course you will say some idiotic think like "it's for the children" or some other line to pull you peoples heart strings... Just so government can make a law..

You do know that it would be better for the "public welfare" if there were more drownings in the Gene pool.. That way there would be more to go around to fewer people....:hammer:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Phoebesmum said:


> It's great isn't it? Allows us to take care of the general population...perhaps like the founding fathers MEANT since they included it.


My copy of the Constitution does not contain anything that says the federal government is allowed to "take care of the general population" other than to insure their rights and personal liberties. We have state governments who according to their own constitutions, may take care of the individuals..... if they so choose. It is not the federal governments job to wipe you nose...... or your backside either. If anything the federal government should be protecting our right to take any kind of shower we want.


----------



## DavisHillFarm (Sep 12, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> The limitations are set by the public's needs/welfare.


I don't need, nor want my Uncle, or any other hoodlum in gubermint telling me my needs. I know my limitations better than anyone else. The dimwits in Washington can't figure out the problems that plague this country, as it is. And you/they think they're capable caring for my welfare? ROFL


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

If you harvested rain water, would that make it okay? But in some states, the government won't let you harvest it.

Our outdoor shower has a garden hose connected to a multi-type spray head....no limited water flow there...we use it more than the indoor showers....no scrubbing scum off tiles outside...plus we water the lawn as we bathe.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My copy of the Constitution does not contain anything that says the federal government is allowed to "take care of the general population" other than to insure their rights and personal liberties. We have state governments who according to their own constitutions, may take care of the individuals..... if they so choose. It is not the federal governments job to wipe you nose...... or your backside either.* If anything the federal government should be protecting our right to take any kind of shower we want. *





Why that is so hard for some to get is beyond me...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Aintlifegrand said:


> [/B]
> 
> 
> Why that is so hard for some to get is beyond me...


Its pretty simple really. The ones that I have discussed this with at length all have one thing in common....... they want the government to take care of them, and will invariably use the "general welfare" clause to support their arguments. Its probably the most misused, misunderstood and deliberately misinterpreted clause in our country today. How they miss the "of the United States" at the end of that clause is a mystery to me.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its pretty simple really. The ones that I have discussed this with at length all have one thing in common....... they want the government to take care of them, and will invariably use the "general welfare" clause to support their arguments. Its probably the most misused, misunderstood and deliberately misinterpreted clause in our country today. How they miss the "of the United States" at the end of that clause is a mystery to me.



Exactly.. if they would only focus in on that phrase and really "the general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" they would have to know that amassing this huge debt taking care of people is not good for the_ General Welfare *of the United States*_


----------

