ALEC, Bills and Ecigs

[Luisa]

Are you saying that political rhetoric (that which is twisted and exaggerated) for political gain is not based in some form of facts or truth? Just as an FYI, rhetoric (or rhetorical speech) is not synonymous with lies, but rather the art of discourse in which someone attempts to back up or sensationalize specific claims to support ideals. Most of the rhetoric in media today is either achieved by conveniently leaving out specific data on a subject that would otherwise weaken the authors point, or items taken out of context, or simply ignoring facts and relying on gut or faith based "truths".

Rhetoric is an art form that is practiced by both major parties in our beloved country, and it is laughable at best to see someone from one party line pointing the finger at the other party. But then, hypocrisy is another lovely trait rampant in our political landscape.

I see you joined ECF in 2012. That is wonderful. Do read the history of the battle to keep e-cigarettes available and legal beginning in 2009. You,then,might understand the truth of the information so many are trying to explain to "newcomers". Everyone welcomes those who are new to the ongoing battle. When you understand the history,you will hopefully understand the comments of those who have worked so hard to support e-cigs. We all benefit from the work that has been done since 2009. I know I am ever so grateful to all those who have given so much of their time and money. Basically everything is "political" and we know who supports us and who opposes us. If you are able to convince those who oppose us to listen to our point of view,we would be ever so grateful.

 

[BuGlen]

I see you joined ECF in 2012. That is wonderful. Do read the history of the battle to keep e-cigarettes available and legal beginning in 2009. You,then,might understand the truth of the information so many are trying to explain to "newcomers". Everyone welcomes those who are new to the ongoing battle. When you understand the history,you will hopefully understand the comments of those who have worked so hard to support e-cigs. We all benefit from the work that has been done since 2009. I know I am ever so grateful to all those who have given so much of their time and money. Basically everything is "political" and we know who supports us and who opposes us. If you are able to convince those who oppose us to listen to our point of view,we would be ever so grateful.

First, let me answer your direct questions: Yes, I am fully aware of the history of e-cigs and I have done a great deal of homework. Being someone who is socially conscience and very analytical compels me to do so before supporting a cause as important as this one. I have joined CASAA and attend the meetings every two weeks, almost without fail. One of the underlying points made in many of those meetings is that we must combat rhetoric with the facts we have, and challenge the misinformation being spread by so many who are either ignorant or have an alternate agenda. The fact that I joined ECF in 2012 does not diminish the fact that I've been politically aware (and active) since the Reagan administration.

Second, let's get back to the context of the term "political rhetoric" used by aikanae1 throughout this thread. What aikanae1 has been saying in the context of this discussion is that the rhetorical partisan talking points in these threads can be counterproductive to the cause. I tend to agree, although as someone who doesn't follow party lines I try to have a greater tolerance of those that do. In any case, we need all the voices we can get for a true grass-roots movement in order to continue to wage the battle that we have before us. And I really don't believe there is much more that needs to be said on this because I see it as mostly self evident.

Finally, I asked you a very specific question at the beginning of my post, which you either failed to answer or I missed it completely. Your response to aikanae1 was ambiguous and was not followed up with any context or examples pertaining to the original topic of this particular thread (ALEC). Therefore, I asked you to clarify your context of the term "political rhetoric" as you understand it, and I provided my understanding of the term. I believe it's crucial in effective communication to be aware of the context of the discussion so that all parties can be heard and understood clearly, and that was the point of my response to you.

 

[Luisa]

First, let me answer your direct questions: Yes, I am fully aware of the history of e-cigs and I have done a great deal of homework. Being someone who is socially conscience and very analytical compels me to do so before supporting a cause as important as this one. I have joined CASAA and attend the meetings every two weeks, almost without fail. One of the underlying points made in many of those meetings is that we must combat rhetoric with the facts we have, and challenge the misinformation being spread by so many who are either ignorant or have an alternate agenda. The fact that I joined ECF in 2012 does not diminish the fact that I've been politically aware (and active) since the Reagan administration.

Second, let's get back to the context of the term "political rhetoric" used by aikanae1 throughout this thread. What aikanae1 has been saying in the context of this discussion is that the rhetorical partisan talking points in these threads can be counterproductive to the cause. I tend to agree, although as someone who doesn't follow party lines I try to have a greater tolerance of those that do. In any case, we need all the voices we can get for a true grass-roots movement in order to continue to wage the battle that we have before us. And I really don't believe there is much more that needs to be said on this because I see it as mostly self evident.

Finally, I asked you a very specific question at the beginning of my post, which you either failed to answer or I missed it completely. Your response to aikanae1 was ambiguous and was not followed up with any context or examples pertaining to the original topic of this particular thread (ALEC). Therefore, I asked you to clarify your context of the term "political rhetoric" as you understand it, and I provided my understanding of the term. I believe it's crucial in effective communication to be aware of the context of the discussion so that all parties can be heard and understood clearly, and that was the point of my response to you.

I consider rhetoric to be insincere language using the skill of effective writing and speaking to achieve a goal. On the issue of harm reduction and ecigs in particular,political rhetoric is ubiquitous. I can think of very few-if any-things that are not political. With a few exceptions most of the rhetoric used to ban ecigs and/or include them in smoking bans comes from one political faction. What I am saying is not rhetoric but simply factual. Those that feel aligned with that political faction on other issues should use their influence to urge them to support harm reduction.

 

[Luisa]

I consider rhetoric to be insincere language using the skill of effective writing and speaking to achieve a goal. On the issue of harm reduction and ecigs in particular,political rhetoric is ubiquitous. I can think of very few-if any-things that are not political. With a few exceptions most of the rhetoric used to ban ecigs and/or include them in smoking bans comes from one political faction. What I am saying is not rhetoric but simply factual. Those that feel aligned with that political faction on other issues should use their influence to urge them to support harm reduction.

Perhaps,I should have added in the context of this discussion.

 

[footbag]

ALEC is the type of political committee that RjR would approach to write legislation that effects them positively. That is what they do. If you want a competitors product banned, you give them $150000, and ask them to take care of it. They write the legislation, which doesn't appear to stem from your interests, but actually does. Then they hand out the money to whoever will vote for the legislation. The legislation passes, and the smaller company disappears.

I wonder which party is pro business. The one that had the best economic performance under their control? Or the one who calls themselves pro-business?

 

[alexrho]

I believe the legislations should be with fairness and LEGAL for the customers and for the companies