Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FDA proposes first e-cigarette rules, including banning sales to minors
FOX News ^ | April 24, 2014 | Associated Press

Posted on 04/24/2014 12:06:57 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

WASHINGTON – The federal government wants to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors and require approval for new products and health warning labels under regulations being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration.

While the proposal being issued Thursday won't immediately mean changes for the popular devices, the move is aimed at eventually taming the fast-growing e-cigarette industry.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; children; ecigs; fda; health; minors; nannystate; nicotine; pufflist; regulations; vaping
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 04/24/2014 12:06:57 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SheLion; Eric Blair 2084; -YYZ-; 31R1O; 383rr; AFreeBird; AGreatPer; Alamo-Girl; Alia; altura; ...

Nanny State PING!


2 posted on 04/24/2014 12:07:48 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (The PASSING LANE is for PASSING, not DAWDLING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Yup. Crack down on evil tobacco and those evil E-Cigs and loosen the reigns on wonderful pot. So, in 40 years or so, will “they” discover “they” made a huge mistake? Will pot companies be forced to stop advertising and marketing and have to pay for their “awful lies”?

Gonna go fire up a Marlboro now. While it’s still legal.


3 posted on 04/24/2014 12:10:18 PM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Redneck. Race: Daytona 500)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
...including banning sales to minors.

Why?


4 posted on 04/24/2014 12:13:20 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Bundy ranch "Domestic terrorists" - Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan "work place violence".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

You think that’s bad, when I use to live in the totalitarian state of New York city, Despot Mike Bloomberg demanded a list from all landlords of the tenants who smoke in their apartments.


5 posted on 04/24/2014 12:14:45 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Bundy ranch "Domestic terrorists" - Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan "work place violence".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

keeping drugs from kids?

such an outrage

/sarc


6 posted on 04/24/2014 12:18:14 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
When does the FDA begin regulating Marijuana?
7 posted on 04/24/2014 12:23:56 PM PDT by Obadiah (I like Krabby Patties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This is only one small part of what Owebama’s plans were, the big item he announced was putting the full tobacco tax on pipe tobacco and cigars!

That roll your own ‘pipe tobacco’ is going to be taxed at the same rate as cigarette tobacco!


8 posted on 04/24/2014 12:24:09 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

Hey! It was for your own good. He don’t care if you like it or not. :>}


9 posted on 04/24/2014 12:29:50 PM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Redneck. Race: Daytona 500)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The cool thing about these devices is you can make your own e-cig fluid at home. The ingredients are common to food production and insecticide.


10 posted on 04/24/2014 12:30:41 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Doesn't sound all that draconian to me....
11 posted on 04/24/2014 12:31:02 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
I grow my own tobacco in the garden. No taxes or noxious chemicals on that.

/johnny

12 posted on 04/24/2014 12:37:42 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Except that congress has no constitutional authority to regulate food or drugs. That's the draconian part, an out-of-control government.

/johnny

13 posted on 04/24/2014 12:39:06 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; All
The federal government wants to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors ...

Regardless what Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, and with the exception of federal entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress evidenced by the Constitution's Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce. This is evidenced by the following excerpt.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So the idea of the federal government wanting to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors, while arguably a good thing, is nontheless outside the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers imo. The states need to legislate such bans under their 10th Amendment-protected powers until they choose to amend the Constitution with such a prohibition.

14 posted on 04/24/2014 12:39:08 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
AMEN!

Unfortunately, many freepers don't care about constitutionality, if their ox isn't gored.

/johnny

15 posted on 04/24/2014 12:40:30 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
keeping drugs from kids?

such an outrage


Which is why the Constitution grants authority to the States to pass or not pass laws related to it. "For the children" is an all too familiar mantra used to rally support behind the feds stretching authority beyond their constitutional limit.

Just because we may like the intent of a law doesn't mean we can overlook its constitutionality.
16 posted on 04/24/2014 12:45:20 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

For over 100 years SCOTUS has held that they do have that authority.


17 posted on 04/24/2014 12:47:10 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
So the idea of the federal government wanting to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors, while arguably a good thing, is nontheless outside the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers imo.

And so long as the majority (or at least majority party) consider it a "good thing" they are willing to overlook the Constitution. It's so sad.

Not only is it sad that the public supports it, but it's even more disheartening that we have a judicial branch that's also willing to support and facilitate it time and time again.
18 posted on 04/24/2014 12:49:19 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

How do you dry and cure your leaves?


19 posted on 04/24/2014 12:51:37 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Just because evil has gone on for a long time doesn't make it right.

Much of the progressive slide into the pit began about 100 years ago with unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court.

It will take vocal fighters to reverse that progressive crap.

/johnny

20 posted on 04/24/2014 12:51:47 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
Carefully.

It's a rather long process, but I'm happy with it. It took a few years of experimenting before I found a process that I was happy with.

/johnny

21 posted on 04/24/2014 12:52:58 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

“, Despot Mike Bloomberg demanded a list from all landlords of the tenants who smoke in their apartments.”


Is that even legal? You know,that silly old fashioned thing called privacy.

.


22 posted on 04/24/2014 12:53:24 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY

We must do something about this immediately!


23 posted on 04/24/2014 12:53:34 PM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mmichaels1970
Plenty of freepers support overlooking the Constitution, too. Or are completely ignorant of the limits of federal government.

/johnny

24 posted on 04/24/2014 12:54:20 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

It’s a DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE.

Nothing in the proposed regulations prevents an ADULT from feeding their addiction 24/7, 365 days a year.


25 posted on 04/24/2014 12:54:59 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
For over 100 years SCOTUS has held that they do have that authority.

SCOTUS has been a main player in the shredding of our Constitution imo. Just like Roberts' ruling on Obamacare.

I do think these regulations will sail through without much opposition. I believe SCOTUS would find them constitutional even if it were challenged. But I personally don't think it's constitutional regardless of what those nine justices say.
26 posted on 04/24/2014 12:55:03 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

More to the point, I am curious if you have a purpose-built structure where you dry and cure your leaves. Also, how long does it take for you to dry and cure your leaves?


27 posted on 04/24/2014 12:55:06 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Drango
It’s a DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE.

And I'd completely support my state of Ohio regulating it as they are granted that authority by the Constitution.
28 posted on 04/24/2014 12:58:53 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Maybe I’m old fashioned but I thought it was the parents’ responsibility to keep drugs from kids.

If something is legal to sell it’s not the government’s business who buys it.

.


29 posted on 04/24/2014 1:01:47 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
That roll your own ‘pipe tobacco’ is going to be taxed at the same rate as cigarette tobacco!

And God help you if you grow any in your backyard.

30 posted on 04/24/2014 1:08:36 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The best way to control opposition is to lead it ourselves." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
I do. It's legal as church on Sunday.

Feds can pound sand.

/johnny

31 posted on 04/24/2014 1:11:47 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

We have about a 60 day growing season here, and even in that it is likely to frost.

I don’t even know if it would grow here?


32 posted on 04/24/2014 1:13:55 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Tobacco can grow almost everywhere. It even grows well indoors.

/johnny

33 posted on 04/24/2014 1:16:46 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Trees is about all I can grow here.

I’m in the middle of a woods, stuff don’t get enough sunlight.


34 posted on 04/24/2014 1:24:12 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mmichaels1970; All
Not only is it sad that the public supports it, ...

As I've ranted in similar threads, the problem is that parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.

On a related note, I think that even conservative legal professionals, including justices, got indoctrinated in college instead of being taught the federal governments limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.

35 posted on 04/24/2014 1:24:28 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
requiring health labels that warn users that nicotine is an addictive chemical,

Not all of them contain any nicotine. Is Johnson & Johnson and the rest of big pharma (they are behind the push for all this regulation)required to put such a warning on their "nicotine delivery devices?"

How about caffeine, it's an addictive chemical, and one which is regularly sold to minors - should coffee and sodas have warning labels and age restrictions?

36 posted on 04/24/2014 1:38:01 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Comparing nicotine addiction to caffeine is a wining issue for vapids. I urge you to keep using it as they are very comparable and your argument resonates with the public.


37 posted on 04/24/2014 2:32:39 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Drango

I urge you to keep utilizing the words and arguments of the left, it works wonders on sites such as this. Keep up the good work.


38 posted on 04/24/2014 2:48:57 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Before the advent of the Ultra Nanny State tobacco was grown all around here in Wisconsin - I can assure you it is not bothered by short seasons or extreme cold. Now our corn goes into our gas tanks. Idiots rule!


39 posted on 04/24/2014 2:56:12 PM PDT by februus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
They also would not be allowed to claim their products are safer than other tobacco products.

Of course, they are safer, but we can't let them tell anyone that. Nicotine is addictive, yes, but only minimally harmful, akin to caffeine. It is the 3,000 other chemicals in tobacco cigarettes that give you lung cancer.

So the tobacco companies are behind this. $2 billion of e-cigarette sales are eating into coffin nail sales, so e-cigs must be held up while the tobacco industry re-gears to take over the budding e-cig industry ... using the heavy hand of the state get their way: registration of existing products, lawyers, paperwork, etc. K-Street is out in force for the tobacco industry on this.

Then, when RJR, Lorillard and B&W have an 80% market share, suddenly e-cigs will be safer and they will be called 'mild' and 'light'.

Just watch.

40 posted on 04/24/2014 4:10:44 PM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

Not B&W anymore, but Altria.


41 posted on 04/24/2014 4:20:23 PM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Drango

It’s a DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE.

____________________________

Then a Keurig coffee maker is a drug delivery device also. And Starbucks is a pharmacy.

They deliver caffeine. A mild addictive stimulant.


42 posted on 04/24/2014 7:59:50 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer to drink a bunch of them. Stay thirsty my FRiends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I think this is great news and a win for people and public health. The FDA basically did nothing.

Much like the Keystone pipeline, they just punted.


43 posted on 04/24/2014 8:22:09 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer to drink a bunch of them. Stay thirsty my FRiends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084

see #37


44 posted on 04/24/2014 8:33:30 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

This is a summary I trust.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/fdas-proposed-electronic-cigarette.html?m=1

Thursday, April 24, 2014

FDA’s Proposed Electronic Cigarette Deeming Regulations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
This morning, the FDA finally released its draft deeming regulations for electronic cigarettes. Here is my initial take on these draft regulations from a public health perspective. I have divided my analysis of the 241 pages of provisions into three sections: the good, the bad, and they ugly.

The Good

1. The regulations ban the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors, both in person and via the internet.

The ban on the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors is a critical aspect of the proposed regulations. If properly enforced, it will help keep these products out of the hands of minors. An additional benefit of this provision is that it will obviate the need for every city and town council in the nation to enact its own e-cigarettes sales restrictions.

2. The regulations do not ban the sale of electronic cigarettes to adults via the internet.

A ban on the sale of electronic cigarettes to adults via the internet would have been devastating to the bulk of the electronic cigarette market and would have placed an immediate limit on the potential for growth in this market.

3. The regulations do not ban the use of flavorings in electronic cigarettes.

Many anti-smoking groups and advocates have been pushing for a ban on the use of flavorings in electronic cigarettes. Such a ban would have devastated the industry, as the flavors are a key aspect of what makes these products competitive with tobacco cigarettes. In addition, the flavors make e-cigarettes distinct from tobacco cigarettes and make it much less likely that people who switch to these products will return to regular cigarettes. In addition, youth who use flavored electronic cigarettes are most likely less inclined to initiate smoking because once they are accustomed to the flavors, cigarettes would seem extremely harsh.

4. The regulations do not ban or restrict e-cigarette advertising or marketing to adults.

Many anti-smoking groups and advocates have been calling for a ban on all e-cigarette advertising. This would of course have been devastating to the industry and would have given tobacco cigarettes an unfair advantage in the marketplace. The FDA decided to defer any decision on marketing restrictions at this time. It is likely that the agency will revisit this issue in the future, but with more time, the FDA can craft marketing restrictions that balance the desire to protect youth from this advertising with the need for e-cigarette companies to be able to reach adult consumers.

5. The regulations do not immediately pull any e-cigarette products from the market.

One of my fears in advance of the release of the regulations was that they would require substantial equivalence determinations for most products currently on the market an would pull some products from the market pending such determinations. Instead, the agency decided to allow all existing products to remain on the market, giving them two years to apply for FDA approval. In addition, new products can enter the market for the next two years without pre-approval from the agency.

If a product submits an application for a new product approval or substantial equivalence determination within the allotted 24-month period, it will not be taken off the market while the review of the application is pending.

The Bad

1. The regulations do not limit the marketing of electronic cigarettes to youth.

There does need to be some restriction on the marketing of electronic cigarettes to youth. The FDA deferred a decision on marketing restrictions at this time. However, it is important that the agency does revisit this issue and that it craft restrictions that carefully balance the desire to protect youth from this advertising with the need for e-cigarette companies to be able to reach adult consumers.

2. The regulations require pre-approval (or substantial equivalence determinations) for all new electronic cigarette products.

