FDA Conversation with Senator Isakson's Legislative Assistant for the HELP Committee

[SeniorBoy]

Here is a very valuable Wiki page which documents all the juicy details about the forthcoming Senate elections for the 33 seats. Including our very close friend "Harkin" /lol /sar

United States Senate elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Candidates from the above page for IA:

Bruce Braley (D)[40]
Sam Clovis (R)[41]
Joni Ernst (R)[42]
Scott Schaben (R)[43]
Matthew Whitaker (R)[43]
Mark Jacobs(R)[44]
Doug Butzier (L)[45]
Jay Williams (I)[46]
Jerry Dean Carter (I)[47]
Bob Quast (I)[48]

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

I'm inspired, let me see what I can do this week w/ Sen Donnelly (D-IN).

We should all be following this example, regardless of party and state.

TY WV!

 

[edyle]

are there any americans left?


or are there only Democrats and Republicans................

 

[Stosh]

are there any americans left?


or are there only Democrats and Republicans................

seems few and far between, perhaps if we dropped the D or R after the names and designated them by who bought and paid for the particular governor or senator.

such as Gov Dayton (BT-MN) or Gov Christie (BP-NJ) --- far more descriptive....

 

[edyle]

methinks the fda would love to see vapers split red and blue.

divide and conquer

 

[Kent C]

methinks the fda would love to see vapers split red and blue.

divide and conquer

Overused cliche, usually to stop the criticism of blues. Here, it makes no sense. Vapers are vapers, whether red or blue. The currently blue shaded FDA is really only into the 'conquer' part.

 

[Kent C]

It's pretty simple Tweety, and most Dems here know it.

ECF is about being a Republican. It's a GOP forum.

Most of us Dems are horrified that people like Harkin and his ilk have declared a "war on vaping" because they confuse it with tobacco cigarettes.

But my own impression is that longtime ECF denizens such as you, Kent, WV, and others (as well as the management) would prefer us Democrats to leave, or to switch parties.

It's not pretty, but what I'll say is this: soon, you Republicans will get your wish. You will have a Republican President and a Republican congress. They will support the Second Ammendment Rights of Gun Owners. The Rights of the Unborn Child.

Will they support vaping?

I don't know. Clearly, all Republican members of ECF believe that the GOP stands front and center for vaping. Libertarians believe it, too.

The message here at ECF is clear: Democrats are unwelcome. We need to pack in it, and leave.

My own view is that we should start our own vaping forum.

Did you even read AgentAnia's post of Roly's Malthusian views??

But yeah, I'd really like some Dems to reconsider their views after what we've seen here. I don't expect them to, though. I tried to register Libertarian, this last time but that wouldn't allow me to vote against Kasich....

 

[aubergine]

I've actually decided (firmly this time) to stop engaging in this part of the forum; I'll scan briefly every now and then to stay updated and answer CASAA action calls and quietly do my part, but I can't hack the very heavily partisan flavor, myself. Roger's correct, but that's not gonna fly in here.

The main reason why the commentary up here has a largely unchallenged, very heavy Republican slant (complete with frequent and chummy Fox News talking points about divers issues unrelated to ecigs) isn't because all right thinking people agree (that's the infamous bubble) but because most everyone else has quietly left.

I'm active on a lot of political fronts. This one seems to be co-opted by libertarians and TP types in ECF. I understand the rationale - health initiatives are generally driven by Dems. This one's a serious error, with big money flowing behind, but not part of an Evil Liberal Conspiracy to Take Your Freedom. Also don't see any point in arguing about it.
I'm not deeply offended or anything, it's just too tedious to dodge the political potshots. And yeah, I know, "Huh? What political potshots?" Because everyone agrees that they're commonly agreed upon truth statements. It's actually kind of funny, that blind parochialism. And not so funny.

 

[aubergine]

My daughter's water just broke! Everything else is irrelevant, granddaughter soon to arrive, screw politics, humans are ridiculous.

 

[Katya]

My daughter's water just broke! Everything else is irrelevant, granddaughter soon to arrive, screw politics, humans are ridiculous.

Congratulations, Grandma!

 

[sonicdsl]

The party bickering and debating needs to stop now. Take it Outside.

 

[Stosh]

My daughter's water just broke! Everything else is irrelevant, granddaughter soon to arrive, screw politics, humans are ridiculous.

CONGRATS!! ...

And this news deserves it's own thread....

 

[wv2win]

Well, I missed all the "back & forth" in the thread I started. When reporting about the conversation I had with Senator Isakson's LA, it was not my intention to start a "general" discussion on political issues, just on the one issue of vaping, which was made into a political issue by a number of senators and congressmen when it should not have been one.

My recommendation, based on this conversation with the Senator's LA and just plain common sense, that we vapers should welcome a change in the senate leadership, was only pertaining to the FDA's Deeming Regulations and nothing else. I never included any other political issue and have never done so on ECF in other threads. I have had to almost break my fingers not to bring up at least one other issue that I believe is wrong in this country that pertains to human life or death, but have never done so because it is not directly related to vaping.

I volunteer with several animal rescue organizations. My "guess" is that I might find more agreement with those on the left in protecting animals from a "political/legal standpoint", only. But, again, it does not pertain to vaping, so it is not an issue that needs to be discussed on this forum.

My point is, as I tried to make in my original post, on the political issue of VAPING, a change in the leadership of the senate, would most probably be beneficial to the vaping community at this critical time in our history. I think regardless of one's political leanings, this should be an obvious conclusion that has nothing to do with any other political issue and that we should keep this in mind during the upcoming mid-term elections.

 

[SeniorBoy]

Well, I missed all the "back & forth" in the thread I started. When reporting about the conversation I had with Senator Isakson's LA, it was not my intention to start a "general" discussion on political issues, just on the one issue of vaping, which was made into a political issue by a number of senators and congressmen when it should not have been one.

My recommendation, based on this conversation with the Senator's LA and just plain common sense, that we vapers should welcome a change in the senate leadership, was only pertaining to the FDA's Deeming Regulations and nothing else. I never included any other political issue and have never done so on ECF in other threads. I have had to almost break my fingers not to bring up at least one other issue that I believe is wrong in this country that pertains to human life or death, but have never done so because it is not directly related to vaping.

I volunteer with several animal rescue organizations. My "guess" is that I might find more agreement with those on the left in protecting animals from a "political/legal standpoint", only. But, again, it does not pertain to vaping, so it is not an issue that needs to be discussed on this forum.

My point is, as I tried to make in my original post, on the political issue of VAPING, a change in the leadership of the senate, would most probably be beneficial to the vaping community at this critical time in our history. I think regardless of one's political leanings, this should be an obvious conclusion that has nothing to do with any other political issue and that we should keep this in mind during the upcoming mid-term elections.

Ditto and well said.

Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa) is a prominent and outspoken critic of the FDA. See below for search links:

https://www.google.com/search?q=sen...assley+FDA&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address

https://www.google.com/search?q=sen...et+Hamburg&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address

IF our collective goal is to eliminate the FDA from the regulatory equation, IMHO, he would be an ideal candidate to "educate" about Vaping and garner his support. I could care less what his party affiliation is. I could care less if he only has a cursory knowledge of Vaping. What maters to me and the ONLY thing that matters is convincing Grassley to join our cause.

 

[AndriaD]

I disagree with your skepticism in this particular situation. Of course, staff of any party wants their party to be the majority and leading the country's agenda. But in this case, on the issue of vaping, it just makes too much sense that with a change in the leadership of the Senate, the FDA's drive to regulate vaping out of existence would stop. Senator's like Burr, Alexander and Isakson do not want to see additional regulation in any segment of the economy and they definitely do not want to see small businesses driven out of existence.

Plus, there is NOTHING to be gained by keeping the current senate leadership in power from a vaping standpoint. At the bare minimum our situation would not get any worse with a change but it has a huge potential to get better. Thinking otherwise really makes no sense what so ever.

And thank you for the "thumbs up" on getting to the Senator's staff.

I'm not sure I really understand this point about changing leadership in the Senate. Isakson is in office now, so how would that work? I'm seeing a lot of candidates' ads on TV, but are they not running for Isakson's seat? These off-year elections have always confused me.

But it's really great to hear that at least one of my own Senators is thinking straight about e-cigs. Obviously I don't want to unseat HIM, he sounds positively enlightened, and that's a real rarity where GA politicos are concerned -- anybody remember NEWT?!?

Andria

 

[Stosh]

First trick is to identify which party your senators and representatives belong to....

BTP - (Big Tobacco Party) - Supported with a lot of money from the tobacco companies, many long term relations with the companies in the tobacco growing areas. May only give tepid support if accused of trying to "Kill the Children", "Poison your Air"...etc

BPB - (Big Pharma Party) - Supported with a ton of money from the pharma companies, sometimes very regional, centered around locations where there are company headquarters, or facilities. Politicians bought for the long term and propped up for decades. Identified by "Better Living through Chemistry" stickers and logos.

BGP - (Big Government Party) - Wide support from a number of different sources - central theme, "you can't possibly survive without government's help cradle to grave" Easily identified by their tin-foil fedoras.

ABGP - (Anti-Big Government Party) - Knee jerk reaction opposed to anything promoted by the BGP (as the BGP is opposed to them). Easily identified by their tin-foil visors (never a fedora)

TAP - (Tax Addicted Party) - Willing to tax anything and everything so long as they can siphon off funds to their friends. Supported by factions looking for better tax treatment. Look for increasing personal bank accounts for identification.

ATP - (Anti-Tax Party) - Opposed to taxing anything, most often rescinds or alters a workable system to benefit their contributors while destroying their constituents.

and finally....

CSP - (Common Sense Party) - A small fringe group of politicians who are willing to listen to reason. Read or listen to opposing points of views or scientific studies and make a sensible decision based on fact to benefit the general public. Generally underfunded as their vote isn't for sale, but will respond well from public praise and recognition of their actions.

Many politicians will cross over the lines to support one or more distinct parties. The members of the above parties may be seen as members of larger national organizations, but their main loyalty is more often to the smaller groups.

So which party do your politicians at every level fit into after doing your own honest research and vetting?


Bonus question - define the difference between a cynic and a realist.....

 

[wv2win]

I'm not sure I really understand this point about changing leadership in the Senate. Isakson is in office now, so how would that work? I'm seeing a lot of candidates' ads on TV, but are they not running for Isakson's seat? These off-year elections have always confused me.

But it's really great to hear that at least one of my own Senators is thinking straight about e-cigs. Obviously I don't want to unseat HIM, he sounds positively enlightened, and that's a real rarity where GA politicos are concerned -- anybody remember NEWT?!?

Andria

The other GA, senator, Chambliss is retiring. The party in the majority leads these committees and decides what legislation moves forward. If the majority changes after the mid-term election, it is much less likely these regulations will ever move forward.

 

[Jman8]

and finally....

CSP - (Common Sense Party) - A small fringe group of politicians who are willing to listen to reason. Read or listen to opposing points of views or scientific studies and make a sensible decision based on fact to benefit the general public. Generally underfunded as their vote isn't for sale, but will respond well from public praise and recognition of their actions.

My great great great great grandmother told me about this party and that it actually did exist at one point in human history.

I think it is a myth, but she swears it isn't.

 

[Kent C]

My great great great great grandmother told me about this party and that it actually did exist at one point in human history.

I think it is a myth, but she swears it isn't.

It reigned from 1801 to 1824. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe - 2 terms each.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

My great great great great grandmother told me about this party and that it actually did exist at one point in human history.

I think it is a myth, but she swears it isn't.

Most of them were gone after the early 1800's.