She asked a question that left him practically speechless and shut down his talking point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia75o5IO3xo&feature=email

Yes, since the Democrats were the ones that held to slavery, her point was um...

pointless. and tactless. Even Walters was kind of at a loss on how to proceed after that, and she even made a comment about "us white folk..." Whoopi threw everyone off.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She asked a question that left him practically
> speechless and shut down his talking point.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia75o5IO3xo&feature
> =email

Apparently Miss Goldberg has never heard of the 13th Amendment. If she had, she would not have to worry about being a slave. He was probably speechless because he was amazed that an african-americam woman in this country who is on a talk show interviewing high-profile people has never heard of the 13th Amendment. Amendments to the constitution are treated as if they are part of the original text for constitutional law purposes, so her question is moot and unintelligent.

A more on the toes McCain would have responded that she just proved his point. That when there is a situation that needs addressing, like slavery or abortion, the most proper way to accomplish that is through the amendment process. SCOTUS did not make slavery illegal through a decision, the people did it through the lawful and constitutional process.

you f'in idiot, McCain kept saying "founding fathers" and interpretation. No founding father was around for the 13th amendment. Whoopi even framed her statement by acknowledging changes after the constitution was ratified.

What was the point of her statement other than to bring racism into the discussion? None. Her point was stupid. Americans didn't go through a Civil War and endless years of internal strife to hammer out amendments and Civil Rights laws just because they thought it was fun. Her statement is just another example of the Reverend Wright mentality running around in the minds of ignorant people that want to keep fanning the flames of racism.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you f'in idiot, McCain kept saying "founding
> fathers" and interpretation. No founding father
> was around for the 13th amendment. Whoopi even
> framed her statement by acknowledging changes
> after the constitution was ratified.

Personal insults aside, he mentioned founding fathers exactly once. He said, "the way the founding fathers envisioned." The founding fathers envisioned amending the Constitution by authoring and ratifying Article V. The first 10 Amendments were passed when most, if not all, founding fathers were alive in the manner they envisioned. Whether or not they were alive after that is immaterial. All the way up through the 27th Amedment is the way the founding fathers envisioned amending the constitution. Her question was unintelligent and supporting the question is illogical.

For the record, more slaves were freed, not by the 13th Ammedment, but by Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, as Executive Orders, years earlier.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the record, more slaves were freed, not by the
> 13th Ammedment, but by Abraham Lincoln's
> Emancipation Proclamation, as Executive Orders,
> years earlier.

That has nothing to do with it. The Emancipation Proclamation freed only existing slaves in confederate states. And, as such would be inapplicable to Miss Goldberg. The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal in perpetuity or until it is repealed. It is wholly illogical to bring the Proclamation into this discussion.

The point being made wasnt about slavery at all...the point is the constitution cannot only be interpreted as the founding fathers wrote them...interpretations of the document are and should be within a modern context. Many of the "legislated" progress made in this country in the second half of the 20th century can be attributed to the golden age of the Supreme Court. What McSame double speak is nothing more then an attempt to turn back the clock. Legislated decisons such as..seperate does not/cannot equate to equal...protection from abusive police interrogations...reproductive privacy are all at risk.

If thats the country you want to live in...vote for McSame...maybe we'll see rioting in the streets again as the under represented learn the constitution no longer protects the rights of minorities...and that pure democracy..the oppression of the minority by the majority is once again the rule of law. But then again be careful..as Ive stated before..its a mere 42 years when the current majority will be a minority and if they are as mean spirited as the European whites have proven to be...watch out!

Could the importance of this election be any clearer? Please, do more then just whine! Donate your time...your money to help elect Obama!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2008 11:55PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point being made wasnt about slavery at
> all...the point is the constitution cannot only be
> interpreted as the founding fathers wrote
> them...interpretations of the document are and
> should be within a modern context. Many of the
> "legislated" progress made in this country in the
> second half of the 20th century can be attributed
> to the golden age of the Supreme Court. What
> McSame double speak is nothing more then an
> attempt to turn back the clock. Legislated
> decisons such as..seperate does not/cannot equate
> to equal...protection from abusive police
> interrogations...reproductive privacy are all at
> risk.

