I agree, but I thought it was going far from the realm to bring Karl Rove and the Tea Party into this thread in the first place.
FDA files appeal
- Thread starter jagstang
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
I agree, but I thought it was going far from the realm to bring Karl Rove and the Tea Party into this thread in the first place.
This is about money, not safety. If the FDA is allowed to regulate ecigs as drug delivery devices, they can extort money... I mean put massive user fees in place for the companies involved just like they do for every other regulated "drug".
People have to understand that what the FDA can get away with nowadays isn't the result of some kind of 'Socialism' run amok, but rather Crony Capitalism run amok. The result of no checks and balances on a system that allows "regulators" and the people they are supposed to be regulating to be scratching each others' backs and feeding from the same ill-gotten coffers.
It would seem, then, that crony capitalism requires two things: powerful corporations and powerful government. The more power government has to regulate, the more opportunity there is for the regulators to be corrupted. Take away the FDA's power to regulate tobacco and tobacco cessation products and you eliminate the crony capitalism. Adding more "checks and balances" (i.e. regulations) will only make the problem worse, if all those checks and balances come from the government. There must also be checks and balances on the government. Those checks and balances already exist in the US Constitution, which limits the power of government. The problem is that the Constitution is being ignored. There will always be corruption in government and in corporations. Both need to be regulated. Finding just the right balance is not easy. However, giving government ever more power is clearly not the answer. Big Government (socialism run amok) always leads to corruption. The notion that "socialism run amok" and "crony capitalism" are two completely separate and unrelated things is demonstrably false.
It would seem, then, that crony capitalism requires two things: powerful corporations and powerful government. The more power government has to regulate, the more opportunity there is for the regulators to be corrupted. Take away the FDA's power to regulate tobacco and tobacco cessation products and you eliminate the crony capitalism. Adding more "checks and balances" (i.e. regulations) will only make the problem worse, if all those checks and balances come from the government. There must also be checks and balances on the government. Those checks and balances already exist in the US Constitution, which limits the power of government. The problem is that the Constitution is being ignored. There will always be corruption in government and in corporations. Both need to be regulated. Finding just the right balance is not easy. However, giving government ever more power is clearly not the answer. Big Government (socialism run amok) always leads to corruption. The notion that "socialism run amok" and "crony capitalism" are two completely separate and unrelated things is demonstrably false.
Last edited:
Crony capitalism does not require the participation of government. Rather, government is just another entity that can be corrupted by its influence.
This is like saying that the more CPU power your computer has, the more opportunity there is for hackers to put viruses in there. So you shouldn't get a more powerful computer just because there are hackers in the world? Or you shouldn't own a computer at all? Maybe you should just get a better virus protection software (i.e. regulators whose activities are checked).
And it also limits the power of privately-owned collective wealth (i.e. what we now call corporations) to run the country as they please based on their personal agendas. Your stance on things automatically assumes gov't is always the problem.
I agree with this last statement. There needs to be a balance between these forces. That can only happen with citizen participation in the process, instead of only corporate lobbyists as it currently is. Money is the problem - the way it is used - not which entities have it. As long as people are quietly bought out behind the scenes, we will always have this problem. Somebody actually has to stand up and be the good guy/girl, who stands for something other than where the next dollar into their pocket is coming from.
Sorry for the formatting; my replies are in bold type, above.
Last edited:
Recently there was an interesting comment posted on the
FDA Files New Appeal website by Ralph Woodin (5th reply)
Article: Click Here
Comments: Click Here
Link at bottom of Ralph Wooten's comment: Click Here
PS: Merry Christmas
FDA Files New Appeal website by Ralph Woodin (5th reply)
Article: Click Here
Comments: Click Here
Link at bottom of Ralph Wooten's comment: Click Here
PS: Merry Christmas
If you are a follower of Jonathan Emord (as I am)...
This country is no longer a Republic, its now a bureaucratic oligarchy.
Since 1935 the Congress of the United States has delegated vast legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the Federal Agencies. The Founding Fathers predicted that if ever those constitutional powers were vested in single hands that would be the death of liberty and the birth of tyranny.
The "Un-elected and Unaccountable" officials at the FDA have and will continue to intact and enforce laws with a sense of immunity from our "Elected" representatives in Congress. Congress will support the FDA because it would be in their best financial interest to do so.
