both just won Maryland and Virginia primaries, with DC votes still being counted. They're both expected to speak in the next few minutes, and I would heartily encourage anyone who hasn't experienced their views or speaking styles to turn on your tv and check it out on CNN or your preferred fine news station.

I will now leave this thread and never come back, in anticipation of the slander, idiocy, and ignorance which will undoubtedly be forthcoming.

Anyone interested should check out the speeches.

I'm interested in the speeches... and something else at the moment!

Man...it's okay. This is history in the making. Watching would be encourage(able) (<---not a word). Thanks for the info. Oh yeah, where's the lips?

Adaline - If you like this, try here: http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/80243

I agree it is historic, and I'm glad to be part of it.

<< And there are the lips.

Thanks!

I got a good laugh out of that past topic.

You're a wise one mister.

Only because of studying it. Knowledge is power. (< That's a rare exception to the "I can't stand cliches" rule, haha)

Yes, you are right. There is a segment of people on this site who are anti-America and they fill the threads with, as you put it, slander, idiocy and ignorance.

Not anti-America...just ignorant.

soxfan94..... There are too many people on this site, not on this thread, but on the general site who originate threads and post comments, which always focus on the negative and not the positive things that are happening in America. That is anti-American. These people post blurbs and copy items from websites that espouse beliefs that go against all the reasons as to why America was founded and what America stands for. That is anti-American. Those people constantly attack America. That is anti-American. Those are the people I am referring to.

In connection with the above, you cannot sweep it under the rug by saying they are "just ignorant." Initially, "ignorance of the law" was no excuse; now that proverb refers to everything in connection with our everday living, family, social, work environment, politics, religion, and on and on. Therefore, once again I will repeat that ignorance is no excuse. These people are anti-American and we need to recognize this and stand up against these anti-American people.

I watched the coverage and the speeches. My advice to both McCain and Hillary is to not speak immedately after Obama. You will never measure up. This happened to McCain last night.

Oh, and Leah. I disagree with much of what has gone on in this country and the world over the past 7 years as a result of our current govt.'s policies and actions. And I speak up when these issues come up for discussion. Dissent and a free flow of opposing ideas is as American as apple pie. And while I may disagree with many of the things people say on here, I will defend to the death their right to say it.

Firstly, i was speaking of ignorant people in the sense that they post rampant mistruths without first checking to see if they originate from a reliable source. Saying negative things about our country in a way which is informed and critical is not only not ignorant, it is actually the very basis of our system of government. Critical dissent was the notion which the founding fathers envisioned (and, in fact used) to keep the country free from potentially tyrannical leaders.

To call any free thinking American who dissents "anti-American" is to fundamentally distort what it actually means to be "American." This country was founded using certain values, those held dearly by our earliest leaders. However, there was a deeper principle which formed the foundation for those values: and that was the idea that there would be no required set of values...the entire basis for the representative government was the fluidity of leadership as evidenced by the three-tiered representative system. This was a government which was supposed to be accountable to the people..."of the people, by the people, for the people." To label as "Anti-American" anyone who states their belief about a better way which America may be run is, quite frankly, wrong by definition.

The entire basis of this country was the multitude of opinions and how best to be able to hear and respond to these differing values and beliefs. How can we maintain a government which responds to our wishes if we don't state them freely?

I still maintain that those who speak with non-researched facts or baseless hatred are ignorant...but I don't believe that makes them anti-American. Likewise, I would say that people who continually post about only the bad things about America and our government may be pessimistic, but that doesn't make them anti-American. If I were forced into a black-or-white decision, I would honestly lean towards calling them more American than an apathetic observer. At least they're aware of what our government is doing and are analyzing whether or not they support it, and spreading that information to others with information backed arguments. There's no need to debate what our government is doing correctly, because we don't need to fix that.

SOXFAN94......

You misread my post, whether it was on purpose or out of, as you put it, ignorance, I don't know. I have no problem with people who criticize our government/president/congress/whatever as long as it is constructive criticism. My post referred to those who continually use these threads to post hate-filled rants against America. Critical dissent is fine, but not when a person does it time and time again without saying one positive thing about our government, then that person is anti-American.

You say "......... those who speak with non-researched facts or baseless hatred are ignorant, but that doesn't make them anti-American......." The people who are doing this on these threads are constantly being educated by those who love America that what they are doing is wrong. Therefore, since these "ignorant people," as you call them, are constantly being educated, they can no longer claim ignorance. Therefore, they are indeed anti-American.

Leah, I'd expect more from you than to insinuate ignorance on my behalf. Your ability to tactfully, yet unrelentingly, veil insults as legitimate arguments is quite astounding.

As for the actual issues, it appears that we have both made our arguments a few times each, and we simply disagree. This is not to say that either is right or wrong, but that we view the issue differently. To me, being continually negative and critical of our government is not anti-american whatsoever. In my opinion, "constructive criticism" is any criticism which is based on facts from a reliable (or hopefully scholarly) source. I believe that fleshing out what is being done wrong is an essential and primary step towards changing what may be the problem.
In terms of the ignorance issue, it is true that ignorance of the law is no defense in legal matters. However, I still believe that this country, being based on the free exchange of ideas, should not condemn those who freely share their opinions as being anti-american. In my opinion, there is a fine distinction to be made between people who may be ignorant, and people who hate this country and wish to see it fail.