Well Sheeeiit! Vince! I gotsta ax ya bro, is we goinsta gets us
a Muslim Presydent afta all? I mean sheeeiit!

There is nothing mean spirited about European whites. What a crock.

I could go into a dissertation on where the practice of slavery started, and why it was practiced, and what it meant when started, but I won't. Also, the thought that somehow ALL white people are mean spirited to people of other races is yet another broad-term racist comment that has been promoted by the democrats for years to keep minorities "on their side". It has evidently been very effective as a tactic, since you still see black people call other black people "uncle tom's" when they actual show the intellect to understand that yes, they can succeed in America by applying hard work and becoming educated.

The reason you see such rampant reverse racism today is because of the rise of multiculturalism, and the attempt to divide America by promoting the embrace of a "my race, your race" attitude instead of trying to give everyone a solid basis in the commonality of our lives in America, and then emphasizing how we got here, the steps we have taken to this point, and the things we still need to do to improve how people of different races relate to each other. That has been totally taken off track by the education system working overtime to embrace and teach the "theology" of multiculturalism and similar issues, rather than keeping to the point of education, and teaching the foundations required for children to learn to reason and make sound judgments as they become more mature. Instead, we start teaching divisive topics before the kids even get old enough to understand why, and you start building resentments and reasons for resentments. If we truly want to become a nation where race is not an issue, we have to stop emphasizing the teaching of racial issues before reading, writing and arithmetic.

Can a black man or woman, Hispanic, Asian or otherwise be elected to President of the US today? Absolutely. Are there elements in this country that work to derail those opportunities? Surely.

Obama has to be judged by his background since he really has little else in his current record to show his beliefs on love of country, and how he will act in differing situations. Much like Sarah Palin is being pressed on her religious views and beliefs on gun ownership (shaped by where and how she has lived), Obama should have been examined by the MSM in the same way - yet they have glossed over the Reverend Wright issue (and I am sorry, but it would be amazing for a man to have shaped his religious upbringing for all these years, and yet he never attended a sermon where Reverend Wright expressed the views we have seen in the clips), they have not really examined the mans beliefs in regards to the folks he had associated with (much like Sarah Palin in-depth discussions), and they have not brought up the failures of his time in Chicago where he was on the board of the organization charged with making changes in the school system. He is out here now saying he wants to reform education, and yet the only background I know of was his association with a failing effort in Chicago. Yet MSM never covers that at all. It is almost like they believe his memiors have been read by everyone in the US, and we should all know Obama's background already since he wrote about it himself.

This election is not about racism, but at every turn that is what gets put out by folks that support Obama (see Whoopi's comment, and the comments in papers about how we will have rioting if he is not elected). If that isn't fear mongering I don't know what is.

Whoopi Goldberg was wrong. There were Constitutional Amendments that eliminated slavery. That said, the U.S. had to Amend the Constitution because the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court set the legal precedent for it. Since Roberts, Alito, etc., say they believe in precedent and will support it (the way William Rehnquist ultimately did) technically speaking it should take a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. At least, that's how a "strict Constructionist" should view it. Of course, I think these guys are full of B.S. and will come up with any excuse they can, including designating abortion as murder so states can't pass their own abortion laws.

I really dont think that was the point Whoopi was trying to make...she is not a stupid person. McSame was saying over and over aging that he would appoint judges that interpreted the Constitution as intended by the "founding fathers". Her point was..I think..that the founding fathers did not create a perfect document...and that amandments to the constitution and specifically judicial precedent are perfectly legitimate processes to amend that less then perfect document.

And of course the current Supreme Court will over turn Roe vs Wade at the first chance they get. They are as activist a court as there has ever been. You just have to look at their recent 2nd amendment decison to see how willingly they inject their political bias into the court's decision. Choice opponents are just waiting and developing the "perfect" case to bring the issue up again. They will then get a 2-bit state (like Idaho) puppet legislature to pass a law they can bring to the Supreme Court.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoopi Goldberg was wrong. There were
> Constitutional Amendments that eliminated slavery.
> That said, the U.S. had to Amend the Constitution
> because the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme
> Court set the legal precedent for it. Since
> Roberts, Alito, etc., say they believe in
> precedent and will support it (the way William
> Rehnquist ultimately did) technically speaking it
> should take a Constitutional Amendment to overturn
> Roe v. Wade. At least, that's how a "strict
> Constructionist" should view it. Of course, I
> think these guys are full of B.S. and will come up
> with any excuse they can, including designating
> abortion as murder so states can't pass their own
> abortion laws.

By your own definition, Dred Scott setup the precent for the amendment. In this case if Roe V Wade should stand as a principle applied to all States, it should be an amendment as well.

The fact is, the country was founded on the State having more authority on these issues - Unless the Constitution is amended to reflect a change if it is supposed to apply to ALL States - that is the way it is supposed to work - period.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really dont think that was the point Whoopi was
> trying to make...she is not a stupid person.
> McSame was saying over and over aging that he
> would appoint judges that interpreted the
> Constitution as intended by the "founding
> fathers". Her point was..I think..that the
> founding fathers did not create a perfect
> document...and that amandments to the constitution
> and specifically judicial precedent are perfectly
> legitimate processes to amend that less then
> perfect document.
>
> And of course the current Supreme Court will over
> turn Roe vs Wade at the first chance they get.
> They are as activist a court as there has ever
> been. You just have to look at their recent 2nd
> amendment decison to see how willingly they inject
> their political bias into the court's decision.
> Choice opponents are just waiting and developing
> the "perfect" case to bring the issue up again.
> They will then get a 2-bit state (like Idaho)
> puppet legislature to pass a law they can bring to
> the Supreme Court.

Roe V Wade, much like Marriage between a man and a woman, should be a State issue. If we want something like this to apply to all States (that they cannot make abortion illegal) then there should be an amendment as such. Otherwise each State should be able to set laws for this (abortion, or marriage between only a man and a woman or otherwise) as applicable, within regards to other facets of their own constitutions. In many States they cannot make a law to that end because their constitution might prohibit it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2008 09:59AM by Registered Voter.

Dear Registered...European history is filled with the mentality of might makes right...their historiacal persecution of jews..Muslims is second to no other society on the face of the earth...and there is plenty of competition for the honor. That mentality has certainly been transferred to this country..our native Americans..blacks and every other minority can atest to that. No where in our history is there the "cumba-ya" spirit you try to describe in white America. We have kicked and screamed every inch of the way...and is still very much alive. One example...no group resisted...rioted...against blacks being freed then the Irish Catholics. Historically at the bottom rung of society themselves they felt most threatened by black cheap labor. And who today is Obama having his toughest time with..Catholics...Of course now their argument is with "life begins at conception" BS.

The republikan party in every sense represents the fears of white amerika as they are kicked and dragged into a world where they are not the majority...references to small town values is nothing more racist rants!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2008 10:00AM by Vince(1).

As is the thought that large Cities reflect the values of the rest of America. One reason why they setup the Electoral College which many Democrats have advocated scrapping.

Dear Registered...the republikan party would certainly love to push every issue they want overturned bact to the states. That is nothing more then an attempt to divide and conquer on every issue where the oppression of the minority by the majority can be best implemented. Issue like Choice...seperate but equal education...voting rights..were all historical "state issues"...all code word for racist/sexist attitudes.

When the same logic was recently used on the recent 2nd Amendment Supreme Court decison no group squealed more then the gun lovers on how horrible it would be if states had the right to ban guns! So..you can take your ever so polite radical attitudes out of your ass and show them for what they are...the rantings of a radical right wing republikan!

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As is the thought that large Cities reflect the
> values of the rest of America. One reason why they
> setup the Electoral College which many Democrats
> have advocated scrapping.