Our "Elected" officials can sit back and point their fingers at the FDA and say "not our fault, we did not ban E-cigarettes and regulation and enforcement of the law is in the hands of the "Un-elected and Unaccountable" officials of the FDA.
There are those who believe the FDA is doing a wonderful job
with the exception of E-cigarettes
I'm not in that group.
Just wanted to thrown in my two cents about the FDA. It's just like you said Petrodus their Un-elected an unaccontable, and in my opinion should be shut down completely. I say fire them all they sit up there make laws an regulations that don't make any since other than to fill their pockets some more. If you ask me our country nowadays is run by, big tobacco, the alcohol ind., pharmaceutical companies, and the FDA possibly the DEA too. Our gov. has given all the Unelected agencies way to much power, and they seriously need to take it back.
Well that's my two cents. If I get started to much I want quit.
Well that's my two cents. If I get started to much I want quit.
Mr. Green... "Fire them All" ???
We didn't elect them. We can't vote them out of office.
Our "elected" officials in Congress won't appose the FDA
because that wouldn't be in their financial best interest.
The FDA couldn't care less what we think!
If your referring to Fire them All pointing to our Elected Officials...
OK I can understand that. It's called a "Revolution".
We didn't elect them. We can't vote them out of office.
Our "elected" officials in Congress won't appose the FDA
because that wouldn't be in their financial best interest.
The FDA couldn't care less what we think!
If your referring to Fire them All pointing to our Elected Officials...
OK I can understand that. It's called a "Revolution".
Last edited:
I am no defender of large gov't bureaucracies like the FDA. I follow their tracks on other issues besides e-cigs, such as the very stupid Senate bill recently passed giving them untold authority on what kinds of foods you can eat/obtain/grow (all in the name of "protecting the food supply"). It is mostly a bill to protect Monsanto and put small farmers out of business.
Unfortunately, we now live in a country where most people have learned to be reflexive (rather than reflective) of the excesses of either side of the political spectrum. There are good conservative principles in life, and there are good liberal principles in life. A successful life is lived by picking from the best ideas of both batches, and actually living by those principles rather than the parties that are supposed to represent those ideas. But most people's politics today are based on holding back the tide of conservative excess or liberal excess, rather than living by reasoned principles that are picked from the best of conservative and liberal ideas.
In other words, hold to your basic ideology - but don't be confined by it.
Case in point: the 60s happened the way they did largely because of the excesses of conservatism in the 50s (hydrogen bombs being tested all over the place, lack of women's rights, continuation of Jim Crow laws/attitudes), and the 80s happened the way they did because of the excesses of liberalism from the late 60s and 70s (excessive drug consumption, stagflation, oil crisis, and the beginning of infrastructural decline). The lesson to be learned here is never to define yourself exclusively by the excesses of the other side, but by the sound principles of your own side (while learning from the sound principles of the other side).
Oh, and Merry Christmas.
Unfortunately, we now live in a country where most people have learned to be reflexive (rather than reflective) of the excesses of either side of the political spectrum. There are good conservative principles in life, and there are good liberal principles in life. A successful life is lived by picking from the best ideas of both batches, and actually living by those principles rather than the parties that are supposed to represent those ideas. But most people's politics today are based on holding back the tide of conservative excess or liberal excess, rather than living by reasoned principles that are picked from the best of conservative and liberal ideas.
In other words, hold to your basic ideology - but don't be confined by it.
Case in point: the 60s happened the way they did largely because of the excesses of conservatism in the 50s (hydrogen bombs being tested all over the place, lack of women's rights, continuation of Jim Crow laws/attitudes), and the 80s happened the way they did because of the excesses of liberalism from the late 60s and 70s (excessive drug consumption, stagflation, oil crisis, and the beginning of infrastructural decline). The lesson to be learned here is never to define yourself exclusively by the excesses of the other side, but by the sound principles of your own side (while learning from the sound principles of the other side).
Oh, and Merry Christmas.
Yes, but the military is obviously an arm of the government; his point—pointless though it may be—holds.
Well said and quite right. I recently was represented as of a particular political affiliation after a post. I found it almost laughable as my politics are much like my bike riding. I lean left or right depending on the lay of the land. To much lean and you end up with road rash at best. The one thing I have noticed over time, whatever party I happened to be registered as seems to be the party I least often vote for. That being said, lately, I've been thinking that you should be able to register with both major parties simultaneously.
- Status
