NationStates Jolt Archive

For my AP English Language and Composition class, one of our summer assignments is to read three magazines and write about them. The choices of magazines were:
The Atlantic Monthly
Scientific American
Harper's
The Utne Reader
The New Yorker
The Economist

So, I chose Atlantic, SciAm, and Harper's (as they were the only ones available from the library). Right now, I'm reading Harper's (June 6 issue), and it's upsetting. It's extremely anti-American. In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.

The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a singboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24

Link: http://harpers.org/Newsstand200606.html

Pwnage.

*Looks for point of thread*

*Looks again*

*Tries one more time*

Er...

Did you really come on here to write that you had to read a magazine and you didn't like what it said?

For my AP English Language and Composition class, one of our summer assignments is to read three magazines and write about them. The choices of magazines were:
The Atlantic Monthly
Scientific American
Harper's
The Utne Reader
The New Yorker
The Economist

So, I chose Atlantic, SciAm, and Harper's (as they were the only ones available from the library). Right now, I'm reading Harper's (June 6 issue), and it's upsetting. It's extremely anti-American. In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.

The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a singboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24

Link: http://harpers.org/Newsstand200606.html

perhaps you should be reading The Economist,Scientific American and,The New Yorker?

Oh my god. There's a magazine out there that doesn't feel like licking the US's balls day in and day out. How dare they publish their opinions. And an index of unflattering facts? Appauling.

The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a singboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24

How are these attacks on America? It looks like a bunch of statistics and figures to me. Or do you not think the things these numbers mention are bad things?

How is disliking Bush and the national debt anti-American?

And summer assignments? That's bullshit.

Oh my god. There's a magazine out there that doesn't feel like licking the US's balls day in and day out. How dare they publish their opinions. And an index of unflattering facts? Appauling.

Yea, but I think wanting to kill someone with your bare hands would be crossing the line.

And Harper's does giving sources for the Index. They're a little hard to find, but they're in there. And as Philosophy said, "Did you really come on here to write that you had to read a magazine and you didn't like what it said?"

Be glad the old editor, Lewis Lapham, retired earlier this year. Your head would have exploded.

*shocks Paul*

And Harper's does giving sources for the Index. They're a little hard to find, but they're in there. And as Philosophy said, "Did you really come on here to write that you had to read a magazine and you didn't like what it said?"

Be glad the old editor, Lewis Lapham, retired earlier this year. Your head would have exploded.

If you want your head to explode, go read The Nation.

Woah, liberal media hates conservatives. Who'da guessed?

For my AP English Language and Composition class, one of our summer assignments is to read three magazines and write about them. The choices of magazines were:
The Atlantic Monthly
Scientific American
Harper's
The Utne Reader
The New Yorker
The Economist

So, I chose Atlantic, SciAm, and Harper's (as they were the only ones available from the library). Right now, I'm reading Harper's (June 6 issue), and it's upsetting. It's extremely anti-American. In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.

The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a singboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24

Link: http://harpers.org/Newsstand200606.html

Strange, I don't see anything anti-American about that at all.

Are you under the impression that George W. Bush = the USA?

I'm glad you picked Scientific American, though. Been reading it myself for nigh on 25 years and I look forward to it every month. But be warned, them pesky science editors can be a little to the left, politically, too. I haven't read the Atlantic in a while, maybe I need to take another look.

Yea, but I think wanting to kill someone with your bare hands would be crossing the line.

Killing is a bit much, but that's something we can all agree on.

The OP has problems with the idea of an anti-American POV, not just some guy who fantasizes about chokeing GW.

Strange, I don't see anything anti-American about that at all.

Are you under the impression that George W. Bush = the USA?

I agree with this statement. It appears the topicstarter has no clue what the USA is supposed to stand for.

I'm glad you picked Scientific American, though. Been reading it myself for nigh on 25 years and I look forward to it every month. But be warned, them pesky science editors can be a little to the left, politically, too. I haven't read the Atlantic in a while, maybe I need to take another look.

When they did the big format change in the mid-1990s, the tone changed a bit.

Still a good magazine.

Did you really come on here to write that you had to read a magazine and you didn't like what it said?
I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

1. I thought schools have always been doing that.

2. Nope

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

1) I think that reading dissenting opinions is good for you from an educational standpoint and

2) No.

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.

"Extreme far left" ?
I suggest you never leave your country. This doesn't even come close to what most western nations call far left.

2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

Hmm. That is a trickier one. The US constitution seems to say yes.

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?
the schools are not promting it they are tryign to HELP you learn. even if that means asking you to read some thing that you dont agree with. it makes you THINK that is what you DO in AP lit you THINK. if you dont like that drop the class. if you are fussy read the economist then you dont have to hear about the USA the whole time.

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

1) They aren't promoting it, my dear. They are simply expecting you to read something and write about it. If it offends you, then that is probably what you should write about.

2) Threats against anyone are not tolerated. Jokes, on the other hand, are. I can look at a person and say, "I'd like to throttle you/choke you/hit you, etc." As long as I am not saying I *will* do it, it is not a threat. The president isn't special on this count. He is a citizen like all the rest of us.

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

1. Schools have libraries. Libraries should contain an uncensored content. While you may be offended, others may not.

2. That's the business of the Secret Service. I'm sure that if the threat were credible, they would lace the author's trachea into a reef knot.

I am shocked and appalled that my espresso is not strong enough.

They can spew up any lie they want, and they wont get in trouble for it. Freedom of the press, and freedom of speech they can say whatever they want and millions of people will believe them because that's the vast majority taken under by the left. All these conspiracies are spewed up by people who make a living into turning events into conspiracies and flunge it at a website and get all kinds of donations and that's how they make business. Just like the corporations that make communist goods and che shirts. It's very rediculous, but with todays margin or leftists trying to be all neo communists, it's quite good business selling anti-bush, anti-american, anti-war, anti-capitalism, you name it, it's sold by capitalist companies, it's very good business. But hey, it is not for us to judge other's actions. But for future generations, if it whatever we did helped them in any way. Many people exclaim "We're only harming the future!" or " THERE WONT BE ANY FUTURE UNDER BUSH" and who can't forget "BUSH IS GONNA BE PRESIDENT FOREVER" said by both radicals of the left and right. But it's not the first time the radical left and right ever agreed on something " fuck jews. " Yes one doesn't believe a peaceful belief doesn't have a right to exist, and the other doesn't believe anything should exist but their ideals. Well same shit basically.

1. Schools have libraries. Libraries should contain an uncensored content. While you may be offended, others may not.

2. That's the business of the Secret Service. I'm sure that if the threat were credible, they would lace the author's trachea into a reef knot.
And as I recall the article in question, that statement was prefaced by some sort of isclaimer. Don't have the issue at the office or I'd go look.

I remember in the late 1990s, some schools in our area took gun magazines out of the libraries, because some parents thought they were offensive.

They're back now.

If you don't like what you're reading, there's plenty of other material at hand.

It's also quite useful to know what everyone else is thinking, even if you don't agree with it.

I am shocked and appalled that my espresso is not strong enough.

*spikes your expresso with speed*

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?1) That's no extreme far left propaganda. Unless they're discussing the dictatorship of the proletariat and state property as the only way, isn't even far left.
2) Does that hold for other governments too?

So, I chose Atlantic, SciAm, and Harper's (as they were the only ones available from the library). Right now, I'm reading Harper's (June 6 issue), and it's upsetting. It's extremely anti-American. In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.

LMFAO!!!

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Query aimed at the people with knowledge of US law:
Does this amendment imply that it is perfectly fine to threaten the government with weapons if you believe it is oppressing you or endangering the USA ?

As far as I'm concerned, the magazine can print anything it wants, though it should expect the consequences (positive or negative) in subscrition rates.

I think the author may have left reasonable debate and discussion behing with the quip about killing Bush though. Even so, I don't think this qualifies as a call for people to assassinate him, or something that should be followed-up; this was more of an expression of emotion than a call to action.

As to whether I would be upset that this magazine was part of a school assignment, I would need two questions answered first:

1) Is this a private or public school/institution? If public or tax-payer funded, I can see an issue. If it's private, then they can do whatever they want and you can take your money elsewhere.

2) Did they provide in the assignment list a choice of magazine that is comparable in content but from an opposing political point of view? This, of course, is subjective and what may seem balance for some probably won't for others.

There I summed it all up for you guys, you should all stop bickering. You have no reason to bitch now. Just like how insane people burn stuff because it's their freedom of speech to burn shit in public. Flags, emblems, etc. What sane person, goes out and buys a flag to burn it. No sane person does that. However a sane person could steal somebody else's flag and burn it. Maybe if I decided to go vandalize the lincoln memorial with spray paint, I guess I would be covered by freedom of speech law. Hell someone is more likely to get hurt by lighting fires than they are with spray paint. Besides graffiti is more of a freedom of speech than setting fires. But no I don't do it, because there is a line of being civilized to being uncivilized, it has nothing to do with morals or standards. Part of being civilized is being respectful, tolerant, and above all us being considerate. I'd say theres a margin of 5% of the people in these forums who are civilized, 20% like to make fun and say "pwned!" and the rest are either conservatives, republican loyalists, or neo communists who think they can mix water with oil.

:D Pwned \m/

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Query aimed at the people with knowledge of US law:
Does this amendment imply that it is perfectly fine to threaten the government with weapons if you believe it is oppressing you or endangering the USA ?

If you read the works of the Founding Fathers, the answeer is Yes.

But you realize that Yes comes with taking a few rounds when the government shoots at you.

*spikes your expresso with speed*
Still not strong enough!

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Query aimed at the people with knowledge of US law:
Does this amendment imply that it is perfectly fine to threaten the government with weapons if you believe it is oppressing you or endangering the USA ?
it means that if the GOV is trying to infringe on you right to bear arms then you can
ATTAAAACCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!
*cough*
i mean peacibly talk it over...yah thats it....

<.<

>.>

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Query aimed at the people with knowledge of US law:
Does this amendment imply that it is perfectly fine to threaten the government with weapons if you believe it is oppressing you or endangering the USA ?

Actually, yes. More specifically, the right to keep and bear arms is as much a protection against tyranny of government as it is a protection agains tthe tyranny of foreign governments.

Still not strong enough!

*spikes it with goofball blood* :eek:

If you read the works of the Founding Fathers, the answeer is Yes.

But you realize that Yes comes with taking a few rounds when the government shoots at you.

That's fine. I was just wondering if the US constitution approves of US citizens threatening the government.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Query aimed at the people with knowledge of US law:
Does this amendment imply that it is perfectly fine to threaten the government with weapons if you believe it is oppressing you or endangering the USA ?

This is why there is a second amendment, if any time politicians in washington doesn't take any action to defend itself. To regulate this amendment would be disastrous in protect not only of your home, but the country in which your home is in.

Also we should have the right to kill any robbers in our house. But nooo, we'd go to jail for shooting a robber. We have to risk our lives for the sake of a condemned one.

That's fine. I was just wondering if the US constitution approves of US citizens threatening the government.
The Constitution is fine with it. It's the government that will be upset with you.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Query aimed at the people with knowledge of US law:
Does this amendment imply that it is perfectly fine to threaten the government with weapons if you believe it is oppressing you or endangering the USA ?

Per Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, that is precisely one of the aims of that amendment. However, with rights come responsibilities. If a group of people choose to exercise that right and proceed to threaten what they believe is an oppressive government, they need to be prepared to face the consequences of their actions.

The second amendment does not protect rebellious behavior from prosecution, especially when such behavior is not shared by most. It only intends to protect the means of resistance and rebellion, should a significant number of citizens deem it necessary.

Such was the original intent, anyway.

*spikes it with goofball blood* :eek:
*bounces off walls*

That's fine. I was just wondering if the US constitution approves of US citizens threatening the government.

US citizens also have the responsibility for not just overthrowing an unjust government, but also every citizen does. However, if you think you can get past the riot squad, and the white house lawn, then you're one lucky fuck, because there are heat censored machine guns underneath the white house lawn.

So not only do you have the right to overthrow the government, but the government also has the right of overthrowing you.

The Constitution is fine with it. It's the government that will be upset with you.

Naturally. But one could still argue to be a patriotic citizen if one threatened to kill the president because he is in your view destroying the USA.

Therefor the life threats from the op are not "un-american".

Naturally. But one could still argue to be a patriotic citizen if one threatened to kill the president because he is in your view destroying the USA.

Therefor the life threats from the op are not "un-american".

True. Just a violation of a federal statute.

Naturally. But one could still argue to be a patriotic citizen if one threatened to kill the president because he is in your view destroying the USA.

Therefor the life threats from the op are not "un-american".
*sharpens double edged sword*

*bounces off walls*

YAY! :D

*bounces too*

So apparently truth is anti-American? Makes sense.

You didn't get that memo?

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

1) YES. how do you expect to ever learn to think for yourself if you only read a diet of government propaganda? you are old enough to hear other opinions and evaluate them. no one is asking you to agree, just to think.

2) YES. if the government (and the president) doesnt know when the people are displeased with its actions how will they ever change their policies? a strong government can take strong criticism.

Yea, but I think wanting to kill someone with your bare hands would be crossing the line.

Agreed and seconded.

1) YES. how do you expect to ever learn to think for yourself if you only read a diet of government propaganda? you are old enough to hear other opinions and evaluate them. no one is asking you to agree, just to think.

2) YES. if the government (and the president) doesnt know when the people are displeased with its actions how will they ever change their policies? a strong government can take strong criticism.


That isn't strong criticism though. Thats an outright threat. If a person said that about another person, they would go to jail for a long, long time. But Bush-Bashing is popular now, and that sort of thing is accepted, though it shouldn't be.

EDIT: Not that i'm a Bush fan, mind you I despise the guy. But I don't want to kill him. I just want him and his thug cronies out of office.

That isn't strong criticism though. Thats an outright threat. If a person said that about another person, they would go to jail for a long, long time. But Bush-Bashing is popular now, and that sort of thing is accepted, though it shouldn't be.

As we have established, the US constitution disagrees.

That isn't strong criticism though. Thats an outright threat. If a person said that about another person, they would go to jail for a long, long time. But Bush-Bashing is popular now, and that sort of thing is accepted, though it shouldn't be.

There's a difference between saying you would like to do something, and that you actually would or will do it.

If a person said that about another person, they would go to jail for a long, long time.
So, if I say I want to kill someone, I can be thrown in jail for the statement? Threatening the life of the President is a special case. If I say I want to kill you, you can report me to the police, who might come and talk to me. You can try to get a restraining order to keep me away from you. Unless I actually try to do you bodily harm, however, I don't believe I can be incarcerated.

So, if I say I want to kill someone, I can be thrown in jail for the statement? Threatening the life of the President is a special case. If I say I want to kill you, you can report me to the police, who might come and talk to me. You can try to get a restraining order to keep me away from you. Unless I actually try to do you bodily harm, however, I don't believe I can be incarcerated.Well, what did he say? Something about throttling the president, no? Considering how likely it would be that he gets close enough, stating that preference can be discarded as an incredulous rant. If he said something about using a high powered sniper rifle or a bomb, it would be a bit different.
Now if you said you wanted to throttle your roommate, it would be more credible, since your roommate probably doesn't have the security apparatus the President has.

Well, what did he say? Something about throttling the president, no? Considering how likely it would be that he gets close enough, stating that preference can be discarded as an incredulous rant. If he said something about using a high powered sniper rifle or a bomb, it would be a bit different.
Now if you said you wanted to throttle your roommate, it would be more credible, since your roommate probably doesn't have the security apparatus the President has.
Exactly, and as I said, threatening the President is a special case, I think there are specific laws covering that. For ordinary citizens there are legal remedies to threats but I don't believe they go as far as jail unless a law is broken. Saying I want to kill someone is not against the law. Of course, if I say it enough times and in a menacing manner, I suppoes I could be hauled in on harrassment charges. Wanderjar implied I could go to jail for just uttering the threat.

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

Far left? You keep using that word (phrase, actually.) I do not think it means what you think it means.

I mean, complaining about inflating dicretionary spending is hardly far left, left or left-center. It's center or right. Right?

What the heck do you think "left" and "liberal" mean anyway? Seriously, put down the crack pipe and pick up more books. Turn off Fox News.

That isn't strong criticism though. Thats an outright threat.

No, it isn't. An outright threat would be, "If I saw the president, I would...."

Saying, "I would like to....." is not a threat.

If a person said that about another person, they would go to jail for a long, long time.

Incorrect. Saying I would like to do something is not the same thing as threatening to do it. If I were to tell you that I would like to throttle you, that would not be a crime unless I were standing over you obviously ready to do it. On the other hand, if I told you that I was going to throttle you, that would be a threat, whether I was actually there or not - and you could most likely bring charges against me.

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

1) It's not far left and it isn't anti-American. You had a list of options, including but not limited to The Economist (a mildly economically conservative source), and you chose Harpers. You had a choice. It's not like they had Mother Jones up there. If you really need a conservative view, you should do The New Republic (Snigger, snigger, snigger). :p

2) Yes. HE said "I'd like to" not "I will". I'd like to run around naked and slap people wth fish just to see the expression on their faces. That doesn't mean I will.

1) It's not far left and it isn't anti-American. You had a list of options, including but not limited to The Economist (a mildly economically conservative source), and you chose Harpers. You had a choice. It's not like they had Mother Jones up there. If you really need a conservative view, you should do The New Republic (Snigger, snigger, snigger). :p

2) Yes. HE said "I'd like to" not "I will". I'd like to run around naked and slap people wth fish just to see the expression on their faces. That doesn't mean I will.

I hear if you rub The Nation and The New Republic together briskly, you can start a fire even in a pouring rainstorm.

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?
1) It is neither anti-American or anti-government. It is anti-GWBush. It is also hardly far left. Being offended means that you are thinking. Thinking is good. Yes, schools should be doing more than just promoting it. It should be mandatory.
2) It isn't a threat. It is a desire. I would like to go and throttle my neighbor right now for being loud is not the same as saying I am going to go throttle my neighbor right now for being loud. Desire=/=threat, and yes, it should be tolerated. Free speech and all.

Scientific American is a fantastic magazine.

I hear if you rub The Nation and The New Republic together briskly, you can start a fire even in a pouring rainstorm.

How do you think the Big Bang happened? :p

As to whether I would be upset that this magazine was part of a school assignment, I would need two questions answered first:

1) Is this a private or public school/institution? If public or tax-payer funded, I can see an issue. If it's private, then they can do whatever they want and you can take your money elsewhere.

2) Did they provide in the assignment list a choice of magazine that is comparable in content but from an opposing political point of view? This, of course, is subjective and what may seem balance for some probably won't for others.
1) Public school
2) The list is predominantly Liberal: Atlantic, Harper's, The New Yorker
I don't know anything about The Utne Reader, I assume that The Economist is neutral, and Scientific American is apolitical

By the way, it's a crime to make any written statement threatening to kidnap, murder, or cause bodily harm to the President of the United States.

Also, I'm really angry over the past few months because this is what I had to deal with in the last week of school last year:
Teacher: "Now, you're going to have to make up your sophomore work over the summer...in addition to your other work. You can do it, right?"
Me: "Well, I don't really know if--"
Teacher: "Great! See you in September!"
...It's a wonderful life...(I'm the only sophomore in the class)

1) By the way, it's a crime to make any written statement threatening to kidnap, murder, or cause bodily harm to the President of the United States.

But doing so doesn't make you unamerican. Which was what you claimed.

Oh dear god your right. In country where the press is free to write what they like, they are using that right? What the hell is the matter with them. Im shocked and appalled.

I am shocked an appalled that my tuna smells like fish.

Should have expected it, most academia are stark raving lunatic liberals.

Should have expected it, most academia are stark raving lunatic liberals.
the argument could be made then that the more educated one becomes and the more they understand about people and the world, the less likely they are to believe bullshit lies they are fed or to be simple minded conservatives.

1) Public school
2) The list is predominantly Liberal: Atlantic, Harper's, The New Yorker
I don't know anything about The Utne Reader, I assume that The Economist is neutral, and Scientific American is apolitical

By the way, it's a crime to make any written statement threatening to kidnap, murder, or cause bodily harm to the President of the United States.

Also, I'm really angry over the past few months because this is what I had to deal with in the last week of school last year:
Teacher: "Now, you're going to have to make up your sophomore work over the summer...in addition to your other work. You can do it, right?"
Me: "Well, I don't really know if--"
Teacher: "Great! See you in September!"
...It's a wonderful life...(I'm the only sophomore in the class)


What's wrong with Animal farm?

Great book.

the argument could be made then that the more educated one becomes and the more they understand about people and the world, the less likely they are to believe bullshit lies they are fed or to be simple minded conservatives.

Umm that Choking george bush is acceptable? That the US is eeeevil? We're killing to many brown skinned people? We're controlled by ZOG?

Yeah...somehow my 'lies and disinformation' pipe isn't giving me enough to overcome that one........I must not be brainwashed enough.

I'm pretty angry when I hear people spout off Anti-US things. It's protected, yes.

But that doesn't mean I can't act legally against it. Ward churchill, for example, that rat bastard who compared 9/11 victims to "Little eichmans". I sent an email to the dean about it. Oh, and CAIR. I send them lots of emails. I've asked for an official CAIR media tag so the Hezzies over in Lebanon don't shoot me and give me a free pass. They weren't amused.

So are you going to complain that I was "Insensitive" and I "Violated" chuchill's 1st amendment rights? Or CAIR, that pro-American, Pro-feedom organization?

:rolleyes:

Umm that Choking george bush is acceptable?

That's a right wing sentiment. One you as a supporter of the second amendment would agree with if the method of killing was not choking, but a gun.

Umm that Choking george bush is acceptable?
of course, mind you Im not saying Im going to do that or that others should

That the US is eeeevil?
not really
We're killing to many brown skinned people?
um, yes in fact they are. What I racist comment I might add. Only whites deserve life is that it? For all the others its easy to ignore the cries of human suffering isnt? because hell they arent people.
We're controlled by ZOG?
well the Jewish lobby is too strong...

I'm pretty angry when I hear people spout off Anti-US things. It's protected, yes.
And yet you complain about the very thing that makes America, America. Freedom of speech
Ward churchill, for example, that rat bastard who compared 9/11 victims to "Little eichmans".
Oh, you mean how like Jerry Falwell said after 9/11 that the US deserved it and that it was god teaching it a lesson. And also that it was the gays fault. Or when Ann Coulter said that 9/11 widows are enjoying their husbands deaths? Oh but wait, they're conservative so its ok. sorry, I forgot:rolleyes:
I sent an email to the dean about it. Oh, and CAIR. I send them lots of emails. I've asked for an official CAIR media tag so the Hezzies over in Lebanon don't shoot me and give me a free pass. They weren't amused.
really? Im surprised they didnt find that fucking hilarious
So are you going to complain that I was "Insensitive" and I "Violated" chuchill's 1st amendment rights? Or CAIR, that pro-American, Pro-feedom organization?

:rolleyes:
what are you talking about?

That's a right wing sentiment. One you as a supporter of the second amendment would agree with if the method of killing was not choking, but a gun.

Umm No.

A) I voted for Bush
B) He's the pres
C) there hasn't been a widespread RKBA violation which would precede an armed insurgency
D) He is commanding the GWOT, and I approve.

Umm No.

A) I voted for Bush
B) He's the pres
C) there hasn't been a widespread RKBA violation which would precede an armed insurgency
D) He is commanding the GWOT, and I approve.

But do you support the right to bear arms to remind your countries leaders you can defend yourself in principle ? Imagine Al Gore had won the presidency if it helps.

For my AP English Language and Composition class, one of our summer assignments is to read three magazines and write about them. The choices of magazines were:
The Atlantic Monthly
Scientific American
Harper's
The Utne Reader
The New Yorker
The Economist

So, I chose Atlantic, SciAm, and Harper's (as they were the only ones available from the library). Right now, I'm reading Harper's (June 6 issue), and it's upsetting. It's extremely anti-American. In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.

The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a singboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24

Link: http://harpers.org/Newsstand200606.html
You want to know something really shocking and appaling? In every single high school library I've ever been in--and I've been in quite a few--there's at least one magazine on the magazine rack about how to have the best sex you can.

In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.

The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a singboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24

Link: http://harpers.org/Newsstand200606.html

Everybody read the bolded part carefully. The author, Ben Metcalf, is asking a question. He is not saying he will throttle the POTUS. He does not say he would like to. He does not even say that he is going to write that he would like to. He is asking if he is even allowed to do so, i.e. write that he would like to kill the POTUS.
Since I have not read the article, I do not know why he is asking this question. Perhaps he is trying to create a debate as to the extent of freedom of speech versus the security of the POTUS. Some of the people in this thread have touched upon this subject.

The Harper's index has no attacks on America. Merely a set of inconvenient facts. Try not to be too shocked or appalled.

This is not an attack on the USA. It is an American 'leftist' magazine trying to spark debate, and apparently achieving it.

How is being critical of George W. Bush (even if the way he said it was a tad immature) being "anti-American"?


"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

George W. Bush is not the United States of America, nor does he represent it. As President isn't he, indeed, isn't every politician supposed to serve the nation?

How is being critical of George W. Bush (even if the way he said it was a tad immature) being "anti-American"?
Nicely put and nice TR quote. And one might also ask, how are some statistics comparing discretionary spending under Clinton and Bush anti-American? Or some numbers about the Times Square debt sign?

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?

1) And this is, in what way, worse than the current anti-EU and anti-Muslim propaganda otherwise offered in the US?
2) As long as you tolerate the threats against Muslims, then yes it should.


On a more serious note: neither propaganda nor threats (if meant seriously) should ever be tolerated. But the hypocrisy in these questions is quite astounding. Would you feel the same if it was right-wing pro-American propaganda and anti-Muslim threats?

1) And this is, in what way, worse than the current anti-EU and anti-Muslim propaganda otherwise offered in the US?
2) As long as you tolerate the threats against Muslims, then yes it should.


On a more serious note: neither propaganda nor threats (if meant seriously) should ever be tolerated. But the hypocrisy in these questions is quite astounding. Would you feel the same if it was right-wing pro-American propaganda and anti-Muslim threats?

It's not anti-Muslim propaganda if it's true.

Everybody read the bolded part carefully. The author, Ben Metcalf, is asking a question. He is not saying he will throttle the POTUS. He does not say he would like to. He does not even say that he is going to write that he would like to. He is asking if he is even allowed to do so, i.e. write that he would like to kill the POTUS.
Since I have not read the article, I do not know why he is asking this question. Perhaps he is trying to create a debate as to the extent of freedom of speech versus the security of the POTUS. Some of the people in this thread have touched upon this subject.

The Harper's index has no attacks on America. Merely a set of inconvenient facts. Try not to be too shocked or appalled.

This is not an attack on the USA. It is an American 'leftist' magazine trying to spark debate, and apparently achieving it.
Listen to this guy. He speaks the truth. There's no reason to be appalled, and it is not anti-American, unless George Bush suddenly became the only American. It only gives several statistics and also apparently gives sources.

Nicely put and nice TR quote. And one might also ask, how are some statistics comparing discretionary spending under Clinton and Bush anti-American? Or some numbers about the Times Square debt sign?



To answer that I think I should quote Steven Colbert:

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

I am of the opinion that most people who talk like DK and th OP don't really believe that it's wrong to disagree with the President, they think it's wrong to disagree with them.

You want to know something really shocking and appaling? In every single high school library I've ever been in--and I've been in quite a few--there's at least one magazine on the magazine rack about how to have the best sex you can.

Whats so bad about that?

Whats so bad about that?


But, if children know what sex is, they'll have sex! Won't someone please think of the children? :rolleyes:

What's wrong with Animal farm?

Great book.
Had to read that Freshman year.

1) And this is, in what way, worse than the current anti-EU and anti-Muslim propaganda otherwise offered in the US?
2) As long as you tolerate the threats against Muslims, then yes it should.


On a more serious note: neither propaganda nor threats (if meant seriously) should ever be tolerated. But the hypocrisy in these questions is quite astounding. Would you feel the same if it was right-wing pro-American propaganda and anti-Muslim threats?
I haven't seen any anti-EU propaganda in my day. As for the anti-Muslim, I live in Metro Detroit. That area is predominantly Arabic and Muslim. If you're caught with anything relatively anti-Muslim or pro-Christian, you're most likely shot on sight. Equal opportunity, you know...

Nicely put and nice TR quote. And one might also ask, how are some statistics comparing discretionary spending under Clinton and Bush anti-American? Or some numbers about the Times Square debt sign?
It's some cynical hippie conspiracy

off in the distance, he hears a....

bump

So? I had to read the Mayor of Castorbridge. It suucks don't read it. Michael dies at the end. There. Now no one here has to read it.

I apologize, I did forget to write my point.

My point is:

1) Do you think schools should be promoting this, if not anti-American or anti-government, extreme far-left propaganda? I was offended.
2) Do you think that these semi-threats against the government and president should be tolerated?
OMG!
You're being forced to read a viewpoint contrary to your own!!
How dreadful!

Who knows where this might lead?
Perhaps right up along the path of critical thinking, analysis and recognition of other opinions!

Just terrible that your school expects, nay demands, you to do that.

Hope GWB does something soon and shuts down these bastions of independent thought.

So, I chose Atlantic, SciAm, and Harper's (as they were the only ones available from the library). Right now, I'm reading Harper's (June 6 issue), and it's upsetting. It's extremely anti-American. In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.
Without knowing the full context, and just by looking at that first quote one could argue that he is making a statement about freedom of speech, not intent to cause harm.
Notice he says, "Am I allowed..."
That could imply that he is wondering as to how far the tenet of free speech goes. Does it include making threats about the President (or anyone else)?

As for the article going on for several pages making 'statements like that', you should be aware that it's really 'statements of opinion like that'.

Yes, that's right little one.
There's some people out there who have different opinions about GWB than your own.
Now don't get so shocked and upset. I know you might find this hard to comprehend, but there are a lot of people in the US and around the World who don't think much of GWB and his presidency.

The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a signboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24
Exactly how are these facts 'attacks on America'?
They tell us just how easy it is to find CIA employees - thus doing the CIA (and America in turn) a service by telling them to upgrade their bloody security.
It compares spending under two presidents - again, how is making such a comparison an 'Attack on America".

Seems to me, all that's happening is that you're perceiving it to be an attack on GWBush and that's upsetting you.
Heaven forbid that some of the ~70% in the US who disapprove of GWB might actually write about it.

I haven't seen any anti-EU propaganda in my day. As for the anti-Muslim, I live in Metro Detroit. That area is predominantly Arabic and Muslim. If you're caught with anything relatively anti-Muslim or pro-Christian, you're most likely shot on sight. Equal opportunity, you know...

You mean you live in Dearborn, which is predominantly Arabic and Muslim. Detroit it predominantly black and Christian. The Metro area (including all of the suburbs) is actually mostly white and Christian.

It's some cynical hippie conspiracy

What, exactly is a "cynical hippie conspiracy", do you mean the differences in discretionary spending or the debt sign? You are aware that they're both solid numbers, right?

I'm reading Harper's (June 6 issue), and it's upsetting. It's extremely anti-American. In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.


So the author doesn't like George Bush. How is that anti-American? In my opinion, disliking Bush is very pro-American (I don't like the fact that he's fucking up the land of my birth). In any case, one's opinion of Bush has nothing to do with whether or not you're pro or anti-American unless you're of the opinion that "America is Bush and Bush is America"*



The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a singboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24



How are any of these attacks on America? What's wrong with the national debt being posted? It is public information, after all. Perhaps we should do something to decrease that debt... like not cut taxes while we're at war, or perhaps not spend billions on a stupid war.

As for the discretionary spending and the rest, they're just facts. Nothing more.

It speaks very poorly of the American education system, that somebody could actually be "shocked and appalled" by the fact that we have a free press. Whither our history textbooks?

It speaks very poorly of the American education system, that somebody could actually be "shocked and appalled" by the fact that we have a free press. Whither our history textbooks?
They don't teach Civics class anymore, not since the 1970s.

The modern day "Government" class is a bland, tasteless substitute by comparison.

They don't teach Civics class anymore, not since the 1970s.

The modern day "Government" class is a bland, tasteless substitute by comparison.
I took AP American History only a few years back, and I distinctly remember exam questions about Ben Franklin's pet newspaper, the function of the press during the build up to the Revolutionary War, and other stories from the proud American tradition of using the printed word to flip off The Man.

Of course, my high school was demographically dominated by intellectual, politically liberal Jews. And, as I understand it, intellectual liberal Jews universally hate America, so they probably corrupted my history lessons with devious lies about such treason and freedom-hating.

I took AP American History only a few years back, and I distinctly remember exam questions about Ben Franklin's pet newspaper, the function of the press during the build up to the Revolutionary War, and other stories from the proud American tradition of using the printed word to flip off The Man.

Of course, my high school was demographically dominated by intellectual, politically liberal Jews. And, as I understand it, intellectual liberal Jews universally hate America, so they probably corrupted my history lessons with devious lies about such treason and freedom-hating.


That's the AP class. The class meant for the "average" student is a litany of dates and meaningless events (provided with little discussion and no context) that are memorized for regurgitation on a test. Very much like eating plain oatmeal that acts like Valium.

That's the AP class. The class meant for the "average" student is a litany of dates and meaningless events (provided with little discussion and no context) that are memorized for regurgitation on a test. Very much like eating plain oatmeal that acts like Valium.
Hmm.

You know, that wouldn't surprise me in the least. The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the quality of my education largely depended on the teachers I had. I got a history teacher who cared enough to not only teach us about our country's history, but also cared enough to try to make us all enthusiastic about the subject. I suppose many students aren't so lucky.

Hmm.

You know, that wouldn't surprise me in the least. The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the quality of my education largely depended on the teachers I had. I got a history teacher who cared enough to not only teach us about our country's history, but also cared enough to try to make us all enthusiastic about the subject. I suppose many students aren't so lucky.
Which is why my wife and I discuss history (and other subjects) with our kids. Even if the school never brought it up.

It's also useful to have a large private collection of non-fiction books, so that children can read more background material than just the book that was provided by the school.

And then your kid can go out to places like this, and discuss.

I believe that relying on schools to be the sole font of information and thought is a terrible mistake a lot of parents make.

Whats so bad about that?
I was being sarcastic. About it being shocking, that is.

Yes, that's right little one.
There's some people out there who have different opinions about GWB than your own.
Now don't get so shocked and upset. I know you might find this hard to comprehend, but there are a lot of people in the US and around the World who don't think much of GWB and his presidency.
Are you trying to tell me that wanting to strangle the president of the country in which one lives is an opinion?

Exactly how are these facts 'attacks on America'?
They tell us just how easy it is to find CIA employees - thus doing the CIA (and America in turn) a service by telling them to upgrade their bloody security.
It compares spending under two presidents - again, how is making such a comparison an 'Attack on America".

Seems to me, all that's happening is that you're perceiving it to be an attack on GWBush and that's upsetting you.
Heaven forbid that some of the ~70% in the US who disapprove of GWB might actually write about it.
It all seems extremely cynical to me. See my post on page six.
It's some cynical hippie conspiracy

You mean you live in Dearborn, which is predominantly Arabic and Muslim. Detroit it predominantly black and Christian. The Metro area (including all of the suburbs) is actually mostly white and Christian.

You know the horrors of Dearbornistan? At least I live on the West Side...

Are you trying to tell me that wanting to strangle the president of the country in which one lives is an opinion?What else would it be, pray tell?

You know the horrors of Dearbornistan? At least I live on the West Side...

Dearborn isn't that bad. You could be living in Flint.

Or you could live in Mount Pleasant like I do. We have to drive to Midland or Okemos just to find a mall or a Mongolian Barbecue.

Are you trying to tell me that wanting to strangle the president of the country in which one lives is an opinion?

The author is not stating that he wants to strangle anyone, according to your quote:
In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?".
He is asking whether he is even allowed to write that.

And what do you mean by cynical hippie conspiracy?
Do you believe unwashed eco-leftists are secretly organising to make everybody feel bad about the economy? That's completely irrational.

Do you believe unwashed eco-leftists are secretly organising to make everybody feel bad about the economy? That's completely irrational.Damn straight! We shower at least once a day!

Damn straight! We shower at least once a day!

prove it. post a pic.

prove it. post a pic.
Be careful what you wish for... (http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3368/bild6fq7.jpg)

For my AP English Language and Composition class, one of our summer assignments is to read three magazines and write about them. The choices of magazines were:
The Atlantic Monthly
Scientific American
Harper's
The Utne Reader
The New Yorker
The Economist

So, I chose Atlantic, SciAm, and Harper's (as they were the only ones available from the library). Right now, I'm reading Harper's (June 6 issue), and it's upsetting. It's extremely anti-American. In an article, Ben Metcalf writes, "Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush...and kill him with my bare hands?". He also writes, "I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends. That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends". The article goes on for several pages with statements like that.

The magazine also contains "Harper's Index", which has many more attacks on America:
Year that a singboard tallying the US national debt was erected in Times Square: 1989
Year in which it is expected to run out: 2007
Percentage change in the US discretionary spending during the first five years of George W Bush's presidency: +35
During Clinton's first five years: -8
Number of CIA employees that the Chicago Tribune was able to identify in March through online databases: 2,653
Number of CIA workplaces it located: 24

Link: http://harpers.org/Newsstand200606.html

I can only hope this is satirical.

But just in case.

Verbal attacks on a government, government officials, or govermental policies do not consist of attacks on the country which that government serves.

That said, that first quote is the type of thing that's likely to get you looked at closely by the Secret Service.