This provision is going to present a huge obstacle to innovation in this category. The newer products tend to be safer and more effective, so it makes no sense to allow the older products to remain on the market while requiring pre-approval for the newer and better products. The implications of this regulation is going to depend on the evidence that the agency requires to approve these applications. A stringent interpretation of the regulations will put a huge dent in electronic cigarette innovation and could limit the expansion of the market. In addition, this provision is going to place an undue burden on smaller companies and give a huge advantage to larger companies, including the tobacco companies that have entered the e-cigarette market.

3. The regulations require pre-approval or substantial equivalence determinations of almost all existing electronic cigarette products.

This provision is going to wreak havoc with the industry. The agency is determined that it cannot extend the grandfather date beyond 2007. This means that any product not on the market as of 2007 (which includes almost all electronic cigarette products) must either obtain a new product approval or a substantial equivalence determination. Given the snail’s pace at which the FDA has processed cigarette substantial equivalence determinations, this could result in a literal quagmire of pending applications for the more than 250 brands of e-cigarettes currently on the market.

The Ugly

1. The regulations apply section 911 (the modified risk product provisions) to electronic cigarettes.

This is a complete disaster and is not in the interest of protecting the public’s health. In fact, this provision is going to harm the public’s health. It is going to require manufacturers to implicitly lie about the intended purpose and relative safety of their products.

Sadly, the agency concluded that it is not sure that e-cigarettes are any safer than tobacco cigarettes. The FDA states: “Many consumers believe that e-cigarettes are “safe” tobacco products or are “safer” than cigarettes. FDA has not made such a determination and conclusive research is not available.”

That the FDA is not sure whether smoking is any more hazardous than vaping does not say a lot for the agency’s scientific standards.

This provision is going to undermine the public’s appreciation of the health hazards of smoking and prevent companies from telling consumers the truth: that e-cigarettes are a lot safer than tobacco cigarettes.

In addition, this is going to force companies to rely on other methods to pitch their products, such as using sexy models, emphasizing that e-cigarettes can be used where tobacco cigarettes are allowed, and relying on celebrity endorsements. The FDA is literally forcing e-cigarette companies to lie about their products and instead of pitching them as safer alternatives to smoking, to pitch them with non-health-related benefits.

Under this provision, an electronic cigarette company cannot even inform consumers that the product does not produce smoke because such a claim would be considered a “reduced exposure” claim under the Tobacco Act.

Overall Summary

All in all, the deeming regulations are a disaster. However, they are not as much of a disaster as they could have been. The positive side is that internet sales, marketing to adult consumers, and flavors are still allowed and that no products will immediately be taken off the market. The negative side is that new products will require pre-approval, virtually every product on the market will require a substantial equivalence determination (if not a new product approval), and that manufacturers will be forced to implicitly lie about the intended purpose and relative safety of the product by not being allowed to correctly point out that these products are much safer than tobacco cigarettes.

At the end of the day, while there are some positive aspects to these regulations, it is clear that science is not playing much of a role in the process. That does not bode well for the potential of electronic cigarettes to seriously challenge the combustible tobacco market, and thus to save hundreds of thousands of lives.


45 posted on 04/24/2014 8:34:28 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer to drink a bunch of them. Stay thirsty my FRiends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Thanks for the ping!


46 posted on 04/24/2014 8:37:31 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drango

I saw your argument with Gabz a minute after I posted that.

As far as being a drug delivery device, you are 4 years behind the justice system.

The FDA already tried that stunt and lost in court.

http://casaa.org/uploads/SE-vs-FDA-Ruling.pdf

Just an FYI.


47 posted on 04/24/2014 8:43:12 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer to drink a bunch of them. Stay thirsty my FRiends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084
This is a summary I trust.

Thank you. This is very useful.

Lorillard bought an e-cig company, blue ecigs, for $135 million in 2012. They will have a huge advantage in being able to fund the cost of the massive red tape associated with these regulations. The effect will be to reduce consumer choice and competition.

48 posted on 04/24/2014 9:12:01 PM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

Despite how the big gubmint loving state run media proclaim this to be stone tablets from heaven, they are not.

These are “proposed” rules. There is a 75 day comment period. Then they won’t go into effect for 2 years.

A lot can change politically in 2 years. And will.


49 posted on 04/24/2014 9:48:01 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer to drink a bunch of them. Stay thirsty my FRiends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084
A lot can change politically in 2 years. And will.

Yea, more Obama!

Thanks, though.

50 posted on 04/24/2014 9:52:31 PM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson