Who do we say yes to and exactly how is that person good for the country?

Because if you're talking about a lesser of the two evils, Trump is essentially an unknown in terms of leadership. We KNOW what we'll get from Hillary.

I like that Shadows!

Well the Antichrist is supposed to be of Roman descent. Not sure how that applies, but maybe it's a glimmer of hope?

Trump certainly appears to be the clear R candidate.

I'm sure you're right. At the same time there are countless people just like myself who wanted to quit the cigarettes, who tried many things from weaning, to cold turkey, to nicotine replacement therapy, and only had success when finally discovering e-cigarettes. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be much activity here anymore so I seem to be the only one able share that fact.

Maybe someone will pop in eventually who agrees with this option when all else has failed. I will say though that for people who have been able to just set them down and successfully quit, I think it's difficult for them to understand others like myself who are not so equipped. I've thrown hundreds of dollars worth of cigarettes away, thinking that's it, I'm done! only to find myself to weak-minded to not go buy more.

I'm curious what the medical community is starting to see. I ask because I've been rather "into" vaping for some time now. In the process I've met and spoken with many, many people who all say the same thing - that e-cigs helped them quit smoking, and their health has improved.

That's not to say I think vaping has some type of health benefit. Those who tout the value of vaping cite "harm reduction" as a main key to their argument, and on that I agree. It's definitely harm reduction. But honestly I have yet to see or experience any negative health effects. Quite the contrary. I have regained some of what I thought was forever lost lung capacity. I can do far more physical activity than prior to switching. And for me this is huge because I smoked for well over 30 years.

Amen brother.

Facebook has become the way many people keep up with family and friends. Don't get me wrong, Zuckerberg can kiss my you know what (mostly because I'm jealous), but as my life has become totally cluttered with busy busy, Facebook has saved me countless hours in communication not to mention reconnecting with old friends I may have never thought of again. The Celtic Radio page on Facebook may account for the burgeoning listenership if site participation has dwindled.

Please do enlighten us all on how he should have been more "complete"

While you're at it, how about sharing with the class your reasons for insisting on "unbiased" posts here or otherwise he leave to go post on the "other" site.

It is this kind of childish outburst that has kept me away from this forum in recent history, and the reason most people who would like to have an intelligent discussion about topics relevant to their world stay away these days. Grow up for Pete's sake!

Great articles Steve.

I firmly believe that the General Welfare was intended to mean (and left rather vague for the purpose of unforeseeable advancement) the funding of the common good. The common good being infrastructure, water supplies; and today schools, bridges roads, etc. However, because it is a clause which is arguably open to interpretation, there will undoubtedly be those who use it as an excuse for advancing any vile and contemptuous policy such as hand-outs to able bodied citizens who would rather eat for free than work. It may pass muster with the vote grabbers on the hill, but I could never be convinced that the founders had anything in mind like we see today.

The phrase "and general welfare" being in bold, I assume you are using it to bolster your point that compulsory support for social programs is justified in the US Constitution. If so, how do you figure that the wording "general Welfare of the United States" in any way references individual welfare?

Thank you for sharing your views. Just know this. In your absence or your presence, conversations like this will continue to develop and each who chooses will share his/her viewpoint. Take myself for example. I thought my inclusion of Matthew 7:6 was pure genius. Gotta love it.

The "those using drugs" people you mention should not be on welfare. There was an email circulating last year I received a couple of times that talked about this very thing. It tells of how many of us who hold honest jobs are subject to drug screening in order to get and keep these jobs, and how taxes are taken from us that eventually make it into the hands of those who do not work. The crux was that those living off the system should be screened for drugs as part of the qualification process, and periodically, without warning, in order to remain on assistance. I agree wholeheartedly.

What might the bill accomplish? Putting more of OUR money into the hands of government perhaps? Sure.

Money is the primary motivator of all taxes, not saving lives. If that were the aim (and you could hardly find a more noble one), why not just ban all the things that we use that are harmful? After all, a tax on cigarettes may prevent some from smoking, but not all. A tax on tanning beds is the same. Saving lives is not the point anyway. This goes directly after white money (remember reparations?), and that is the insidiousness of the proposed tax. Not to diminish the tobacco tax and the fact it targets only a certain segment of our population. That is wrong as well. It just is amplified when the group that is affected by a tax is almost exclusively one race or the another. Then it becomes discriminatory beyond question.

As for health care expenses, please show me where tobacco tax has lowered health care costs in this country. I remember all the propaganda, but it hasn't shown up in my premiums. It was then and is now nothing but spin...a way to justify, for the time being at least, reaching into the pockets of American citizens and taking all they can get.

I say so what? Since when is it the job of government, organizations, or the First Lady to try and put and end to abhorrent speech? Is not racial slurs, or for that matter outright racial speech still free speech protected under the Constitution? Where is Michelle's fervor against those black rap artists who (and let's be honest, these guys have serious influence on their listeners) continually spark and fan the flames of racism? I'll tell you where. She's got the radar turned on, and it only picks up one side of the discussion. The same is true for nearly all of those who expend large amounts of energy bringing "awareness" to the problem of racism toward blacks. So if the wife of the US President thinks it's incumbent upon her to use her clout in reigning in the opinions of MEMBERS of an organization, then it should be far more duty for her to share the same sensitivity to racism by weighing in on the cornucopia of practices that discriminate toward whites. What say ye?

You're right, but I still don't know what the flock is going on.

Perhaps the courts have upheld other similar laws. Does that make the charges any less valid? Sure it sets president, but what would happen if someone proposed a tax on Murray's Pomade (I know it's ridiculous, but there's a point to be made). I think most people who have read my comments over the years will know full well how I feel about the disparity between what constitutes discrimination against blacks vs what they will conceive as discrimination against whites. Pretty much, there is no such thing as discrimination against whites that is ever admitted, and much that is shouted from the rooftops by blacks...regardless of the validity.

I did get a kick out of this line from the article "And laws that offer preferential treatment for veterans are much more likely to benefit men than women". Yeah? What about the preferential treatment doled out for the Civil Service Exam? Or how about the laws that stipulate highway construction contracts can only be awarded to companies employing x number of minorities? It all just makes me want to puke.