The Battle For eCigs Has Been Officialy WON! The Facts On Your Screen

Status
Not open for further replies.

ShadowWulf

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 21, 2009
121
1
Los Angeles, CA
IF YOU WERE HONEST, you would have to speak things that may offend some virgin ears. IF THERE'S ONE THING THAT'S TRUE ABOUT THE TRUTH, IS THAT IT SOMETIMES HURTS.

Representative John Boehner, (R-OH-8th) – House Minority Leader John Boehner handed out campaign checks from the tobacco industry to members on the House floor at a time when lawmakers were considering eliminating a tobacco subsidy. Former Representative Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, criticized Boehner’s ties to lobbyists. ``The problem John faces is that he’s so close to K Street; that’s the challenge he’s got,’’ said Shays. [Bloomberg News, 1/10/06].

Representative Eric Cantor, (R-VA-7th) – House Minority Whip Eric Cantor has faced a number of ethical questions including ties to lobbyists and misuse of taxpayer money for political purposes. In 2009, he started the National Council for a New America, a group that ultimately ”flamed out” after a number of questions about its use of taxpayer money for political meetings. A Roll Call editorial said, “Cantor should reimburse his House account from his campaign account or leadership political action committee for the staff resources that he has used.” Cantor also had close ties to disgraced lobbyists Jack Abramoff who actually named a sandwich at his deli after Cantor during a fundraiser, an even that drew criticism since Cantor initially failed to report the debt to Abramoff’s deli. During legal problems surrounding Tom DeLay, Roll Call wrote that “Cantor appears to have acquired a new role: chief defender of Majority Leader Tom DeLay.” [Roll Call, 5/13/09; Time, 11/28/05; Jewish Forward, 6/20/03; Politico, 8/10/09].

Representative Pete Sessions, (R-TX-32nd): Just hours after federal agents charged banker Allen Stanford with fleecing investors of $7 billion, the disgraced financier received a message from one of Congress’ most powerful members, NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions. ‘I love you and believe in you,’ said the e-mail sent on Feb. 17. `If you want my ear/voice -- e-mail,’ it said, signed ‘Pete.’’ [Miami Herald, 12/27/2009] Earlier in the year, Sessions came under fire for steering a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to a company with no experience in government contracting or building blimps. The company hired a former aide to Sessions to lobby on their behalf. [Politico, 7/30/2009] Sessions held a fundraising event at a Las Vegas strip club for his leadership committee, joined by casino executives and payday lenders at Forty Deuce nightclub, located in the Mandalay Bay Restort. [NPR, 7/22/08].

Representative Don Young, (R-AK-AL): Yes, Rep. Don Young is still in Congress, even though he has been the subject of at least two recent federal criminal investigations. One involved a $10 million earmark for a Florida company Young dropped into a 2006 bill just before it passed; another dealt with a broad investigation into political corruption in Alaska, tied to the (ultimately flawed) case that led to former Sen. Ted Stevens’s defeat. [Salon, 3/5/10].

Representative Ken Calvert, (R-CA-44th): Rep. Ken Calvert has reaped the benefits of his own earmarks. Calvert is under investigation by the FBI after a story in the Los Angeles Times alleged that Calvert’s earmarks have benefited his own property holdings. In one particular case, Calvert sold a property less than a year after purchasing it for a 79 percent markup after earmarking almost $10 million for the area. Despite his ethically questionable land deals, the House Republican leadership chose Calvert to replace Rep. Doolittle on the powerful Appropriations Committee. In an attempt to make up for his tarnished reputation, Calvert plans to run all earmarks through the House ethics panel in the future. In addition, Calvert is involved in a community controversy surrounding a parcel of land he and his partners bought without competition. In 2007, a Riverside County grand jury found that the services district violated state law when it sold the land to Calvert and his partners. [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/06; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 2008; Washington Post, 6/22/06; Riverside Press-Enterprise, 5/23/07; Riverside Press-Enterprise, 7/03/07].

Representative Marsha Blackburn, (R-TN-7th): Rep. Marsha Blackburn admitted to federal elections officials in 2008 she had failed to report $286,278 in campaign expenditures over her time in Congress, as well as $102,044 in contributions she had never disclosed. Some of the unreported expenditures were payments to her daughter and her son-in-law. [Salon, 3/5/10].

Representative Jerry Lewis, (R-CA-41st): Rep. Jerry Lewis was investigated by federal agents four years ago as part of the same investigation that led Cunningham to plead guilty to taking bribes. He’s also been investigated for his relationship with a lobbying firm, the clients of which Lewis helped obtain millions of dollars in earmarks. [Salon, 3/5/10; Los Angeles Times, 6/8/06].

Representative Gary Miller, (R-CA-42nd): News reports confirm that the FBI and “federal agents” are investigating Rep. Gary Miller’s possible involvement with attempts to secure federal earmarks to purchase tracts of land Miller owns in California. Miller has denied any wrongdoing. Despite the ethical questions surrounding Miller, House Republicans named him the ranking Member of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations of the Financial Services Committee. [Washington Post, 10/30/09; Associated Press, 8/14/06; Los Angeles Times, 8/13/06; The Hill, 1/31/07; Orange County Register, August 10, 2006; Washington Post, 6/22/06].

Representative Vern Buchanan, (R-FL-13th): Rep. Vern Buchanan has a wide array of serious ethics problems. During his first campaign in 2005, Buchanan received $110,000 over the course of a single week from employees of his numerous car dealerships. Two employees gave sworn affidavits stating that they were asked to donate $1,000 to Buchanan’s campaign with the understanding that they would be reimbursed by the company. At least ten lawsuits have been filed by employees and business partners alleging harassment or fraud. [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 2009; Sarasota Herald Tribune, 7/24/08; Roll Call, 6/2/08; Sarasota Herald Tribune, 7/29/08; Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 10/31/06; Huffington Post, 8/19/08 Sarasota Herald Tribune, 10/6/05].

Representative Harold Rogers (R-KY-5th): As ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security, Rep. Harold Rogers was responsible for the $41.1 billion Department of Homeland Security budget. Rogers has a history of steering earmarks to campaign contributors and those who fund his travel. In 2009, it was reported that Rogers steered $30 million in earmarks to companies that donated $48,000 to his political committees. The most egregious case, though, was his earmark of ID cards to a company that paid for 11 trips for Rogers and his wife to Hawaii, Ireland, California, and other locations even though the earmark was opposed by the Bush Administration, the Republican Chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and industry leaders. The congressman, who was described as the “prince of pork” by his hometown paper, has repeatedly taken official actions on behalf of the top contributor to his PAC, even sponsoring an earmark for a private parking lot in a resort owned by one of his large donors, and even helped secure a $4 million contract for a company while they hired his son. [New York Times, 5/14/06; McClatchy, 4/19/09; Associated Press, 1/19/05; Lexington Herald Leader; 1/19/05].

Representative Sam Graves, (R-MO-6th): Rep. Sam Graves has been the subject of a new scandal every few months over the past two years. Graves has been the beneficiary a contributor’s plane -- and Graves “frequently flies the airplane to events around the district.” Yet, ethics experts have stated the trips are concerning since travel on corporate flights for free is not permitted and because the company in question had business before the House. Graves’ failed to disclose his personal financial stake in an ethanol company while he invited members of the company to testify before a House committee. In 2008, the Missouri State Auditor claimed that Graves was avoiding paying taxes on two of his eight planes by not listing them with the county assessor’s office. [Roll Call, 11/7/07; Roll Call, 12/04/07; Kansas City Star, 12/06/07; Kansas City Star, 10/7/08; Roll Call, 3/9/09].

Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC-10th): Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is a third-term member of Congress, representing North Carolina’s 10th congressional district. McHenry spent the early part of 2007 trying to answer questions about possible voter fraud engaged by a campaign staffer who were registered to vote at McHenry’s home while payroll records showed he lived in Tennessee. McHenry paid $20,000 to the defense fund of the staffer and his spokesman accused the prosecutor of a “three-year smear campaign,” even though the prosecutor had only recently taken office and had even helped host a McHenry fundraiser. [Roll Call, 4/16/08; Shelby Star, 5/11/07; CBS News, 5/11/07; Charlotte Observer, 5/15/07].

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH-3rd): In 2007, Roll Call broke the news that the “largest year-end legal payment – more than $115,000 belonged to Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio who paid the law firm Freund, Freeze & Arnold to “dig up dirt on himself.” That begs the question – what is Mike Turner so afraid of? It seems the research was related to a $1.5 million no-bid contract received by his wife’s marketing company, The Turner Effect. Half of the funding for the contract came from a major donor to Turner’s campaign. The ethical cloud resulted in the naming of Turner in 2008 as a “dishonorable mention” in the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s annual list of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress. [Roll Call, 2/1/07; Dayton Daily News, 2/1/08; Dayton Daily News, 3/1/08; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 2008].

Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA-18th): Rep. Tim Murphy has been the target of an FBI investigation for his misuse of his taxpayer-funded official office for campaign activities. Six former and current Murphy employees came forward in late 2006 to state that they had been coerced into working on campaign activities including door-to-door campaigning, use of the office for campaigns strategy sessions, use of office equipment for campaign work, and preparing a mailing to campaign contributors. Since news of the FBI probe against him broke, Murphy has spent at least $79,000 on legal fees from his campaign account. Murphy was so intent on covering up his abuse of taxpayer money, that he fired one of the whistleblowers in his office, and physically took documents showing misconduct from a reporter asking him questions about the scandal. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/06; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/11/06; KDKA, 12/14/08; CREW Press Release, 5/18/08; FEC].

Representative Nathan Deal, (R-GA-9th): Rep. Nathan Deal is leaving Congress to run for governor of Georgia. But even conservatives have pointed out that he’s also the subject of a House ethics investigation into contracts between a business he owns and the state government. [Salon, 3/5/10; RedState, 3/1/10].

Representative Steve Buyer, (R-IN-4th): Rep. Steve Buyer helped found the Frontier Foundation, Inc in 2003 and was its honorary chairman. Family members, including his daughter and son, make up its board and ran its day-to-day operations. Although Frontier claimed its central purpose is to provide scholarship for Indiana students, in its six years of existence it has not awarded a single scholarship. Even the paltry donations the foundation has made have no relationship to scholarships - largely, they went to a charity run by a drug company lobbyist and the NRA. Instead, Frontier has held fundraisers at golf resorts where representatives from corporations and trade groups with issues before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on which Rep. Buyer sits, have access to the congressman. [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 1/25/10; Fox News, 1/29/10; CBS News, 11/11/09].

Representative Henry Brown (R-SC-1st): In 2004, Rep. Henry Brown started a fire on his property despite an alert that the day’s conditions were particularly hazardous. When the fire skipped onto federal property and burned part of a national forest, Brown refused to pay the fine, demanded the federal regulations be retroactively changed to clear him and made an “implied threat” that he would more closely scrutinize the USDA Forest Service budget. Some four years later, $1,000 in fines were waived without an explanation as to how that agreement was reached and the fine was paid. A whistleblowers report was filed by Forest Service officials who claimed that that Brown and other officials engaged in congressional and ethical violations and possibly bribery and/or extortion. Editorials criticized Brown for the special treatment he received and the apparent “congressional muscle” that was misapplied. [McClatchy-Tribune News Service, 9/18/08; Georgetown Times, 9/20/08; Associated Press, 10/15/08].

Yes, democrats do it also! They're both guilty, now get off your high horse and stop advertising.
 

davidzx

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
143
0
New Jersey, USA
Ok back to you,

But you're cool with the party that has destroyed most of the 1st Amendment, suspended Habeas Corpus, etc etc etc...

I understand but were debating electronic cigarettes, not Hebeas Corpus.

This is what I mean about one-issue voting. It's beyond stupid. Do I care about electronic cigarettes enough to suspend my integrity?

No. I don't.

I would certainly place my health and well-being above my integrity. I wouldn't trade integrity for lung cancer, sorry. Its not that valuable.

And no, I wouldn't rather you support the other side. I'd rather you support the cause.

Each side has their pitfalls. There is no cause, there is politics. We strive for the cause, and leverage politics in that pursuit.

I'm not even sure you realize you're quoting Fox, but you are... It's like the Glenn Beck-bots I know. They don't realize they're doing it, either.

Haven't realized! Thanks for advisory. Maybe I should apply to be one of their journalists.

Actually, NJOY is doing exactly what they need to be doing. And if you had bothered to read anything I wrote, you would have figured that out.

Litigating with the Court of Appeals. Sure I figured it out.

The stock market thing... sorry, it requires some lateral thinking in order to understand.

Oh I forgive you. It requires lateral thinking to be impartial in understanding that Republicans are not solely to blame for the wall street mess.
 

davidzx

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
143
0
New Jersey, USA
Yes, democrats do it also! They're both guilty, now get off your high horse and stop advertising.

You've only posted Republican scandals, ironic.

OK, I have to get back to work. Please post another debate topic, and I'll be happy to get back to you in about 1-2 hours.

Keep the fire burning, Ill be back for more.
 

Automaton

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 23, 2010
2,997
73
US
I said numerous times that I wouldn't support the Democrats for the sole purpose of pumping e-cigs, either. Once again, are you reading what I'm saying?

We aren't debating Habeas Corpus, but the question is, are you willing to give that up for e-cigs? Sure, you say. Until you get sent to Gitmo for being Arabic. And yes, that's happened. To hundreds of people.

The fact of the matter is, that we will get e-cigs whether they're legal or not. Did banning drugs stop the sale of drugs? Did prohibition end alcohol consumption?

Given that simple truth, no, I won't sell my integrity to the GOP.
 

SuZamme

Ultra Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
I wouldn't vote republican if they gave every smoker in the US a free ecig kit of their choice and a year's supply of juice......

Now this is good stuff. I'd take the kit and juice and go into my private voting booth and vote for whomever I choose.:evil:
 

davidzx

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
143
0
New Jersey, USA
I said numerous times that I wouldn't support the Democrats for the sole purpose of pumping e-cigs, either. Once again, are you reading what I'm saying?

We aren't debating Habeas Corpus, but the question is, are you willing to give that up for e-cigs? Sure, you say. Until you get sent to Gitmo for being Arabic. And yes, that's happened. To hundreds of people.

The fact of the matter is, that we will get e-cigs whether they're legal or not. Did banning drugs stop the sale of drugs? Did prohibition end alcohol consumption?

Given that simple truth, no, I won't sell my integrity to the GOP.

After a long heated debate, with our fingers crunching away at the keyboard, we both agree to the title of my thread

The Battle For eCigs Has Been Officially WON!

Prohibited, Proscribed, Prescribed, or Approved

Ok, What was the point of the debate?

Im Hardcore Republican, Your a Democrat: Nobody wins, were all equal

Let me end the debate because I have work to get done

It was nice talking with you, and cheers for the eCig industry :toast:
 

davidzx

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
143
0
New Jersey, USA
Excuse me, but I'm not a Democrat. ;)

I aim for being consistent. Which sort of prohibits me from being part of any political party.

Then how did the derogatory remarks on Republicans transpire? It this what you call impartiality?

Ohhh boy, here we go again. LOL I love this

*Round Two - The Bell Rings*
 

Automaton

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 23, 2010
2,997
73
US
I am critical of all political parties equally. I was going after Republicans, because that is what we were discussing. Had you been pumping the Dems, it would have been a similar discussion.

Because when they tell me they stand for certain things, I expect them to live up to it. And they never, ever do.

