But to Democrats higher prices are a good thing.
Rand Paul has come out criticizing Chris Christie for throwing temper tantrums and grandstanding.
Rand Paul to Chris Christie: Cool it With the Temper Tantrums & Grandstanding, Alright? | TheBlaze.com
| Moderator's Warning: |
Chris Christie is yours for the taking. Congrats!
Might I ask what type of toilet you and Rand Paul want to buy that's either so expensive or extremely difficult for you to purchase on the open market? I mean, are you guys trying to install some Frech-style bidet or something that's only available in Europe? If so, perhaps you may want to contact an import company that carries your desired product. But if you do, wouldn't that still be available from "the free market system"? (See how absordly some people try to convulute the issues un-necessarily?)
Is your seat down? Good. Let's sit and think. In the old days residential-use toilets in the U.S. were designed to unleash anywhere from 3.5 to 7 gallons per flush (GPF); the low-flow movement took off in 1994, when a federal statute kicked in requiring that new units employ no more than 1.6 GPF. How often do people use their toilets? Here we face the thrilling diversity of human experience: some pee four times a day, some ten, while anything upward of three bowel movements a week is considered normal. The bottom line is that for practically everyone the daily ratio of (shall we say) liquid-only events (LOEs) to solid events (SEs) is greater than 1:1, and for some may be 6:1 or more. For argument's sake let's say a typical day on the toilet involves five LOEs and one SE. Using a 3.5 GPF unit that consistently gets the job done in a single flush, that's six events, six flushes, for a total of 21 gallons. But the puniest low-flow model should have little problem handling the LOEs, so even if five flushes were required to bring the SE to a satisfactory conclusion, the ten flushes would use only 16 gallons. In this scenario, as long as you're flushing fewer than eight times per SE, the low-flow toilet is saving water.
Obviously, hanging around repeatedly flushing a toilet is practically no one's idea of a good time (cats on YouTube notwithstanding), but there's evidence to indicate that the typical low-flow user's experience hasn't been quite so grueling. It's true that some of the first low-flows were pretty dodgy — often manufacturers just stuck a new valve or dam mechanism in an existing model rather than revamping the bowl and other elements to work with the reduced flush volume. While the resulting units did conserve water, satisfaction with them was mixed, and anecdotally at least they acquired a bad rap. In 2000 University of Arizona researchers conducted a study measuring water use in 170 Tucson households where low-flow toilets had been installed seven years earlier. Among their findings: (1) more than half the homes had no detectable toilet trouble; (2) about 11 percent of the low-flows got double-flushed at least once a day, somewhat but not much more than the rate seen for higher-volume models; (3) low-flows were seemingly more prone to developing flapper leaks; and (4) in over a quarter of the homes at least one of the low-flows was using significantly more than the 1.6 GPF it was meant to, whether because of malfunction or tampering.
The sort where the bowl is actually made for men with dangly bits. Where we're not fishing for alligators every time we sit down. The old style where ONE flush does it.
Here's a good essay on the water usage difference:
Btw, the low flow toilets are a federal statutory requirement.
Yeah, and having water for our children. Conservatives of course don't give a damn, so long as they have big water wasting toilets.
I hope you guys run on the big water wasting toilet platform. It's sooooo symbolic of modern conservatism.
Actually the new GPF toilet can save a lot of money while reducing waste, I know because I had over 75 them installed in the plant where I worked. Maybe Paul has other problems a plugged vent or build up in the drain piping
What that article said is that low flow toilets work over 50% of the time. Not very impressive.
Yet this is another problem with everything being federalized. If there is a problem anywhere in the USA, the federal government regulates and punishes everyone in the whole country for it. There are water issues in the West, but not in most of the country. Unlike a poster above seems to believe, water really doesn't vanish forever after being flushed down a toilet.
We could open every faucet, turn on every pump and have the toilets all run continuously and it would not affect the amount of water for anyone by 1 drop.
Is your seat down? Good. Let's sit and think. In the old days residential-use toilets in the U.S. were designed to unleash anywhere from 3.5 to 7 gallons per flush (GPF); the low-flow movement took off in 1994, when a federal statute kicked in requiring that new units employ no more than 1.6 GPF. How often do people use their toilets? Here we face the thrilling diversity of human experience: some pee four times a day, some ten, while anything upward of three bowel movements a week is considered normal. The bottom line is that for practically everyone the daily ratio of (shall we say) liquid-only events (LOEs) to solid events (SEs) is greater than 1:1, and for some may be 6:1 or more. For argument's sake let's say a typical day on the toilet involves five LOEs and one SE. Using a 3.5 GPF unit that consistently gets the job done in a single flush, that's six events, six flushes, for a total of 21 gallons. But the puniest low-flow model should have little problem handling the LOEs, so even if five flushes were required to bring the SE to a satisfactory conclusion, the ten flushes would use only 16 gallons. In this scenario, as long as you're flushing fewer than eight times per SE, the low-flow toilet is saving water.
Obviously, hanging around repeatedly flushing a toilet is practically no one's idea of a good time (cats on YouTube notwithstanding), but there's evidence to indicate that the typical low-flow user's experience hasn't been quite so grueling. It's true that some of the first low-flows were pretty dodgy — often manufacturers just stuck a new valve or dam mechanism in an existing model rather than revamping the bowl and other elements to work with the reduced flush volume. While the resulting units did conserve water, satisfaction with them was mixed, and anecdotally at least they acquired a bad rap. In 2000 University of Arizona researchers conducted a study measuring water use in 170 Tucson households where low-flow toilets had been installed seven years earlier. Among their findings: (1) more than half the homes had no detectable toilet trouble; (2) about 11 percent of the low-flows got double-flushed at least once a day, somewhat but not much more than the rate seen for higher-volume models; (3) low-flows were seemingly more prone to developing flapper leaks; and (4) in over a quarter of the homes at least one of the low-flows was using significantly more than the 1.6 GPF it was meant to, whether because of malfunction or tampering.
Maybe you read the article differently then I did? Here is an excerpt from you article
Was this article the same one you read?
I politely request that you recheck.
It is probably your hair from all of the swirlies that you have received when you were politically wrong. :2razz:
Oh come on, the pauls are the biggest political joke in america. Even they won't vote for themselves. the only people who follow them are a bunch of hipsters who think that rand and ron are actually libertarians. Neither are, they are just really pathetic republicans who cannot even best herman cain. Which is sad for them considering how much of a pair of racist twits they are.
Oh come on, the pauls are the biggest political joke in america. Even they won't vote for themselves. the only people who follow them are a bunch of hipsters who think that rand and ron are actually libertarians. Neither are, they are just really pathetic republicans who cannot even best herman cain. Which is sad for them considering how much of a pair of racist twits they are.
Frankly, I wonder why anyone would want to vote for someone like Rand Paul. This guy is something "special" (as in "special ed!"). On the one hand, he claims that government makes rules that hamper his consumer choices within the free market system, yet on the other hand he won't do his own due diligence to find a functional household item/appliance at a reasonable price from within the very free market system he claims to love. I mean, c'mon, folks...how difficult can it be to drive down to the nearest Lowe's, Home Depot, Sears or some mom and pop hardware store and purchase the toilet you like that you can install yourself?
Good grieve...:roll: Rand Paul is certainly a piece of .... work. (Ha, Ha! You thought I was gonna say something else, didn't you? :lamo It does make one wonder, though...are Rand Paul's poops that big he needs some specially made toilet to flush them? :rofl)
"Among their findings: (1) more than half the homes had no detectable toilet trouble."
More than half means less than 50% of homes had toilet trouble. So that could mean the 48% did. Since it is a pro-low flow study conclusion, if the survey was that only 1% of homes had a problem they would have reported it that way. It doesn't even say less than 1/4. Just more than half. Half is 50%.
170 Tucson households where low-flow toilets had been installed seven years earlier. Among their findings: (1) more than half the homes had no detectable toilet trouble; (2) about 11 percent of the low-flows got double-flushed at least once a day, somewhat but not much more than the rate seen for higher-volume models; (3) low-flows were seemingly more prone to developing flapper leaks; and (4) in over a quarter of the homes at least one of the low-flows was using significantly more than the 1.6 GPF it was meant to, whether because of malfunction or tampering.
Well there is a substantive reply. Mind telling me why you say that or provide an issue where you find his position equal to buffoonery. Otherwise, I have no real reason to take your post seriously
Please prove Ron Paul didn't vote for himself. :roll:Or hell, that he ever even remotely had trouble winning his district, over and over, versus any misguided fool presenting a primary challenge let alone the hapless members of America's socialist party.
Rand Paul handily won his primary for Senate and handily won office.
And "racist twits?" Oh, come on. This is just inflammatory nonsense from you, brony, and you know it.
(Yeah, I'm a "hipster," LOL.)
Yeah, he won his primary and his election, but this is Kentucky, for God's sake.
What is special about Kentucky?
Some would say "special" in the "special needs" way.
What is special about Kentucky?
Whiskey, blue grass, horse racing (the Kentucky Derby), the Louisville Slugger baseball bat, the greatest boxer to ever lace 'em up, tape 'em up and climb into the square circle, Cassius Clay (bka, Muhammad Ali)...
That's about it.
Actually the new GPF toilet can save a lot of money while reducing waste, I know because I had over 75 them installed in the plant where I worked. Maybe Paul has other problems a plugged vent or build up in the drain piping
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?