Like I said, that's all just my opinion. When it comes to opinions such as these which are based on interpretation of necessarily ambiguous topics, neither yours nor mine can be proven right or wrong...the only conclusions which can be made are whether or not we agree. In this case we do not, and frankly I have no problem with that. I certainly hope in the future you'll continue to post in an education manner as you've always done and continue to offer your insightful views on such important topics.

SOXFAN.......

Sorry you took me seriously when I insinuated ignorance on your part. I forgot to put the emoticon ( ) after that first sentence to indicate I was having fun with you.

However, I am serious in my assertion that you are making excuses for the people on this site who continually originate threads and posts full of hatred for the United States. In your rebuttal you post "ignorance of the law is no defense in legal matters." That statement no longer applies solely to legal matters. It is being brought into the forefront as a legitimate argument in matters dealing with family, social, work, and on and on.

Therefore, in lieu of the above these "ignorant people," as you are prone to call them, are guilty of being anti-America and "ignorance is no defense." Once again, I will repeat that the hate mongers who peddle anti-Americanism on these threads are told over and over that they need to check the sources of the articles they are posting, that one cannot take opinions from websites/newspapers and the like and assume them to be factual. These same people are also being constantly educated in the need to quit criticising America, that they should be offering solutions and that their behavior of always trashing America is akin to anti-Americanism.

Something else that is interesting .....take a look at the profiles of these hate mongers. Most of them are in menial jobs or positions that pay low wages. Additionally, if you look at their posts, grammar errors abound, crying "high school drop out." (Incidentally, I am not criticizing high school dropouts since I realize that if I had not had educated-oriented parents, I could have been one.) These anti-America people are losers who likely come from disfunctional (? spell) families, are unhappy with their lot in life, and vent their anger and frustration in a hate America campaign. Most of them are not ignorant, as you put it, but fully aware of what they are doing. And, their agenda is to pull everyone else down to their level of misery, and they attempt to do it by making us all unhappy with America.

I would be interested in hearing exactly what those are, in your learned opinion.

First, thank you for clarifying that you were kidding above.

Secondly, how dare you act like the fact that someone is less american, or anti american based on their education level or income level. What an atrocious condescension. That type of thinking is deplorable and worrisome in my opinion...in my opinion the rich already have far too much power in our government and society. Your insinuation, taken to its ultimate conclusion, would have us heading towards an autocracy...at which point the founding fathers would not only turn in their graves, they would probably arise and start another revolution. All historical evidence taken as it may be (regarding the economical disparities of leaders and citizens in the 18th century), the intention of the founding fathers was to involve all the people in at least the decision making and election process, which necessarily mean that their opinions were all to be fairly considered.

As for the first section I've quoted above, this is what I was speaking of when I essentially ended this debate (I thought) in my last post. I disagree with you on that, and nothing you've said in your last post is anything different than what you'd stated before. We've both put forth our arguments as completely as possible, and we simply don't agree on our definitions of "anti-america". You think that negative comments without positive solutions is anti-american (as far as I can tell), and I disagree with that. I don't know that there is really anything more to be said on it at this point.

Sox.. While I do commend you on your consistently thought provoking posts/ threads... and thoroughly understand and agree with many of your points here..

I must agree with her on a few things. Disagree with you.



As much as I'd like to believe this in its entirety.. I do not.

In 1776... while proclaiming our independence from British rule.. We also designed the vote to only involve people who owned property. There were also literacy tests, language requirements, no assistance for those requiring it, poll taxes and other provisions in place.
Rich, educated, white, males over the age of 21 were the ones who decided for everyone. They used the underprivileged and poor en masse to fight for that right.
In other words.. from the word go, 'The Founding Fathers' simply wanted to be the elite in charge of the autocracy rather then the British, and were successful.

There are two ironies to this:

*Leahmarie is more in tune with the Founders of our country then you or I.

*Leahmaries opinion would have been worth spit, just like all the uneducated, underprivileged, disenfranchised, non-white anti-Americans of the time.

The reality of it? I was 8 years old when the vote was made to include all the people it does today. Don't ya think that took a while? I do.

Should the vote actually ever be designed to be the voice of the people? I will probably be long since dead and gone ~ of old age.

First, let me correct myself by pointing out that I meant "aristocracy", not "autocracy." Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.

Anyway...

I'd be completely in the wrong to dispute any of the points you've made...I understand that the system began as an elitist, aristocracy based format. To the best of my knowledge, this was due to the incredible disparity at the time between the education levels of the leaders and the common citizens. It was near impossible to get information out to everyone in order for them to become knowledgable concerning issues which affected them. I personally believe that the founding fathers created the system in a way that allowed for expansion and inclusion as may become necessary as the society changed and people were able to more easily become educated (or as new classes of people were understood to be equally important as others, as it were). This is based not on the way that they acted during their lifetimes, but rather on the way in which they structured our governmental system as one which would respond to the will of the people (albeit the few included at that time). If it were the will of those people (and eventually it was) to change the system to allow a broader swath of the population to be equally heard, the system allowed for, even promoted, those steps.
Obviously, this is an optimistic interpretation of the founders' goals and views, and it's just my opinion. There are many different possible interpretations of the goals of the founders. However, I truly believe that their goals were shaped in a reality which was so far different than now as to preclude any realistic approach towards all inclusiveness. Ultimately, I guess you could say that my view is based on the fluidity and flexibility which the founders put into the system in the first place.