Will we be viewed as racist...

I believe BO will get enpough SD's to switch so that he has the nomination before the convention Sherm. Once again, your side nominates someone more liberal the the previous nominee and I honestly believe come November, you guys will suffer the same fate.

And if you just lean to the left Sherm, I'm the smartest man in the world.

I'll reply to one at a time. Number one Madison's is only one opinion. What then do you believe they meant by general Welfare. If we followed Monroe to the letter as you desire we would have few roads, bridges, freeways or any other means of reliable transportation And if we stick to the literal interpretation neither would we have hardly any airports capable of the international travel that they accomodate today. Yet we did not stick to that. It was the transportation infrastructure which was built piece by piece. (Railroads by Asians brought here for their experience with dynamite) that helped this nation to become as powerful as quickly as it did. Yet in your belief we should as a national government not have done so. Where would we be today? Do you have any ideas?

lindaredtail wrote: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? The government taxed the hell out of employers and the government is responsible for the high cost of health care. They didn't. They did. Nor did the Democratic party. They did. A lot of the problem is the cost of health care. YUP, and that's government's fault. Who controls prescription drug prices? Drug companies do. And government controls what drugs are on the market and what the selling price is for most of them. And what does countries that don't report infant mortality have to do with the ones that did? Nothing. And among those countries we were 27th in the world. Care to cite a url reference to that. 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. WRONG, hospitals and health providers rates increased which forced the insurance companies to increase their premiums. And don't forget, Juries started awarding Gazillion dollar damage$. Just ask John Edwards. Where some of these ideas come from I don't know. Right. But they are not based in fact of any reliability. WRONG. Two years is not very long. Especially when the Congress is not veto proof which I hope will become the result this time. GEEEZUS, they never submitted in Bills to be vetoed. Just a couple more seats to the Democrats and we return to sanity as a nation. You will be awful damn lucky if you make it through this oil crisis. To blame infant deaths on just drug use and life style is not nice and not totally true. THE HELL YA SAY. One can not tell the truth and be nice at the same time. Look at the statistics, the number of "learning disabled" in the schools can be traced to the rise of drug use in the 1970's. Many of those babies HAD NO HEALTH CARE WHILE THEIR MOTHERS WERE PREGNANT. Neither did I or my 10 siblings or millions of other children and their mothers in the 40's, 50' and 60's. Cheers to you to because I will never agree with your conclusions. Illformed and not really valid. Only in your wildest dreams.

Linda, averting your eyes and your mind to the truth, is not a good thing. The repercussions when you finally have to admit to the reality of the truth is more often than not ....... mentally devastating.

cheers

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

Sherm, I know you are in full lovin-eyes mode these days with Hillary, but it was the DNC, not the "Obama camp," that stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates. Should Obama be punished because he followed the party's rules?

Sherman General I agree totally that Kerry should have fought harder. I also believe that the Democratic Party did not help defend him enough as the Republicans did Bush. They allowed him and he allowed himself to be swiftboated. And it should never have been. He was really a decorated serviceman. Where as I live in one of the states where Bush supposedly did some of his National Guard Service. There is not one record here to support that he ever did so. (each state keeps their own National Guard records.) Ted Kennedy is greatly misunderstood. I grew up in MA. and he has done great good for average people and fights endlessly for them. He grew up in wealth but he does concern himself with the little people and so don't many other members of his family. Really they do. I am actually fifty years old. Obama can't win without the superdelegates either but he at least is closer than her. If you look at the numbers even with Florida and Michigan she can't catch him now. She can't. I didn't come on here to upset anyone or to be argumentative. I'm actually enjoying myself. I kind of wanted to give an outside perspective to things. HRC in MY OPINION (you don't have to agree) is not being sincere with the people of WV. Maybe you don't care about image. That's actually a good thing. But she doesn't care about WV's image in America either. Or she wouldn't have said what she said. She would have just come and campaigned and presented herself and her ideas to all of you and let it go as it will. But she didn't do that. She put your state in the middle of a firestorm which she is partly responsible for (and Bill and some Obama supporters) over race in America. Is it someone who is your friend, cares about you, your needs, your concerns, the issues you all face (has she discussed mine safety-she should be it is very importantother job opportunities when mines peter out? ) that puts you in that firestorm? Then after Tuesday leaves for Oregon or Kentucky or South Dakota. As pundits and columnists analyze Wv? Because she started it with her comments without proper concern for the citizens of West Virginia.

SamCogar. Here are your requested url's. www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html and for more and there are several about this finding Google infant mortality rate in the U.S. and you will be able to see numerous entries. So now I ask you to supply me with references for all you've said. Legitimate references as I have just supplied you. I wouldn't consider the Right-Wing Action Committee one.

I came on here to discuss the issue that was at the beginning of this. Re...Will we be viewed as racist... But what happened? The subject did not stay there long when suddenly health care, the constitution and all these other subjects came up. Subjects that are usually the fodder of right-wing conservative Republicans not Democrats. This has been happening on other forums as well. Here in WV discussing the race issue isn't what they want. It might effect HRC's vote on Tuesday if people consider that maybe she did the wrong thing. That is not the subject the right-wingers want Democrats to discuss and they proved it here, today. They want Hillary to win and to cause further division in the Democratic Party. This they see as their only road to victory. Divide and conquer. Rush and Scaife in particular are participating in this. I have to eat and do some things then I will return here later on. Don't be fooled by what people are doing good Democrats of West Virginia.

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.

The business of preachers is to shake up our thinking- to cause us to think about what we think about. Holding a candidate responsible for what his or her preacher said is no more appropriate than holding them responsible for what their spouse said.

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.

What Obamites, specifically, called him a racist? Or was that a contrived interpretation from some sound bite seeking CNN or FOX or Sirus commentator?

Why are we concerned more about what his preacher says or what some unidentified "Obamites" say than about what Obama himself says?

I remember back in 1992 when Charlotte Pritt was runing for the Democratic nomination for governor that she was over around Martinsburg and someone asked her about hemp. She opined that West Virginia should look at hemp, with the idea of eventually developing an industrial hemp industry when and if the federal government ever legalized industrial hemp production. Well within hours the state's airwaves crackled with the "news" that Pritt had advocated the "legalization of marijuana"- and the media took that and ran with it for days- although it had virtually ignored Pritt's campaign until then. But it was just a fabricated sound-bite.

By the way, about 10 years later a Republican state Senator from Jackson County introduced an industrial hemp bill in the WV legislature. That bill passed, and the governor signed it into law- with hardly a peep from the media.

And so when I see the folks on FOX and CNN paying more attention to what Obama's preacher or some Obama pledged super-delegate might have said than to Obama himself, examining every word someone associated with Obama might have said, asking every guest what might be the effect of so and so having said so and so, I am reminded of how the media ignored most of Pritt's many well-developed position papers on a wide variety of issues, but kept poking around for people to comment on the rumor that Charlotte's mother once was a palmist / card reader.

And so I notice here that Sherm grumbles to us about what Sirus says about what Obama's preacher or some other "Obamite" says, but says virtually nothing about Obama himself.

Relevant and timely priorities, where art thou?

Methinks that ShermGeneral has unknowingly become a willing soldier in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos army. And if he doesn't know what Operation Chaos is, then Sherm needs to listen to something other than Sirus Left from time to time.

Sherm has a lot of good ideas and ideals on a lot of issues. But so often those ideals take a back seat to his seemingly blind following of left wing spin machine talking points.

lindaredtail wrote:I'll reply to one at a time. Number one Madison's is only one opinion. What then do you believe they meant by general Welfare. If we followed Monroe to the letter as you desire we would have few roads, bridges, freeways or any other means of reliable transportation And if we stick to the literal interpretation neither would we have hardly any airports capable of the international travel that they accomodate today. Yet we did not stick to that. It was the transportation infrastructure which was built piece by piece. (Railroads by Asians brought here for their experience with dynamite) that helped this nation to become as powerful as quickly as it did. Yet in your belief we should as a national government not have done so. Where would we be today? Do you have any ideas?

I believe Madison's was the general consensus of the time and part of the reason I believe that is the definition of the word 'welfare'. The meaning is clear or do you dispute that?

One interesting tidbit of information about that phase. Did you know that the first draft of the constitution went to what we would refer to as a sub committee and the wording was as follows.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

At that time though and as you can imagine, the government imposing taxes was a bit pof a touchy issue so one of the committee members (from VA I believe) suggested adding the part about the ‘common defense and general Welfare, as a means of explaining WHY the new government was granting itself the power to ‘lay and collect taxes’ and that is why those 5 words appear twice in the Constitution which further demostrates the limited power given to that phrase.

And if what I'm stating weren’t the general consensus of our founding fathers, why do you suppose it took until 1869, long after the founding fathers were all dead and gone, before Congress passed the first spending bill that did not benefit ALL Americans? Couldn’t Congress have passed the same spending bill during Monroe’s presidency that Madison vetoed and if he truly felt as you imply he did, would he have not signed the bill?

What was meant by the term general Welfare is easy. The General Welfare was to provide for the national benefit of ALL states, not just a few or a select group but all states, all people. That is why Madison vetoed the works bill for roads in Tennessee. While it was good for TN, and possibly some other southern states, it certainly didn't benefit ALL citizens, did it?

Railroads of yesterday can be viewed in a somewhat different light. Of course the time you refer to was Lincoln's signing of the Pacific Railway Act in 1862 and his reasoning for signing the bill was at least partially, the common defense of the United States.

Even so, if you disqualify the defensive attributes of the railroad moving west, the underlying question should have been, did it benefit ALL Americans? If the answer is yes, then it was constitutional.

Of course one could also reason that railroads would fall under interstate commerce and thus would fall under the authority of the Federal Government as well.

At any rate, one thing we do know is that the founding fathers main concern and reasoning for a central government was the good of ALL Americans, not just a few. Unfortunately , very few if any social programs meet that criteria.

Perhaps you can reference what Monroe said that you feel gives credence to your argument. I would love to read it.

Randall wrote:

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

Sherm, I know you are in full lovin-eyes mode these days with Hillary, but it was the DNC, not the "Obama camp," that stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates. Should Obama be punished because he followed the party's rules?

Precisely, Randall. Obama followed the party's rules as they were at the time. But Hillary now seeks to overturn those rules for the sake of her own short-term political expediency. Hillary can't be allowed to have it both ways at once.

lindaredtail wrote:I came on here to discuss the issue that was at the beginning of this. Re...Will we be viewed as racist... But what happened? The subject did not stay there long when suddenly health care, the constitution and all these other subjects came up. Subjects that are usually the fodder of right-wing conservative Republicans not Democrats. This has been happening on other forums as well. Here in WV discussing the race issue isn't what they want. It might effect HRC's vote on Tuesday if people consider that maybe she did the wrong thing. That is not the subject the right-wingers want Democrats to discuss and they proved it here, today. They want Hillary to win and to cause further division in the Democratic Party. This they see as their only road to victory. Divide and conquer. Rush and Scaife in particular are participating in this. I have to eat and do some things then I will return here later on. Don't be fooled by what people are doing good Democrats of West Virginia.

You are 100% right Linda. I believe HRC is doing exactly what you are suggesting she is doing and the reasoning is simple. It is her last desperate chance of winning and she will not stop until BO has 2,025 delegates, and then I'm not sure she will concede then. I can see her being dragged from the stage in Denver kicking and screaming and tearing the democratic party right down the middle.

Here's wishing her the best of luck.

As for West Virginians, I am sorry to say that I feel Hillary will be successful in playing the race card. I believe a large percentage, as much as 20 to 30%, will not vote for BO simply because he is black and that is sad.

I believe we as West Virginians should withhold our vote for him not because he's black (I would personally still vote for Colin Powell), I think we should not vote for him because, like Hillary (and John Kerry and Al Gore) he's a big government socialist and the bulk of his proposals are unconstitutional, including universal health care.

Randall wrote:

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

Sherm, I know you are in full lovin-eyes mode these days with Hillary, but it was the DNC, not the "Obama camp," that stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates. Should Obama be punished because he followed the party's rules?

Imagine the drama had both of those states held there primaries this month? If WV is suddenly so important nationally, think of what constested elections in FL AND MI would mean to both campaigns right now.

As a result, do you think this will cause more states to be willing to move elections until later in the cycle in upcoming years?

Aaron wrote:I believe BO will get enpough SD's to switch so that he has the nomination before the convention Sherm. Once again, your side nominates someone more liberal the the previous nominee and I honestly believe come November, you guys will suffer the same fate.

Could be.

On the other hand, the Democrats arguably could have won had Gore and Kerry not been so soft on real liberal values of economic fairness and social justice that the voters went for Guns and God rather than for Social Justice and the General Welfare of all the people of the United States.

I am no longer a Democrat- because today's Democratic Party pretends to be so many things to so many political factions that is effectively without any solid principles. But if I were a Democrat, I would rather my party know what its principles are and stick to those and lose than to abandon its principles and still lose. And as for winning, there is no point in winning if one has no principles to assert once in office.

Aaron, from Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe Version. United States (History) Federal and State governments had long encouraged the growth of railroads. When Congress authorized the building of the transcontinental railroad in 1862 it agreed to loan hundreds of millions of dollars to the two corporations to construct it. Congress also gave the railroad companies millions of acres of Western land which the railroads sold to repay their loans. In affect major railroad companies with federal support became colonizers of the West. That is am entire exact quote. Now a question. You don't believe in any kind of entiltlement programs being constitutional.The loans were repaid. But the federal government GAVE two corporations millions of acres of land. This was very early on in the history of our nation. So how was that constitutional by the standard you are setting? It isn't.

And Aaron would you say that giving millions of acres of land to two corporations benefitted the few or the many. (sounds like a Star Trek Convention)

Hi Ziggy you seem pretty cool. I don't know if you have been following this but I came on because I have traveled in West Virginia and really like the people. I didn't like the idea that I felt that HRC was using the people of WV to make a point that is less than honorable, I'll say. She should have just gone to West Virginia and campaigned. She knows that she leads there. Accepted the victory and moved on. Instead she has put WV in a bad place. To perhaps be seen by many as racist if the state goes for her. But her point was to prove to the superdelegates that BO can not get white votes which really is not true. IA, Vt, Me and several other places are certainly not teeming with minority voters coming out for him. My thought was that would someone who really cared about WV and its people do this to you? I don't think so. I believe that Democrats in WV should really consider before they vote. Not be fooled and not be used.

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.

So the state, the nation, is to be assured "welfare"- the economic and other social plights of its people be damned? Hell, that was/is the working philosophy of the U.S.S.R. and other "the state is superior" regimes.

And it could be reasonably suggested that the government of Burma refuses outside typhoon relief workers, lest its peoples (and the outside world) come to realize that the sitting government is more master than servant- considering itself to be the superior of its peoples- and their welfare be damned.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Ziggy, I also believe that Charlotte Pritt who you mentioned is a good example of what has been done to BO and unfairly. He is the least wealthy of the candidates. He gave up high-paying positions to work in the community. Not many people do that. Hillary certainly didn't and neither did McCain. His claim to fame is his military record and being a POW which I respect. I believe firmly that the coverage of BO has been way over the top. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why. Andrea Mitchell came out after PA and stated clearly that their polling data showed that 13% of those polled stated that race was a factor in their decision which is very sad. It says that America still has a journey ahead before all Americans are considered equal by all Americans. Considering that BO only lost PA by 10 % points take out the racists and he wins there.

lindaredtail wrote:Hi Ziggy you seem pretty cool. I don't know if you have been following this but I came on because I have traveled in West Virginia and really like the people. I didn't like the idea that I felt that HRC was using the people of WV to make a point that is less than honorable, I'll say. She should have just gone to West Virginia and campaigned. She knows that she leads there. Accepted the victory and moved on. Instead she has put WV in a bad place. To perhaps be seen by many as racist if the state goes for her. But her point was to prove to the superdelegates that BO can not get white votes which really is not true. IA, Vt, Me and several other places are certainly not teeming with minority voters coming out for him. My thought was that would someone who really cared about WV and its people do this to you? I don't think so. I believe that Democrats in WV should really consider before they vote. Not be fooled and not be used.

Oh, I believe that HRC is for Hillary first, and that West Virginia is simply her current most convenient political testing ground. That's what politics is for Clintons- a perpetual electoral testing and tinkering and tweaking enterprise.

lindaredtail wrote:Aaron, from Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe Version. United States (History) Federal and State governments had long encouraged the growth of railroads. When Congress authorized the building of the transcontinental railroad in 1862 it agreed to loan hundreds of millions of dollars to the two corporations to construct it. Congress also gave the railroad companies millions of acres of Western land which the railroads sold to repay their loans. In affect major railroad companies with federal support became colonizers of the West. That is am entire exact quote. Now a question. You don't believe in any kind of entiltlement programs being constitutional.The loans were repaid. But the federal government GAVE two corporations millions of acres of land. This was very early on in the history of our nation. So how was that constitutional by the standard you are setting? It isn't.

You'll have to reference what you're talking about so I can read upon it. Just off the top of my head, I would question if any of the land given was under contrpol of the federal governemnt and/or any states. That very well could have some bearing but until I read what your talking about, it's hard to form an opinion on it.

I will say that throughout history, our government has many times taken action that are not, or are at best questionable in regards to constitutionality. That neither makes any of those actions right or creates grounds for future unconstitutional actions.

She can't win now though. No formula that I have seen can give her victory. She could only succeed if something comes up that forces Obama out of the race and I do not believe that will happen. He has faced the storm and weathered it. A bit battered but he has weathered it. She can only succeed now in harming her own party and that is terrible. I know that if I were a West Virginian I would not vote for her. Her intentions in your state have been dishonorable. I would not want to be used that way. And the point she wants to make is abhorrent and should be rejected.

I will say that throughout history, our government has many times taken action that are not, or are at best questionable in regards to constitutionality. That neither makes any of those actions right or creates grounds for future unconstitutional actions.

But it does help set precedent as to the working definitions and historic meanings of what kinds of federal actions have been considered to be in the general welfare.

Aaron do you have an Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe Version. That is from the article entitled United States (History) I have the entire program on disc and I also have the standard version which does not contain anywhere near as much information. Congress at the time could not have considered that to be Unconstitutional or they would not have passed the legislation. So Monroe was not always followed.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I believe BO will get enpough SD's to switch so that he has the nomination before the convention Sherm. Once again, your side nominates someone more liberal the the previous nominee and I honestly believe come November, you guys will suffer the same fate.

Could be.

On the other hand, the Democrats arguably could have won had Gore and Kerry not been so soft on real liberal values of economic fairness and social justice that the voters went for Guns and God rather than for Social Justice and the General Welfare of all the people of the United States.

I am no longer a Democrat- because today's Democratic Party pretends to be so many things to so many political factions that is effectively without any solid principles. But if I were a Democrat, I would rather my party know what its principles are and stick to those and lose than to abandon its principles and still lose. And as for winning, there is no point in winning if one has no principles to assert once in office.

Could have, should have, would have. Had I been born rich instead of beautiful I wouldn't be on the computer on a Saturday night either. Or if a frog had wings, he wouldn't be a bumping his behind every time he jumped either, would he!!!

The only thing you're close on here is the lack of democratic principals. At least we agree on something.

For the record, I used to be a democrat as well. Then I started reading and studying the constitution, what it meant and what our founding fathers meant when they put words to paper. What I didn't find was grounds or intent by them for any of your socialist programs, including your misguided interpretation of the general Welfare Clause.

Ziggy I think the difference we are seeing here is the difference between a literal interpretation and a less literal one of the constitution. I believe that general Welfare could apply to many things in many ways. That Monroe's is only one philosophy. We weren't there inside the Founding Fathers heads to know what they meant or wanted. Or if their vision of America was progressive and I believe that it was. That the Constitution is a dynamic document that needs to be looked at always in the light of moderation and reason. The view Aaron has presented is the Scalia view. Mine is more the John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg view. I do not believe that the Constitution is a stagnant vehicle of governance. It must always be looked at anew. There were no social service agencies when the Constitution was written. Would they have not wanted any tax monies to be used to help the poor? We really don't know the answer to that.