Proof..that our founding fathers cherished the idea that minority opinions needed as much protection as any in a democracy.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Registered...the republikan party would
> certainly love to push every issue they want
> overturned bact to the states. That is nothing
> more then an attempt to divide and conquer on
> every issue where the oppression of the minority
> by the majority can be best implemented. Issue
> like Choice...seperate but equal
> education...voting rights..were all historical
> "state issues"...all code word for racist/sexist
> attitudes.
>
> When the same logic was recently used on the
> recent 2nd Amendment Supreme Court decison no
> group squealed more then the gun lovers on how
> horrible it would be if states had the right to
> ban guns! So..you can take your ever so polite
> radical attitudes out of your ass and show them
> for what they are...the rantings of a radical
> right wing republikan!


And as usual, when I make an argument you can't easily refute - the name calling begins.

The 2nd amendment is much of the same. They passed that amendment because the only way you can ensure that the People maintain their right to be free, they must be able to bear arms. They realized when they put the Constitution in place, that if they allowed for a banning of weapons it would be impossible for the people to be taken seriously. If only the government and the military have the right to bear arms, then how do the people maintain their freedom? Trust? It has been pretty well established that human nature can lead to situations where trust is not all it is put up to be.

If you ever studied history, you would see that borne out in governments of the past - one reason they took many of these issues into account when they setup our government. They were trying to build on the best lessons they had learned from the past. It seems these days it is not in vogue to teach history in any depth to kids in school, thus this serious lack of knowledge on what the world was like before the US was established. Now you have revisionists coming along and changing school books to make the lessons even more vague and worthless. I guess if you can't study history, or only warped history, it makes it easy to ignore the lessons of the past.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As is the thought that large Cities reflect the
> > values of the rest of America. One reason why
> they
> > setup the Electoral College which many
> Democrats
> > have advocated scrapping.
>
> Proof..that our founding fathers cherished the
> idea that minority opinions needed as much
> protection as any in a democracy.

In elections that is true. And in the setup of a Representative Democracy that is also true. Also why States have Senators and not just Representatives. The minority view of the States was always important at the Federal level - much like States were setup in a similar way internally to reflect minority issues in those venues. That is why the STATES were supposed to have local control over their issues, and the Federal Government less control, UNLESS a Constitutional Amendment mandated a change - thus the ratification process, etc.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As is the thought that large Cities reflect the
> values of the rest of America. One reason why they
> setup the Electoral College which many Democrats
> have advocated scrapping.


And many Repubs advocate fighting wars for God. What is your point?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> By your own definition, Dred Scott setup the
> precent for the amendment. In this case if Roe V
> Wade should stand as a principle applied to all
> States, it should be an amendment as well.
>
> The fact is, the country was founded on the State
> having more authority on these issues - Unless the
> Constitution is amended to reflect a change if it
> is supposed to apply to ALL States - that is the
> way it is supposed to work - period.


No. The Civil War set up the need for the Amendment. The Constitution has provisions through the Bill of Rights and Amendments to protect the rights of individuals from the Federal and State governments. In both Dred Scott and Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court identified provisions within the Constitution that gave individuals rights that could not be interfered with by the State and Federal governments. In the case of Dred Scott, the Supreme Court identified slaves as property and ruled that free states had to return slaves to owners in slave states. In the case of Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution protected the rights of individuals to keep procedures between a patient and doctor private. Historically speaking the Supreme Court does not over-turn rulings of previous courts. Today's Supreme Court isn't more "Supreme" than previous Supreme Courts. However, I do believe the Supreme Court under Roberts could try to make the argument that life begins at conception and use scientific data to back it up in an attempt to nullify Roe V. Wade. It would be a horrible precedent, but not beyond the rightwing ideologues.

All things considered, Whoopi was wrong. However, it doesn't appear that John McCain knows enough about the Constitution to have corrected her, either. Pretty scary for a guy with three decades of experience in Washington.