I have spent a lot of time working out my personal ethics, and trying to make all of them fit together in a consistent, non-hypocritical way.

I have never seen any political party do that. Not even in their campaign promises.

Thus, I support no political party. I do vote - but usually strategically.
 
Last edited:

davidzx

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
143
0
New Jersey, USA
Looking back at my other post I do sound foxy!

Okay, let me pull a Neil Cavuto on you .....


So far the debate has been on Republicans and the demoralizing ravages of their flaws.

What do you have to say about Democrats? Are they any better than Republicans, or are Republicans the slightly more flawed?


*HINT: Trick Question*
 

Automaton

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 23, 2010
2,997
73
US
I believe the Dems have very different flaws. They are extremely incohesive, and seem to be nothing but a catch-all for everything that isn't Republican. Insert random mix of liberals of varying degrees, Republicans who got tired of the negative PR, and of course a healthy helping of power freaks.

There is, in essence, no concrete Democrat ethos - which the Republicans do have, I just happen to find it repulsive, and not at all congruent with what they SAY their ethos is.

Basically, I view the Dems as incompetent.

At this particular point in time, I do view the Republicans as worse than the Democrats. But the REASON for that is solely that they have been in power recently, and for an extended period of time. Power corrupts.

Now the Democrats are in power. Give it time.
 

davidzx

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
143
0
New Jersey, USA
I quote from your previous narrative:

I am critical of all political parties equally.

I understand you are critical, but are you impartial?

You emphasized that the Republicans are slightly more flawed, hence, by default you are more inclined to consent with the Democrats.

I got to get to work, I'll be back to check in a few hours.

Otherwise, great debate! Its just what I needed to pump me up today.
 

Automaton

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 23, 2010
2,997
73
US
Yes, and I clearly stated my reason for believing they are more flawed, which has nothing to do with the Republican party itself. It has to do with the amount of time it takes for power to corrupt. If the Dems stay in power as long as the Republicans did, I'm sure there will be a roll reversal.

Once again... do you actually read my posts?

Am I impartial? Well, no. I'm not a news reporter. It's not my job to be. If I were impartial, I wouldn't be so outwardly critical of them in the first place. I would simply provide information for others to evaluate.

It is my job as a citizen to NOT be impartial. That is what journalists are for.

Where do I fall on the spectrum? Well, if we are taking the stated ethos of the Republicans (freedom-centered), and the stated ethos of the Democrats (human interests-centered), then I am somewhere in between. I think too much of one comes at the cost of the other. I seek balance.

However, let me note again that I do not think either party actually adheres to their stated ethos.

I also have a non-traditional understanding of the definition of "human rights," which skews how I may be politically viewed by others.
 

shanagan

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 14, 2010
1,238
72
Texas
You are making it political. And not only political, but partisan. This battle will NEVER be over if that is how we want to do this.

I don't. I want studies. I want third party campaigns. I am not interested in riding the GOP pony, or the Dem pony for that matter.

You turning this into a partisan political issue is the suicide of the e-cig market for all of us. Stop it.

The last thing we need is to be thought of as yet another arm of some money-laundering dirt bag.

Thank you for this.
 

wv2win

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2009
11,879
9,045
GA by way of WV
......We aren't debating Habeas Corpus, but the question is, are you willing to give that up for e-cigs? Sure, you say. Until you get sent to Gitmo for being Arabic. And yes, that's happened. To hundreds of people.....

Abraham Lincoln, regarded as the greatest President in American history, suspended Habeas Corpus for over 3 years. And, no, I'm not advocting suspending Habeas Corpus. Your blanket statements, out of context to the much larger issues involved in the war on terror, do nothing to protect American lives or the rights and freedoms of all Americans.
 

Automaton

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 23, 2010
2,997
73
US
So locking up people because of their skin color is American? Ok.

I really don't know what to do with that. How do I talk to that?

I *did* put into context, by stating what was really going on. I think in the current political power structure, there is not enough balance to safely suspend Habeas Corpus, nor is there currently any real reason to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread