Hey Shadow, another L.A. boy here. You can see that they tax the hell out of us here and we don't get anything much for it. Over in Texas, they don't even have a state income tax, created more jobs than all 49 states put together last year, and have a surplus on top of it. Here in Cali, we're swimming in debt. Small government vs big government.
The Battle For eCigs Has Been Officialy WON! The Facts On Your Screen
- Thread starter davidzx
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
TEXAS: The state faces a budget gap for the 2012-13 biennium and it has been estimated to be as high as $18 billion.
California: $19.9 billion gap between revenues and projected state expenditures.
Florida: No income tax, 11.6% Unemployment, $3 billion and rising deficit
They are NOT that far different from eachother, CA has a higher unemployment rate at 12% to Texas at 8.8% but states like New York are still lower at 8.2%
The current fiscal policy's of Texas are starting to catch up in recent months with the next years forecast looking rather grimmer.
Here is a good read on the situation:
http://www.texasobserver.org/our-re...rra-employment-numbers?tmpl=component&print=1
California: $19.9 billion gap between revenues and projected state expenditures.
Florida: No income tax, 11.6% Unemployment, $3 billion and rising deficit
They are NOT that far different from eachother, CA has a higher unemployment rate at 12% to Texas at 8.8% but states like New York are still lower at 8.2%
The current fiscal policy's of Texas are starting to catch up in recent months with the next years forecast looking rather grimmer.
Here is a good read on the situation:
http://www.texasobserver.org/our-re...rra-employment-numbers?tmpl=component&print=1
Last edited:
California was expected to receive $85 billion from the stimulus bill, and Texas, $16 billion. Can you imagine what it would be if we hadn't borrowed all that money just to keep state spending afloat? Republican and Democrats may want different things, but we can both agree, spending is out of control.
Unemployment only tracks those receiving benefits, not those unemployed.
Unemployment only tracks those receiving benefits, not those unemployed.
Of course you do, I have absolutely no doubt that the Republicans need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the next century (which for them, would be the 19th).
Well good for you. I hope your dignity is intact despite your political affiliation, because there's a few Republican Senators (who receive taxpayer dollars for their exorbitant salaries) who seem to have a bit of trouble "coming out" about their sexual orientation after having stuck their foot halfway into another man's toilet stall in a public restroom. (Oh, yes, I forgot, Sen. Larry Craig needs "wide stance").
Of course you would. Because it means people like yourself never have to deal with these issues that Republicans THEMSELVES HAVE CREATED -- they are for the "less fortunate" people in America to deal with. So, you support the funding of corrupt governments abroad (i.e. Afghanistan) through taxpayer subsidies, and then send our young off to die there to get them out of your way. How convenient.
Ahh, yes, the oldest Rethuglican trick in the book. Convince the people to allow themselves to be fleeced by the top one percent of business + property owners.... who DO NOT CREATE JOBS IN AMERICA. THEY ELIMINATE THEM.... TO CREATE MORE WEALTH FOR THEMSELVES. They send jobs overseas where the work gets done for pennies on the dollar BASED ON CHILD LABOR, then flood these products back into our country where people can't afford to even buy them because the HAVE NO JOBS. Nice try with your armchair quarterback economist theories. Praise Jesus ... oops, I mean Ronald Reagan..... Whose Blood Was Shed For Us All.
It should only anger you because I haven't bought into your lie that "the Republicans as a party support the Electronic Cigarette" (no evidence of this other than happenstance on a small single-issue topic that almost no one in the country really cares about, least of all Republican politicians), and your attempts to get me to vote against my own economic interest over "getting emotional about e-cigs". Again, pal, the larger picture. I tend not to lose sight of that.
The Republicans blew it themselves. They don't even need my "help" in order to make them look bad. They already look bad, and they firmly deserve to be out of power at this time. The current iteration of the party does not represent what it claims to stand for, simple as that. I don't need to show graphs to state the simple fact that under Clinton we had a surplus, and under Bush we had the biggest deficit to date in U.S. history followed by the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.
True, the deficit got even bigger under Obama, but for me, that's okay, because it depends on what the spending is going toward. There is nothing inherently wrong with Obama's "spending" because it's simply "SPENDING IN REVERSE". In other words, Obama is simply trying to turn the tide of Middle Class Economic Implosion (which the Republicans want) by returning SOME of this money back to the middle class in the form of REVERSE SPENDING, which only really means giving back to the people that which was stolen from them by the elite financial institutions..... right under their nose..... because Henry Paulson (Republican) and George W. Bush allowed it all to happen.
"What's that, Lassie, AIG is in trouble? Goldman Sachs, too? Well, run to Fort Knox and get 'em all the gold, girl! RIGHT NOW. No time to read the fine print"
You see, it's all about what Blood Sucking Rethuglican Leeches have managed to convince the American People of what they think they deserve to own and what kinds of lives they think they deserve to live. That's the trick. Keep whittling them down, keep them voting against their own economic interest over silly wedge issues like Gay Marriage and Flag Burning. Sorry, just not my cup of TEA.
You are certainly right about this. You have a knack for coming back in here and spouting the same crap over and over and not learning from anybody but YOURSELF. You actually seem more happy to me living in your own Republican bubble than in actually debating anybody.
What you DO NOT have a knack for is stating FACT.
And since it's not my problem, I don't take it personally.
A message to everybody else in this thread:
Don't be fooled into thinking that either Dems or Repubs care a rat's ... about e-cig users and their concerns. They DON'T. Both parties are in bed with Big Pharma, and the moment the other party takes power, they will snuff out your e-cig concerns and your "right to vape" with even more zeal than the misguided nanny-state clowns currently in power. FACE IT: Politicians of either stripe do not care about smokers or ex-smokers and their concerns. They ALL just want you to keep on smokin' analogs to fund their political coffers.
Last edited:
I have to throw my 
in here. As a die-hard freedom-freak tree-huggin' progressive liberal, i have to say that the only politicians who are going to go in for a ban are not going to be every single Democrat and not a single Republican. That's silly and the merest suggestion is lazy thinking at best. The ones for a ban are the ones with their hands in Big Tobacco's pockets, regardless of what idiotic animal lapel they wear. This includes the FDA, who surely must be getting some kind of nutty kickback on this matter - just you wait, in due time it will come out that some shady backroom deals were made regarding their stance on PVs.
I really don't understand where people get these crazy ideas about liberals and Democrats and progressives. We're FOR freedom. We tend to favor The People, rather than The Corporation.
I happen to think a little regulation is good for any industry (*cough* Wall St *cough*), and i happen to think that going around banning things is not good for any industry. Sure, i DO think gun laws oughta be tougher - i don't wanna see angsty wanna-be gangsta teenagers going to swap meets and getting AKs without waiting periods or pesky licenses. A little common sense goes a long way, and some laws make sense to have. PVs should absolutely be studied, and they should probably not be sold to minors (at the least, nic juice should not anyway). But banning them is certainly not an across-the-board Democrat platform that i'm aware of, especially when you consider the facts (as they are currently understood) regarding public health versus PVs.
in here. As a die-hard freedom-freak tree-huggin' progressive liberal, i have to say that the only politicians who are going to go in for a ban are not going to be every single Democrat and not a single Republican. That's silly and the merest suggestion is lazy thinking at best. The ones for a ban are the ones with their hands in Big Tobacco's pockets, regardless of what idiotic animal lapel they wear. This includes the FDA, who surely must be getting some kind of nutty kickback on this matter - just you wait, in due time it will come out that some shady backroom deals were made regarding their stance on PVs.I really don't understand where people get these crazy ideas about liberals and Democrats and progressives. We're FOR freedom. We tend to favor The People, rather than The Corporation.
I happen to think a little regulation is good for any industry (*cough* Wall St *cough*), and i happen to think that going around banning things is not good for any industry. Sure, i DO think gun laws oughta be tougher - i don't wanna see angsty wanna-be gangsta teenagers going to swap meets and getting AKs without waiting periods or pesky licenses. A little common sense goes a long way, and some laws make sense to have. PVs should absolutely be studied, and they should probably not be sold to minors (at the least, nic juice should not anyway). But banning them is certainly not an across-the-board Democrat platform that i'm aware of, especially when you consider the facts (as they are currently understood) regarding public health versus PVs.
I think the only evidence we've seen of a politician weighing in on e-cigarettes was the Democratic congressman who sent a kit to President Obama. OMG--It occurs to me that a significant number of conservatives would probably feel duty-bound to give up vaping if President Obama were to take it up! 
I think the only evidence we've seen of a politician weighing in on e-cigarettes was the Democratic congressman who sent a kit to President Obama. OMG--It occurs to me that a significant number of conservatives would probably feel duty-bound to give up vaping if President Obama were to take it up!
Indeed, indeed.
November is just around the corner! Will it be "We The Sheeple" or "We The People"? It is up to us, but NOT by any Democrat, Republican or Independent so-called party member? These are titles ONLY, that are used by those that are self-serving!
It is time "We The People" take back OUR Country by placing those who believe is in US - "We The People" into those positions of SERVING US, not themselves!
"WE" only get What "WE" vote for, NOT what they the politicians want us to believe we NEED to have!
And YUP! You are correct "just a bunch of campaigning", that is If you are satisfied with the current direction we are all drowning with?
Last edited:
I am so tired of hearing this misleading nugget repeated over and over again. The Republican party of Lincoln's day and before the civil rights movement is NOT, I repeat NOT, the same Republican party as we have today.
Gore Sr. and Fulbright would undoubtedly be Republicans today. Byrd spent a lifetime atoning for his youthful membership in the KKK, signed onto the Civil Rights Act and went on to be a reliable voice for civil rights for over 40 years.
Google "Southern Strategy" for a little history. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Democrats, especially the southern Dixiecrats were indeed the party of racists. But, as LBJ predicted, upon his signing of the act, the racists abandoned the Democratic party in droves in favor of the Republican party where they found open arms and have resided ever since. The two parties essentially reversed roles and, as LBJ so presciently said, the Democratic party lost the south for generations.
After 1964 the Republican party became the safe haven for racists and welcomed them with open arms. Admittedly lately, due to their willingness to sacrifice the citizenry on the altar of predatory capitalism, the Tea Party has assumed a good deal of that role as the racists came crawling out of their holes in the wake of the Obama victory. But people like David Duke and Pat Buchanan represent the modern Republican party's views on civil rights far more accurately than Gore, Fulbright or Byrd reflect the civil rights platform of the modern Democratic party. It is Republicans who constantly harp about "reverse discrimination". The Republicans are the party always fighting affirmative action. Republicans stymied the ERA, demonized the NAACP and destroyed ACORN on the basis of trumped up nonsense. Now they are pulling the same dog and pony show with Mexicans even though their corporate masters have let them know that they best not do anything significant lest they interfere with the availability of cheap labor. But the xenophobes continue to buy their line of BS, just like they do when they drag out the same tactic to garner the anti-abortion votes as they did 10-15 years ago. How did that work out for ya? Some suckers never learn.
It is historical fact that Republicans, in general, have been on the wrong side of every civil rights and most civil liberties issues since 1964. Remember George Wallace? He ran for president as a Republican. Since 1980, when the racist Reagan invented the "Welfare queen" to appeal to all the other racists in the party, they have become so extreme that the entire political spectrum has shifted to the right. Their "godfather", William Buckley, was practically disowned and Eisenhower would be branded as a socialist pinko who couldn't win election as dogcatcher on the Republican ticket. Read his farewell address and ask yourself what modern Republican could ever make that speech today without being tossed from the party.
As for the Republicans having the ethic of freedom, as someone posted, I'm choking on that one. Lets remember that it was GWB who lead the charge to trash nearly the whole of the Constitution in his bogus GWOT. The only amendment for which they have any respect is the second. Even now, they are demonstrating their contempt for the 14th amendment and are ready even to ignore freedom of religion in a fit of Islamophobia. I will never forgive Obama for allowing it to continue or for his incessant pandering to the right, but it was GWB and the Republicans who put us all under an unprecedented level of surveillance, rescinded Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus and gave us SCOTUS justices that I would describe as just this side of being fascists, (using Mussolinni's original definition, not the corporate sanitized one found in Mirriam-Webster).
Another poster remarked that it is the infusion of money into poiltics that will be the end of us. I concur completely. Remember, it was a REPUBLICAN dominated SCOTUS that opened the floodgates of corporate money in January of this year with their ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case. The Roberts court has not once ruled in favor of an individual over a corporation, a defendant over the State, or the powerless over the powerful. Not once. It is the Citizens United case that has effectively destroyed democracy in this country and codified into law the right of a corporate entity to buy representation in Congress, or any other political office for that matter. Just as the insurance industry prefers to buy Democrats, BT and BP prefer to buy Republicans. As soon as they buy enough Republicans, you will see Republicans do a 180 on the issue.
It is a well recognized phenomena that political contributions and lobbying efforts go mainly to whatever party is in power. If Republicans were in power right now, you can bet your last nickel that their views on ecigs would be dictated by BT and BP to an extent even greater than that of the Democrats. Democrats are not immune to the influence of big business by any means, but they have always been known to be somewhat nannyish when it comes to health issues. Their minds can be changed given enough facts about the relative health benefits of ecigs.
Republicans OTOH, are in obstructionist mode and are determined to oppose any and all initiatives that carry the stigma of Democratic genesis. Only a blind Faux-News devotee could fail to see that their strategy is to obstruct any/everything Democratic so they can campaign on the impotence of Democrats, of government in general and Obama in particular. But you can be sure that if they resume power they will be targeted by BP and BT, just like in the past when they defended BT for all they were worth. Then, they will change their tune to please their new puppet masters.
As much as I disagree with many Democrats on the ecig issue, I am more inclined to believe that they oppose ecigs on the basis of something other than corporate money. I will never be convinced to believe the same about Republicans. Republicans have had a long history of being joined at the hip to BP and BT. Former prominent Republicans who are now lobbyists for BT and BP far outnumber Democrats. The current crop can afford to play contrarians right now because they don't have the majority and they are not being lobbied hard enough to overcome their knee-jerk opposition to anything Democratic. As soon as that changes, so will their tune.
Lastly, anyone who would vote Republican on the basis of this issue is suicidal. For one thing, like I said before, they'll turn on a dime once the money gets flowing their way. For another, this single issue is not worth the endless wars, decimation of the Constitution and the final plunge of the U.S. into third-world neo-feudalism that would follow a Republican victory.
Last edited:
Decimation of the constitution? Healthcare, GM Takeover, Appointing the GM CEO, all of the stimulus spending, ect, ect.
Pretending that either party has defended the constitution is laughable.
I generally vote conservative, but it seems to me that no matter what the party, what the promise...
They both do the same thing.
There are so many errors and misinformation in your angry dissertation. I am sorry you are so angry.
Not even taking the reset of your rant into consideration, you lose all possible credibility with that one phrase. I'm pretty sure there is an 'o' in the name of their station. You took the path of petty name calling instead.
For starters.ShadowWulf Robert Byrd DID NOT vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Sailorman stated that he did.
That's only because Roger Ailes & Rupert Murdoch can't spell very well, among other things. Like hire journalists with integrity for their on-air "talent" instead of hot air-gushing quasi-sociopathic Nielsen-addicts with penchants for histrionic nonsense. Not to digress.
According to Washington Post journalist Eric Pianin, Byrd, after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted despite his efforts to derail it, like other southern and border-state Democrats of his time came to realize that he would have to temper his blatantly segregationist views and edge toward his partys mainstream if he wanted to advance on the national stage.
You are correct but it hardly derails his point whatsoever. Care to contribute more?
Actually,yes.The ruling on the Citizens United case preserved our First Amendment rights. With his way of thinking and I assume yours,if that bill had remained intact when MR.SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON was produced,it would have been banned. Even though it was a spoof and caricature of Washington politics,it would have been treated like the "Hillary" special and banned. Corporations produced both.
This is why I find politics intriguing.
Because its a complex and ultra-segmented map of highways and streets - that lead to NOWHERE.
Everyone has an opinion, a counter-argument that is yet to be derailed with another statement - and the boat rocks back and forth, tossing around facts and the interpretations therewith.
My original post was just my opinion, a summary and representation of political intervention in the sector for electronic cigarettes.
Sure enough, from one statement - it has been dissected into hundreds of different mixed opinions each suggesting the more valid approach to this issue.
Politics never fails, in failing to be understood.
It is just one alleyway in which human nature is prudently manifest - the pursuit of self-interest, an opportunity for financial gain, a monetary investment, a channel to attain power, and a chance for recognition.
Human nature constitutes politics - a congressional institution of self-interest, not a congress of greater welfare.
Albeit there may be a minority of individuals seeking fair verdict and integrity in politics, those few are whispers in the wake of the roars of the greater flawed.
The HIGHER DISTRICT COURTS, a political subsidy, have the final word on electronic cigarettes - hence, it is a political issue. But yet, it is also a matter of humanity and ethics. For some, it may be a lavish business opportunity, for Big Pharma - a threat, the politicians in the back pocket of Big Tobacco, and for the rest ---- the ultimate advent of hope in unshackling ourselves form the ravages of tobacco harm.
Just funny to see how many oppositions transpired, and how far people took this one opinion.
Lets see how this plays out in September, and how self-interest will change the course of this innovation.
Based on my OPINION, I presume electronic cigarettes will be preserved in the safe-harbor of a Rebublican led court system.
NOW, I'm sure a bunch of you will OPPOSE and DISCREDIT my above statement ^ But that's OK, state your opposition - and lets keep traveling the bridge to nowhere. LOL
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
