Will we be viewed as racist...

...if we support Clinton in droves???

The Clinton campaign is hoping that West Virginia — a state rich in the white, older, working class voters who have doggedly supported her — will provide a lift after the damaging results of Tuesday's primaries, in which she lost North Carolina and won Indiana by too small a margin to derail rival Barack Obama's bid for the nomination.

Speaking in gymnasiums and fairgrounds in rural towns, Bill Clinton returned repeatedly to the words "people like you and places like this" as the keys that could help his wife stop Obama's momentum.

source

The Clinton campaign is hoping that West Virginia — a state rich in the white, older, working class voters who have doggedly supported her — ..............

HA, the Clinton campaign may be in for a rude awakening.

Many of those white, older, working class voters might not even come out to vote on Tuesday, ...... and for sure, many of those that do will not even cast a vote for a POTUS candidate or ......... they will vote for Edwards.

Wouldn't that be a "hoot" ........ iffen Edwards won all the marbles.

.

Good grief Sam, you're going to get Sherm going.

I am not from WV. But I have traveled in WV. And I believe that you are good hearted earnest people. Do not allow a political candidate to define who you are as a state and a people. That you would not vote for someone because of the color of their skin. I don't believe that of the people of WV. Prove me right on Tuesday. Vote for unity not divisiveness. Vote for progress not regression. Vote your conscience.

lindaredtail wrote:I am not from WV. But I have traveled in WV. And I believe that you are good hearted earnest people. Do not allow a political candidate to define who you are as a state and a people. That you would not vote for someone because of the color of their skin. I don't believe that of the people of WV. Prove me right on Tuesday. Vote for unity not divisiveness. Vote for progress not regression. Vote your conscience.

Hi Linda, welcome to the forum.

And uuuhhhh, that was nice advice but ...... West Virginians have been stalled in "regression mode" for more than 75 years ...... and the majority of voters aren't likely to change any time soon.

Now if you watch the TV News, those Dem voters are LOUDLY APPLAUDING both Dem Candidates ......... because both Candidates are ...... promising them TONS OF FREEBIES.

But now I'm not going to make a guess about the outcome of Tuesday's vote because it will be a “quandary vote”, ………… a tough decision on whether to vote for Hillary or Obama, …….. or to vote according to tradition and/or nurtured culture.

cheers

I see that Hillary is now openly bragging about her appeal among "whites." Can you imagine if McCain or any other Republican said such a thing? We'd never hear the end of it.

Hi Sam Cogar. Thanks for the welcome. Haven't gotten that too often. I didn't mean regression in a bad way and I hope it did not sound like that. For a lot of years the Democrats were the party that the people like Strom Thurmond called home. And George Wallace. But after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK the Democratic Party changed and became more inclusive, tolerant, "the big tent". But HRC has seemed to me to be taking the party backwards to that place of less tolerance. I would like it not to happen. And I hope that the good people of WV will not allow her to use them to prove a point that is scurrilous in nature. Maybe your state will vote for her because she best represents your interests (if that's how you feel) But she is using it for a far different purpose. One that is without honor. Many WV residents serve in the military and know what true honor is. All I am saying is do not allow yourselves to be used for a purpose lacking in good intent and purpose.

Welcome as well Linda. I have a question for you that other democratic supporters have either been unable or unwilling to answer.

Hillary Clinton has stated too many times to count that universal health care must be a staple of any democratic nominee and BO agrees with her as he has his own plan.

My question is, when did unconstitutional universal health care become a mandate of the democratic party and when did it become a party platform for the to the democratic nominee?

Hello Aaron. Thank you for the welcome. Why do you say that the idea of universal health coverage is unconstitutional? What in the constitution says that we as a nation can not supply health care to all of our citizens if we so choose to? I have never seen anything in the Constitution that excludes our doing so. Universal health care has been bandied around for some time primarily beginning in the 1990's At that point in time the price of health insurance rose beyond the affordability of many Americans. From the point of view of some (myself included) it is not rightful that Americans should be without health care. It is your right to disagree with that. Right now I think it has become so important to the Democrats because over 20 million Americans are without health care. There has also been a huge decline in employer health care benefits. When I was a child (long ago now) my father had a family plan and we were all covered. For Dental as well. It is no longer like that and many people can not afford it on their own. So to the party that concerns itself with the working class and its needs universal health care has become part of many candidate's policies. It is a grievious day when the United States of American is 27th in the world in infant mortality rates. Even Cuba ranks higher than we do. The health care discussion and what to do about it is one that Americans must have and eventually decisions must be made. Do we have a responsibility to our citizens? I think that we do. The question is do you?

lindaredtail wrote:Hi Sam Cogar. Thanks for the welcome. Haven't gotten that too often. I didn't mean regression in a bad way and I hope it did not sound like that. For a lot of years the Democrats were the party that the people like Strom Thurmond called home. And George Wallace. But after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK the Democratic Party changed and became more inclusive, tolerant, "the big tent". But HRC has seemed to me to be taking the party backwards to that place of less tolerance. I would like it not to happen.

GOOD GRIEF, Linda, ..... said "big tent" inclusiveness began under FDR ......... and LBJ made it an "art form" and it was then things really started "going to hell in a handbasket".

Or maybe I should say, everyone who didn't want to work for a living "was given a handbasket" ............ and "free room and board under that big tent".

And neither Hillary nor Obama are advocating "taking the party backwards to that place of less tolerance", ....... GEEEZUS, they both are advocating the DOUBLING or TRIPLING the size of that "big tent".

lindaredtail wrote:And I hope that the good people of WV will not allow her to use them to prove a point that is scurrilous in nature. Maybe your state will vote for her because she best represents your interests (if that's how you feel) But she is using it for a far different purpose. One that is without honor. Many WV residents serve in the military and know what true honor is. All I am saying is do not allow yourselves to be used for a purpose lacking in good intent and purpose.

Linda, the majority of West Virginians could care less what Hillary's or Obama's "far different purpose" is ........... as long as the "winner" delivers part of the "promises" made to them. If not, it won't matter.

.

I don't believe that everyone was given a free ride. We now have welfare reform and it seems that big business is the ones getting the free ride. Is it really tripling the size of the big tent for Americans to have health care coverage? I do not believe it is. What it really is is an investment in the future of our country. A well population is a productive population. And it makes me sad that I seem to have a better view of West Virginians than you do. There is more to this election than delivering part of the promises. There is a future to think about. Where do we as a nation want to go. A good place I hope. One of tolerance, prosperity, good health and inclusiveness.

lindaredtail wrote:Hello Aaron. Thank you for the welcome. Why do you say that the idea of universal health coverage is unconstitutional? What in the constitution says that we as a nation can not supply health care to all of our citizens if we so choose to? I have never seen anything in the Constitution that excludes our doing so. Universal health care has been bandied around for some time primarily beginning in the 1990's At that point in time the price of health insurance rose beyond the affordability of many Americans. From the point of view of some (myself included) it is not rightful that Americans should be without health care. It is your right to disagree with that. Right now I think it has become so important to the Democrats because over 20 million Americans are without health care. There has also been a huge decline in employer health care benefits. When I was a child (long ago now) my father had a family plan and we were all covered. For Dental as well. It is no longer like that and many people can not afford it on their own. So to the party that concerns itself with the working class and its needs universal health care has become part of many candidate's policies. It is a grievious day when the United States of American is 27th in the world in infant mortality rates. Even Cuba ranks higher than we do. The health care discussion and what to do about it is one that Americans must have and eventually decisions must be made. Do we have a responsibility to our citizens? I think that we do. The question is do you?

Congress has only the power GIVEN by the constitution and legislating with the purse strings or socialism is not one of their enumarated respoponsibilities. Read Article 1, section 8 to gain a clearer understanding. If it's not in there, Congress can't authorize it.

The ONLY RESPONSIBILIY our federal government has to the citizens is to prpotect them from foreign attacks and to regulate interstate commerace. Beyond that, one has to look to the states and no, it is not my responsibility, nor that of my tax dollars, to ensure you or your child has health care.

If that were the case, then why didn't FDR propose universal health care when he was doling out unconstitutional programs?

I believe actually that I have a good understanding of the Constitution. I have a copy in front of me. It says that Congress has the right to collect taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. (Article 1, Section . Nowhere does it say that Congress can not authorize things that provide for the general Welfare. I never mentioned anything about myself or my child. Interpretation of the term general Welfare would be the question. No specifics are stated. Perhaps the founding fathers knew that different things would come up over time that taxes could be applied to. The constitutional argument against health care is very weak.

Well Linda let me welcome you as well.

We definitely need some more progressive voices here.

You will soon see what I mean if you have not already.

I have not been a big supporter of either Clinton or Obama, but am somewhat turned off when so-called progressives imply that if one does not support Obama then they are either ignorant, racist, or part of the in-crowd.

I think when Obama boosters make those implications they diminish Obama's chances in the fall if he does win the nomination.

Thank you ShermanGeneral. I actually am an Obama supporter though I try very hard not to be rabid about it. I traveled several times through WV and really enjoyed it. I didn't get to see as much as I would like. I don't believe that if you don't support Obama that your're a racist. There are however some people who do not support him for that reason of his race. The point I came on here with though is that I felt that HRC was the one misusing West Virginians. She seems to want to use the citizens of West Virginia to make the point that white blue collar workers will not vote for Barack Obama. Then comes running to your state in a big hurry. I felt that was unfair to the citizens of WV. Because many people now will look at it that way because she has raised that image in people's minds. And worse in my opinion is that she is using this kind of wrongfulness to stay in the race for the nomination. I am very much a believer in women's rights and this was very difficult for me. I wanted to be able to vote for her. But the more I saw some of this stuff the less inclined I became. We can look at Reverend Wright and we should. Just as we should look at Reverend Parsley and Douglas Coe. But the words were spoken by Reverend Wright not Barack Obama. I am however looking closely at what Hillary Clinton has said and I find some of it offensive. Offensive enough to move away from supporting her I am sad to say. If I lived in WV I would not want to be used in this way if that makes sense to you. I wouldn't want it said by a candidate see I was right white voters won't vote for him. Look at WV. I think that is what she will do. It's her words that are really diminishing WV as the good people that I met when I traveled there.

Well Linda it sounds like you are not from here but it will be hard for you guys to portray WV as racist since WV was born out of the Civil War and we seceeded from Va. when Va seceeded from the good ol USA.

Our motto is "Mountaineers Always Free".

So the implied threat of branding us as racist because we dont drink the Obama koolaid will not avail them.

If I vote for Obama it will not be to prove to the limolib elitists that I am not a racist or clinging to Religion and my second Amendment right to own guns.

ShermanGeneral I was not threatening you. Implied or otherwise. If I were threatening anyone I would do it outright. I'm not asking anyone to drink Obama Koolaid which all that kind of stuff is silly isn't it? That's on other forums as well. I wouldn't be branding you as racist and you are missing the point. What I am saying is look at how HRC is going about things. Her choices of words. That bluecollar white voters won't vote for Barack Obama. And I'm the one saying that I do not believe that West Virginians are not like that. Where your answer is coming from I don't know. No you shouldn't have to prove that you are not a racist. But HRC is making it so you do. Have you asked yourself why she is taking this route? (Meaning in what she is saying.) Your hostility is unwarranted and out of place.

lindaredtail wrote:I don't believe that everyone was given a free ride. We now have welfare reform and it seems that big business is the ones getting the free ride.

Well now, Linda, please tell me ….. why did we need to reform welfare?

SURELY it wasn’t because everyone was being given a free ride, …….. was it? Musta been the fault of the Russians, right.

lindaredtail wrote:Is it really tripling the size of the big tent for Americans to have health care coverage? I do not believe it is. What it really is is an investment in the future of our country. A well population is a productive population.

Linda, that’s what they were saying when LBJ was pushing through his Great Society Program, …… his Appalachian Program.

And Linda, this is what happened with that investment in the future of our country, in your own words …… what happened. To wit:

lindaredtail wrote:There has also been a huge decline in employer health care benefits. When I was a child (long ago now) my father had a family plan and we were all covered. For Dental as well. It is no longer like that and many people can not afford it on their own.

And you are advocating MORE OF THE SAME, ….. HUH. Now that real smart of ya.

lindaredtail wrote:And it makes me sad that I seem to have a better view of West Virginians than you do.

PIFFLE. Linda, I’m not a “blue sky dreamer” …. that has been brainwashed into believing that “socialism actually works”.

lindaredtail wrote:There is more to this election than delivering part of the promises.

OH YEAH, then why hasn’t Congress DONE MORE in the last 30 years ….. than just make promises? HUH? How bout the past 2 years and all those Democrat promises that got them control of Congress, … HUH?

Linda, did you know that the word “gullible” in not included in the dictionary?

lindaredtail wrote:There is a future to think about. Where do we as a nation want to go. A good place I hope. One of tolerance, prosperity, good health and inclusiveness.

OH YEAH, tolerance and inclusiveness are what has put America on the road to rack n’ ruin as it is. “Inclusion” has contributed greatly to the demise of our Public School System.


And here below, I’ll reply to 3 from your previous post.

lindaredtail wrote: Right now I think it has become so important to the Democrats because over 20 million Americans are without health care.

Well Linda, that sure as hell is not the 20 million illegal immigrants that are here in the US …… because all of them get free health care. So who is not getting health care, tell me.

lindaredtail wrote: There has also been a huge decline in employer health care benefits. When I was a child (long ago now) my father had a family plan and we were all covered. For Dental as well. It is no longer like that and many people can not afford it on their own. So to the party that concerns itself with the working class and its needs universal health care has become part of many candidate's policies.

OH YEAH, and that’s the SAME Party that caused the demise of your Father’s kind of healthcare coverage. And you want more and better from the same Party, ….. huh. Now that’s real intelligent.

And the only reason that Party concerns itself with the working class ..... is to get the vote of the "poverty Class" and to increase and collect more tax money from the medium and upper wage earners.

lindaredtail wrote: It is a grievious day when the United States of American is 27th in the world in infant mortality rates.

HORSEHOCKY and PIFFLE.

Linda, first of all, the US of A is one of the very few countries that report the ACTUAL infant mortality rates as accurately as they possibly can. GEEEZUS, girl, we have the best health care in the world …… and that’s why the health providers know and report how many infants are dying. Countries without good health care DON’T KNOW how many infants are dying.

And Linda, there ain’t a damn thing medical science can do for all the preemies and handicapped infants in the US that are the result of the life style and drug use by the parent(s) and thus a great number of them die.

cheers

You I think are a fascinating study. Obviously very much a conservative. I happen to believe that there are solutions to these issues. Tell me how did government force employers to get rid of health care benefits for their employees? They didn't. Nor did the Democratic party. A lot of the problem is the cost of health care. Who controls prescription drug prices? Drug companies do. And what does countries that don't report infant mortality have to do with the ones that did? And among those countries we were 27th in the world. Who is living in a naive world full of what very Republican sounding philosophy feeds to me? Not me certainly. And this poverty class stuff is just garbage. health insurance costs when up because insurance companies raised them and made health care unaffordable. Where some of these ideas come from I don't know. But they are not based in fact of any reliability.Two years is not very long. Especially when the Congress is not veto proof which I hope will become the result this time. Just a couple more seats to the Democrats and we return to sanity as a nation. To blame infant deaths on just drug use and life style is not nice and not totally true. Many of those babies HAD NO HEALTH CARE WHILE THEIR MOTHERS WERE PREGNANT. Cheers to you to because I will never agree with your conclusions. Illformed and not really valid.

lindaredtail wrote:I believe actually that I have a good understanding of the Constitution. I have a copy in front of me. It says that Congress has the right to collect taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States.

Linda, is the word "welfare" capitalized in the Constitution or did you take it upon yourself to capitalize it?

Me thinks you lefty liberal socialists are applying a 21st Century definition to a word that was written in context in the 18th Century.

How in good conscious can you apply this definition, to wit:

social welfare: governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need

to this, to wit:

general welfare

when there was no economic assistance being provided in the 18th Century?

The authors of the Constitution couldn't possibly have "meant something" that didn''t exist at the time they referred to it.

.

Well Linda it was not I who ranted and screamed and snarled how Hillary does not know what it is to be called bad names etc. it was your guy's preacher.

And I did not call Italians "garlic nose" either.

I am somewhat of a left leaning individual. (far left according to some on here but I would call myself left leaning).

I am a trucker and listen to a lot of talk radio while on the road.

My preferred channel is/was Sirius Left.

But I have to switch to something else these days because the Clinton hating vitriol from the elitist latte liberals is more disgusting than Fox.

I have to say it is not so much Obama hisownself as much as his arrogant supporters.

(I do not mean to say all his supporters are so, but the most vocal and vitriolic do him more harm than good.)

And let me repeat I am not a big Clinton fan so I know those who are must resent it even more than I do.

When Bill Clinton pointed out that Jesse Jackson also carried SCarolina in the primary the Obamites immediately branded him a racist. Just for stating a fact.

Fact is Blacks make up nearly half the registered Dems in some of the southern states and they vote as a block for Obama.

So it is no surprise that Obama did well in the primary.

But in the General please remember Blacks do not even constitute 5% of the Republican vote.

Welfare is indeed capitalized. And no it didn't exist at the time. So what did general Welfare mean back then? We really don't know. It is a general term and could have changing applications. It doesn't say it can not be used for the purpose of aiding citizens in need. Another example of that is those who say that Revelations points to Muslims being the enemy in the end times. Do you believe that? From your own writing how can that be. Islam did not exist when the Book of Revelations was written. What was meant by those words in the Constitution we do not know. Welfare doesn't just mean Welfare benefits. Another typical literalist depiction. It could mean a lot of things. Welfare means good. For the public 's benefit.

I think that there have been bad things said on both sides of this. Obama supporters and Clinton supporters have done things that they shouldn't. My reasoning was in looking at exactly what she said. In the South a lot of things have different meanings than we expect. And many felt that Bill Clinton's remarks were racial code words. Not just black people either. Some white people as well felt that way. Have you wondered why she is being abandoned by her friends. Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson, Congressman Payne, George McGpvern and one more whose name escapes me at the moment. Because they are disappointed in the way she (and Bill) have conducted themselves. Someone from West Virginia asked a question on Friday and he yelled at them. And the attitude that her campaign has held is that the superdelegates should decide it. I was watching as Ed Randell said that maybe the superdelegates knew better than the delegates elected by the people at the polls. So who is really an elitist? Is it Obama who believes in the power of the people to make changes in America? Or is it Hillary. And why is she being supported by Scaife and Rush Limbaugh? Why is she connected to Doug Coe. Ever looked him and his group up? Hillary's been a member since the 1990's. I really feel that people need to look at the two of them with more objectivity.

lindaredtail wrote:I believe actually that I have a good understanding of the Constitution. I have a copy in front of me. It says that Congress has the right to collect taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. (Article 1, Section . Nowhere does it say that Congress can not authorize things that provide for the general Welfare. I never mentioned anything about myself or my child. Interpretation of the term general Welfare would be the question. No specifics are stated. Perhaps the founding fathers knew that different things would come up over time that taxes could be applied to. The constitutional argument against health care is very weak.

Sorry Linda but interpretation of that term is not in question. You can start by doing a little research of your own.

You could do some research on exactly what that term "General Welfare" actually meant to the founding fathers. Belpow is some information that I have come up with. If you can contradict anything I have, I'd love tpo see it.

Here is the definition from a 1828 Webster’s Dictionary.

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not consistent with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

Now take a look at what Welfare means today.

wel·fare

wel·fare [wél fàir]
n
1. physical, social, and financial well-being: the physical, social, and financial conditions under which somebody may live satisfactorily
2. aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specified income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program
3. See welfare work


adj
1. aiding people in need: concerning or designed to aid people who are poor, unemployed, or in need of assistance in some other way
a welfare agency

2. receiving government aid owing to need: receiving government financial aid or benefits because of income level, unemployment, or other conditions that create a need for assistance
welfare clients

Clearly you can see the difference in the meanings, can you not? Can you not see that our founding fathers had no intention of giving away the farm to in the socialist manner that democrats wish to do today. In the context of the general Welfare, what our founding fathers intended was what was best for ALL Americans, not just a few or select groups. If anything, your intrepretation is completely opposite of the intentions of our founding fathers.

Perhaps the words of the father of the constitution might mean something to you. He clearly states that Congress only has the authority that is expressly given to them by the constitution. Socialist programs is not one of those enumerated responsibilities.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
James Madison,
President of the United States

You can think that the term “general Welfare” is open to interpretation. Unfortunately you are not in step with our founding fathers and what they desired and intended when they created the constitution of the United States of America.

Unless of course you can show me where the founding fathers left another definition for the term “general Welfare” or you can provide information that shows they wanted congress to have the ability to legislate with the purse strings. Or perhaps you have another list of enumerated responsibilities given to Congress that the rest of us know nothing about.

Well Linda fact is that whoever the nominee is will be decided by the so-called super delegates.

Because it is close and mathematically impossible to get enough delegates without them.

Not just Hillary.

Obama cant win without them either.

(especially since the Obama camp insists on disenfranchising the Fla and Mich voters).

And speaking of Kennedy I suspect you are too young to remember but he split the Party and helped elect Ronald Reagan. He is one who thinks he is a cut above us rednecks too.

As for Kerry if he had half the gonads of Hillary we would not have had to endure the last four years of Bush.

I worry that Obama is the same way as Kerry and will let them swiftboat him.