Will we be viewed as racist...

More of the same. If you dont vote for Obama they will say you are racist.

What is Obama for that is better than Clinton.?

Go down the issues and tell me point for point.

Neither are "progressive" enough for me.

My choice was Edwards, but he was a compromise. Because I thot he had a chance and Kucinich did not.

For example, tell me how Obama's Health Care plan is better than Clinton's.

(You can't because it's not.)

"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."

Imagine if Clinton supporters hired someone to come on here and say that.

ziggy wrote:

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.

I'm not speaking of any social programs here. The first thing that comes to mind is the Louisiana purchase. At the time, Jefferson considered it potentially unconstitutional but he felt it was in America's best interest to have the land instead of France or Spain having it, thus having the ability to block trade through New Orleans.

After that, every undeclared war we've entered into. But imo, there is no precedence that can be set to justify socialist programs, regardless of just how much a word or the meaning has been distorted and prostituted out. Clearly those go against the intent of our founding fathers and are in no way constitutional.

I can change the meaning of the word 'poop' to mean 'delicious healthy food'. If I get enough people to buy into it, does that mean you're going to eat it?

lindaredtail wrote: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.

No I don't. I tried some research but I'm coming upo with very little. As I said, if you can provide a URL, I'll give it a read.

shermangeneral wrote:More of the same. If you dont vote for Obama they will say you are racist.

What is Obama for that is better than Clinton.?

Go down the issues and tell me point for point.

Neither are "progressive" enough for me.

My choice was Edwards, but he was a compromise. Because I thot he had a chance and Kucinich did not.

For example, tell me how Obama's Health Care plan is better than Clinton's.

(You can't because it's not.)

The difference for me, Sherm, is that somehow I believe that Clinton is more for Clinton and the "Democratic Party"- whatever that is any more- and Obama is more for more of the real people. In other words, I feel that Obama is more sincerly progressive than is Clinton. I realize that saying I feel it is not the same as saying that I think it. But sometimes we need to trust our feelings- especially in the absence of more substance.

I don't know why you are hung up on the tit-for-tat racism charges thing. For me that's not important either way. Should it be?

lindaredtail wrote: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.

Yes we do. There were serious social issues at that time, including slavery. We have what the founding fathers aggreed was the best vehicle for dealing with such issues; by letting the individual states have authority. They knew that what was best for MA wasn't necessary in the best interest of the citizens of GA, thus their view was for each state to take care of their own and to grant VERY limited powers to the central government, which they listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

ShermanGeneral I was not hired by anyone. I came on here because I wanted to. I have found the discussion here to be wonderful and very enjoyable. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get my computer to paste and quote as coolly as all of you. Makes me feel a bit inadequate. I'm not saying his policies are better than hers. The majority of their ideas are very similar (except the gas tax) It is the premise that she is using that disturbs me. That white voters will not vote for Barack Obama. That is disturbing to me. Very disturbing and distasteful. I enjoyed your state and hate to see it used in this way. I don't understand why you don't comprehend that. At the beginning I liked Edwards, Clinton and Obama. I was undecided. Edwards dropped out. Then HRC started to play her games. It was only after that that I chose Obama. In South Carolina Bill Clinton made commentary that many (not just African-Americans )felt were racial code words which is a way of identifying yourself as agreeing with racists but not outwardly so. It is something that has been going on for quite some time and groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center track the use of racial code words by elected officials or those running for office. Some said Bill is not a racist. But the question is was he willing to play with racists to get her a victory. Then her own commentary. (Hillary's). Imagine that African-Americans were the majority race in America. Barack Obama and his wife came out and said People will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is white. Kind of gives you a chill doesn't it? To be on the other side of that? That is my issue with her now. I can not abide that kind of behavior. It leaves me with great trepidation about her.

Aaron. I own the program. It is on discs which I purchased. I then installed it. I am attempting to think of a way to get it to you.

At that time slavery was not considered a social issue. It became that afterwards. We were not even a nation to have what would be considered social issues. Slavery was considered an acceptable practice. Some of the founding fathers like Jefferson and Washington held slaves. They certainly weren't looking to give government funds to aid them in any way. What other social issues did we have at the time?

shermangeneral wrote:More of the same. If you dont vote for Obama they will say you are racist.

What is Obama for that is better than Clinton.?

Go down the issues and tell me point for point.

Neither are "progressive" enough for me.

My choice was Edwards, but he was a compromise. Because I thot he had a chance and Kucinich did not.

For example, tell me how Obama's Health Care plan is better than Clinton's.

(You can't because it's not.)

You know Sherm, I'm a little surprised at you. Now you're backing Hillary the Horrible. She is threatening another nation with total obliteration for something they might do in the future.......not to the USA, but to another nation. Obama, for all his many faults, holds foreign policy views much more closely aligned to those you frequently espouse here.

Thomas Jefferson recommended that every generation should consider amending the Constitution to reflect its current prevailing political principles. That the Constitution has been amended so little tells us that we are not as out of step with the founders as some would suggest. The constitutional system works.

Those who declare this and that to be "unconstitutional" simply seek to substitute their own judgments for those of the Courts- which are appointed by the Constiitution to decide conflicts in matters of the law and of the Constitution.

Hi Stephanie. I seem to somehow have upset ShermanGeneral without meaning to. I came on because I wanted to talk to some of the people of West Virginia. I have traveled there and felt that Hillary was wrongfully using the people of your state. I just wanted to give an outside point of view. I didn't mean to upset anyone. I could once have supported her. But too many things now have left me with a bad feeling. Sometimes as Ziggy said you have to go with that feeling. And I am. I continually also say and what about Doug Coe and no one answers me. Either he has done an absolutely tremendous job of hiding himself and his connection to the powerful like Hillary that no one knows about him, or everyone is too nervous to discuss him. As BO was called out about Wright so HRC should be about Coe. He makes Wright look like a choir boy. Hillary has belonged to one of his groups since the 1990's.

Hi Linda.....welcome to the forum! I'm so excited to have another woman. Yippeee!!! OK, you're a liberal, so you need some work. LOL

I'm a transplant from RI. I will say this about average West Virginians I have encountered and race....collectively they are more racist than their counterparts in southern New England. I think in large part that may just be because they don't have a whole lot of exposure to people of other races. This is an extremely white state and most of the minorities, particular black Americans, seem concentrated to the cities. My daughter's tiny high school doesn't have a single student of African decent. There are a couple of Asians (the Toyota plant is in this school district) and one student born in South America who was adopted. That's it.

Hillary is a user, always has been always will be. She's out for Hillary. She will use West Virginians if she can without remorse. I am tickled pink Obama is beating her, not that he's going to get my vote either. Of course, John McCain won't be getting my vote in this lifetime either so it's all good. I'm voting for Ron Paul on Tuesday.

BTW......If you're interested in reading what a physician has to say about the crisis in healthcare in this country, Dr. Paul has written extensively on the subject. I do not believe universal healthcare is something our federal government should be doing. I believe it is unConstitutional and wrong for America. I don't believe it will solve our problems or improve things for most Americans.

I admire Obama for his willingness to have dialogue with nations and leaders who for so long have been completely left out of the diplomatic process by our government. How will we ever find common ground and improve relations if we aren't at least willing to sit down and talk to one another?

I hope my friends here on this forum forgive me for my candor on the race issue. I have seen no indication that any of my fellow posters are hateful, or wish harm to other people. My impressions come from the people I have encountered in my little rural corner of WV, and that of the region where my husband grew up. They aren't bad people, they just haven't had the opportunity to get to know very many people that don't "look" like they do.

lindaredtail wrote:Hi Stephanie. I seem to somehow have upset ShermanGeneral without meaning to. I came on because I wanted to talk to some of the people of West Virginia. I have traveled there and felt that Hillary was wrongfully using the people of your state. I just wanted to give an outside point of view. I didn't mean to upset anyone. I could once have supported her. But too many things now have left me with a bad feeling. Sometimes as Ziggy said you have to go with that feeling. And I am. I continually also say and what about Doug Coe and no one answers me. Either he has done an absolutely tremendous job of hiding himself and his connection to the powerful like Hillary that no one knows about him, or everyone is too nervous to discuss him. As BO was called out about Wright so HRC should be about Coe. He makes Wright look like a choir boy. Hillary has belonged to one of his groups since the 1990's.

Sherm is a kind and decent man. We've "known" each other for about 15 months and I am genuinely fond of him. BUT.......

Sherm is easily offended. He takes everything personally. I believe Sherm knows I like him. I think everyone here realizes I am fond of Sherm, but I view this as his problem not yours, not mine. It's almost as though he needs to develop a thicker skin. This amazes me considering the sorts of occupations he has held in his lifetime. I would think he could just let everything roll right off his back.

I agree Ziggy with Jefferson's idea. And we really haven't changed the Constitution very much. I do not believe that the Founding Fathers held a literal view. They actually changed it themselves by adding the Bill of Rights. Do I think that they did not ever want government funds to be used to help the poor. I do not. Do I think that they thought the Constitution would never be changed. I do not. If that is the case why did they leave us a recipe to amend it? Why give Congress the power to make legislation? Or create a court to interpret it? The Scalia view is a view of total rigidity incapable of compromise. Or compassion.

lindaredtail wrote:At that time slavery was not considered a social issue. It became that afterwards. We were not even a nation to have what would be considered social issues. Slavery was considered an acceptable practice. Some of the founding fathers like Jefferson and Washington held slaves. They certainly weren't looking to give government funds to aid them in any way. What other social issues did we have at the time?

Slavery was THE social issue of the times and threatened to totally tear apart the constitutional convention. Northern state delegates wanted to address the issue, southern state delegates wanted to leave it alone; both sides threatened to walk. That is part pf the reason there was a 20 year moratorium placed on ending the slave trade.

Other issues were high taxes to retire the Revolutionary war debt, Shay’s rebellion was a direct result of home foreclosures and high mortgages, there was high unemployment and poverty issues.

Granted, there wasn’t near the issues we face today but that is in part due to the fact that those of that time didn’t expect the government to spo7lve all of their problems for them.

Stephanie wrote:I'm a transplant from RI. I will say this about average West Virginians I have encountered and race....collectively they are more racist than their counterparts in southern New England. I think in large part that may just be because they don't have a whole lot of exposure to people of other races. This is an extremely white state and most of the minorities, particular black Americans, seem concentrated to the cities.

I have been a West Virginian all my life- first as a youngster in a lilly white rural northern Kanawha County community, then as a student at a formerly segregated black college, then as a salesman treveling all over the state, and now again, as a resident of almost totally white Jackson County.

I believe that Stephanie's assessment is right on. West Virginians as a whole are moderately to mildly racist- though less so than 50 years ago. Some few were / still are overtly severly racist. Others less so- perhaps being so mostly as a reflection of their perceptions of peer expectations- and others not at all.

And I am almost always suspicious of an individual's denials of racism. I figure that if he or she feels a need to deny it, there is a reason for that feeling. And I try to be cognizant of my own potential for racism. Unrecognization of one's own natural racism is perhaps the biggest obstacle to overcoming it.

Yes Stephanie I would like to read some of Dr. Paul's writings. I know that he has many strong supporters and I hope he and them (you) do not let McCain off the hook easily. I felt so badly when I saw what Hillary was saying and then came to WV. I am from MA.originally so I know about RI. I lived there for some years. (small world) I know that WV are good people and I enjoyed traveling there. I didn't get to know a lot but liked what I did. I found it reprehensible that she would say "white blue collars voters won't vote for him" just before she came to WV. That seems very calculating to me. She knows the demographics (of that I am sure) that she has a lead there, that there are few African-Americans. She is using WV to prove a point in what is a really dishonorable fashion. It just gives me a chill where she is taking us to. Backwards. Not forwards. I wish sometimes that the superdelegates would just make her drop out. I agree with the points you made. Obliterating Iran comes from her connection to the Coe group which is also unnerving. I hope that WVirginians will really look at things. See what she is doing. I think if they did the good people of WV would not vote for her on Tuesday.

Aaron I know that slavery was an issue but it was a political issue not a social issue. High taxes were due to the British government which was now defeated. The issues were not nearly like today's.

ziggy wrote:Thomas Jefferson recommended that every generation should consider amending the Constitution to reflect its current prevailing political principles. That the Constitution has been amended so little tells us that we are not as out of step with the founders as some would suggest. The constitutional system works.

Those who declare this and that to be "unconstitutional" simply seek to substitute their own judgments for those of the Courts- which are appointed by the Constiitution to decide conflicts in matters of the law and of the Constitution.

So if democrats want universal health care, why not amend the constitution, as Jefferson suggested, and make it a constitutional right?

Or are you aware that such an amendment has been proposed at least 3 times and has went nowhere!!!

I think we all have to be careful of racism. Like you Ziggy I look at myself. I came to realize that I did not distinguish one black person from another very well which can be a component of racism which has been studied. I think though (and hope) that West Virginians are sincere enough that they can really look at all of this before Tuesday. Even if he comes close as in IN that would say something. How many points is she ahead there. I've only seen national numbers and nothing recent. I think it would be good for WV too.

lindaredtail wrote:Aaron I know that slavery was an issue but it was a political issue not a social issue. High taxes were due to the British government which was now defeated. The issues were not nearly like today's.

Linda, Aaron and I don't agree on very much at all. But I have come to realize that he is better read on American history than many of us are. So be careful that you don't underestimate him. His conclusions are often inane. But his knowledge of historical facts is sometimes remarkable- especially in view of his less than remarkable conclusions.

lindaredtail wrote:I agree Ziggy with Jefferson's idea. And we really haven't changed the Constitution very much. I do not believe that the Founding Fathers held a literal view. They actually changed it themselves by adding the Bill of Rights. Do I think that they did not ever want government funds to be used to help the poor. I do not. Do I think that they thought the Constitution would never be changed. I do not. If that is the case why did they leave us a recipe to amend it? Why give Congress the power to make legislation? Or create a court to interpret it? The Scalia view is a view of total rigidity incapable of compromise. Or compassion.

Madison and many others were vehemently against the Bill of Rights. The ONLY reason they agreed to it was because New York would not have ratified the Constitution without such a guarantee. All states after New York demanded the same concession in exchange for ratification.

And as I said to Frank, if you want universal health care, why not ammend the constitution and make it a guranteed right?

ziggy wrote:

lindaredtail wrote:Aaron I know that slavery was an issue but it was a political issue not a social issue. High taxes were due to the British government which was now defeated. The issues were not nearly like today's.

Linda, Aaron and I don't agree on very much at all. But I have come to realize that he is better read on American history than many of us are. So be careful that you don't underestimate him. His conclusions are often inane. But his knowledge of historical facts is sometimes remarkable- especially in view of his less than remarkable conclusions.

As it should have read!!!

Aaron wrote:So if democrats want universal health care, why not amend the constitution, as Jefferson suggested, and make it a constitutional right?

So if Republicans don't want income redistribution (aka "welfare") why not amend the Constitution to disallow it?

Universal Health Care is not unconstitutional. When / if it ever is, we can look at it again in that light.