FDA Link for comments to Whitehouse

Status
Not open for further replies.

bigdancehawk

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 27, 2010
1,462
5,477
Kansas City, Missouri
Very quickly after the 2008 election, President-Elect Obama seemed to almost ridicule those hoping for the change he promised, saying something along the lines of 'people expect change to happen quickly, but it's a long, tedious process.' Something like that. And whitin a few days, he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Bait and switch.

I didn't favor him in the primaries until it was down to just him and Hillary, and I voted for him only because of preference over McCain. But I was completely aware that the "Hope and Change" was mere campaign rhetoric, just like McCain's "Change we can believe in".

I'm not sure why people don't want to use the President's name on this forum. President Barack Obama has made a political mess over vaping, and he deserves to be called out on it.
President Barack Obama doesn't give a **** about vapers, vape shops or on-line retailers of vaping products. He doesn't know or care that the deeming regulation will wipe out about 99.9% of the existing market and create an oligopoly consisting of BT companies and a few large manufacturers of cig-alikes. And he doesn't know or care that the deeming regulation will make it more difficult for tens of millions of smokers to quit, thus impairing their health and shortening their lives. And most of the members of his political party in Congress don't know or care. Why should they? There are tens of millions of vapers in this country and the vast majority don't visit this forum, even fewer belong to CASAA, and the ones who are here don't know or care either. (FDA Regulations sub-forum, all threads: 17,188 views; Funny Pics - Part 2: 190,798 views).
 

WorksForMe

Ultra Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 21, 2012
1,924
4,496
N.N., Virginia
There are tens of millions of vapers in this country and the vast majority don't visit this forum, even fewer belong to CASAA, and the ones who are here don't know or care either.

I totally agree with this, but don’t know what to do about it. Most of the vapers I know don’t believe anything major is going to happen except that the price of vape gear and juice is going to go up. When I try to talk to people about it, they either look at me like I’ve got three heads, or they laugh at me. I’m the government conspiracy nutcase wearing a tinfoil hat. My wife calls me a prepper.
 

nicnik

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 20, 2015
2,649
5,220
Illinois, USA
President Barack Obama doesn't give a **** about vapers, vape shops or on-line retailers of vaping products. He doesn't know or care that the deeming regulation will wipe out about 99.9% of the existing market and create an oligopoly consisting of BT companies and a few large manufacturers of cig-alikes. And he doesn't know or care that the deeming regulation will make it more difficult for tens of millions of smokers to quit, thus impairing their health and shortening their lives. And most of the members of his political party in Congress don't know or care. Why should they?
You answered your own question. They should care because "the deeming regulation will make it more difficult for tens of millions of smokers to quit, thus impairing their health and shortening their lives."

It sure does seem like Obama doesn't give a **** about the consequences, including the damage already done. Had vaping been left alone, with no restrictions and no hate campaign, there'd be fewer smokers today, and vapers would be healthier, being spared from public shaming.

I can't read his mind, but I think the President has been smoker shamed, feels like he deserves it, and that, coupled with his inability to take the FDA out of the hands that they regulate, makes actual health considerations regarding vaping out of the reach of his administration. It also doesn't help that his Democratic Party is full of **** about being the Party of tolerance.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,050
NW Ohio US
I can't read his mind, but I think the President has been smoker shamed, feels like he deserves it,

I get the same impression - don't know if it was Michelle or his handlers that brought the hammer down. (the 'deserves it' might be a stretch - or just a way to look ashamed, but it's possible).

In contrast Boehner has never exhibited any of that - just the opposite - hey, I smoke. lol
 

BuGlen

Divergent
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2012
1,952
3,976
Tampa, Florida
It also doesn't help that his Democratic Party is full of **** about being the Party of tolerance.

Agreed 200%! The liberals (small L) I grew up with in the 70's would have laughed at some of these PC ....-retentive hypocrites that call themselves liberals these days. Man I feel old now.

GET OFF MY LAWN! :laugh:
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,050
NW Ohio US
Agreed 200%! The liberals (small L) I grew up with in the 70's would have laughed at some of these PC ....-retentive hypocrites that call themselves liberals these days. Man I feel old now.

GET OFF MY LAWN! :laugh:

It's been a radical shift. What I call the old Left (no offense :- ) had a true civil libertarian view that really isn't much different - on those issues - than the libertarians of today. I admired them - liked them. I disagreed with their welfare statism, but wasn't far off from their military viewpoint as well - well ....for those who weren't pacifists.
 

BuGlen

Divergent
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 6, 2012
1,952
3,976
Tampa, Florida
It's been a radical shift. What I call the old Left (no offense :- ) had a true civil libertarian view that really isn't much different - on those issues - than the libertarians of today. I admired them - liked them. I disagreed with their welfare statism, but wasn't far off from their military viewpoint as well - well ....for those who weren't pacifists.

I prefer old-school liberal, thank you very much! You don't have to be old to be old-school. :toast:
 

EBates

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Nov 4, 2013
3,858
4,659
Texas
I am So Sick of out 'political leaders'. We elect them based on BS promises the Can't/Won't fulfil. They serve only to preserve the BG Business Model and whatever special interest that pays. These folks have become a 500 lb weight around the leg of folks trying to keep our heads above water. They are serving whatever is the latest Politically Correct Agenda such as re-writing history, destroying trust in our military and justice systems, allowing our borders degrade to the point that we now have Millions of ILLEGALs (oops PC - undocumented) to enter and stay, just to mention a few. They've poisoned the Media to become a Propaganda outlet, destroying trust there as well.
I only pray that this vaping 'witch hunt' brings the light of truth on these 'representatives' and justice is served upon them. UNTIL THEN VOTE THE BAST***Ds OUT!!!
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,973
San Diego
I am So Sick of out 'political leaders'. We elect them based on BS promises the Can't/Won't fulfil.
Career politicians is the problem.
And the only way I can see to fix it is term limits.

I'm not sure term limits will fix it.
But it's a good first step.
:)
 

EBates

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Nov 4, 2013
3,858
4,659
Texas

nicnik

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 20, 2015
2,649
5,220
Illinois, USA

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,050
NW Ohio US
I think it would require a constitutional amendment.

Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

OR


While the last method 'has never been used' - it has been started by the states. and when it became apparent that the method may very well happen, Congress has stepped in and completed the drive by using the former method of Congress voting for the amendment.

While the 'Contract for American' in '94? included a term limit item, it was defeated by Congress, but if the states could get together to either force a national convention or provide enough support to where Congress would either have to pass it themselves or allow the states to gather the necessary majority, then term limits could be added as an amendment. I would support either way.
 

Endor

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 31, 2012
687
2,074
Southern California
Although I would like to see congressional term limits for various reasons, it sounds like a herculean task in getting it to an amendment. I guess that is by design.

However, I'm also not completely convinced in my own mind that term limits are necessarily the perfect answer. Look at the California Senate race to replace the retiring Boxer. Boxer is really bad, especially for us vapers, so it is definitely a good thing she's going (queue the Munchkins in Munchkinland... "Ding dong....").

But, a candidate getting a fair amount of attention is Loretta Sanchez, who (no offense) is a complete idiot; not only did we have the Native American war cry incident and the recent Muslim comment, just do a Google search for "loretta sanchez christmas cards" if you need further evidence (the pink flannel bedtime photo is a personal favorite).

My point is this: sometimes the devil you know is better than the ones you don't.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,050
NW Ohio US
My point is this: sometimes the devil you know is better than the ones you don't.

That's a toss up. Know Ms. Sanchez well since she defeated B1 Bob a while back. The reason for term limits isn't so much that one would get someone 'better', but for the damage that 'entrenchment' can do - the bribe connections made where you end up with people making a under $200k end up multimillionaires and what is given away in the process.

Jefferson:
The government of the United States, then, is essentially a people's government. It was to be run by people who were from their number and closely associated with their interests.

  • "All [reforms] can be... [achieved] peaceably by the people confining their choice of Representatives and Senators to persons attached to republican government and the principles of 1776; not office-hunters, but farmers whose interests are entirely agricultural. Such men are the true representatives of the great American interest and are alone to be relied on for expressing the proper American sentiments." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Campbell, 1797.

Farming was, of course, the principle occupation of that day. Most of Jefferson's writings that concerned the term of office spoke of the need for having short terms so that the people's will may be exercised over their representatives more directly. In fact, he considered very short terms to be the ideal:

  • "A government by representatives elected by the people at short periods was our object, and our maxim... was, 'where annual election ends, tyranny begins;' nor have our departures from it been sanctioned by the happiness of their effects." --Thomas Jefferson to S. Adams, 1800.
The idea was that the people would keep watch over their representatives and through their votes, make needed corrections.

  • "Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights." --Thomas Jefferson to W. Nicholas, 1806.
Public office was to be a public service, not a means for self-enrichment.

  • "Our public economy is such as to offer drudgery and subsistence only to those entrusted with its administration--a wise and necessary precaution against the degeneracy of the public servants." --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Meunier, 1795.
In contrast to some of our "public servants" of today who manage to become quite wealthy while in office, Jefferson himself deliberately avoided such use of the public trust.

  • "I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service and of retiring with hands as clean as they are empty." --Thomas Jefferson to Diodati, 1807.
That attitude contrasts greatly with today's representatives, who have voted themselves not only handsome salaries, but generous retirement benefits. But in Jefferson's view, whenever officers of government look upon their office for the benefits they can gain from it, this longing contributes to corruption in high office.

  • "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on [offices] a rottenness begins in his conduct." --Thomas Jefferson to T. Coxe, 1799.
When writing about a proposed Constitution for the State of Virginia, Jefferson suggested a single long term for Senators. This would have several salutary effects: it would prevent Senators from conducting their office so as to promote their own careers, and it would keep their perspective focused on the people whom they were to represent.

  • "I proposed the representatives (and not the people) should choose the [State] Senate... To make them independent I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eye forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governor, which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget." --Thomas Jefferson to E. Pendleton, 1776.
 

Endor

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 31, 2012
687
2,074
Southern California
That's a toss up. Know Ms. Sanchez well since she defeated B1 Bob a while back. The reason for term limits isn't so much that one would get someone 'better', but for the damage that 'entrenchment' can do - the bribe connections made where you end up with people making a under $200k end up multimillionaires and what is given away in the process

Kent, great post (as usual) with extremely valid points. Makes a lot of sense.

And, those quotes from Jefferson should make us all realize how far we've veered from the ideals our country was originally founded upon. Makes me sad, really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread