“Having a political rally extolling the virtues of dear leader and then ejecting someone who – quite politely – questions some of dear leader’s dubious virtues; that is a classical repression of free speech” It was the state of the union, not a political rally. This is no where near a classical repression of free speech since the Senate has rules of behavior and Sheehan was an invited guest. The only person with a right to speak at the state of the union address is the president. See article 2 section III of the constution. It mentions the president addressing congress, not Cindy Sheehan.

“As for the rest of your reply, it is really just a manifestation of the way that conservatives answer any criticisms of their ailing regime these days” So you are in favor of getting rid of our regime? We currently have a federal republic. What type of regime do you think should take its place?

“just can’t understand why you are worried about those “core values” when those values are being undermined by the very regime that you so blindly follow.” I am interested in knowing what part of the republic is undermining the very values you are talking about. As far as I can tell the president was allowed to speak at the State of the Union. Perhaps there are other instances of our federalist republic attacking these core values, but so far you have not demonstrated any of them. Either that, or you are using words like “regime” without knowing what they mean.

Having a political rally extolling the virtues of dear leader and then ejecting someone who – quite politely – questions some of dear leader’s dubious virtues; that is a classical repression of free speech. As for the rest of your reply, it is really just a manifestation of the way that conservatives answer any criticisms of their ailing regime these days. I mean, they’re always talking points if you don’t agree with them. And they’re always partisan points if they are points of view not supportive of your cause.

But, trust me, I support the newspapers’ right to publish whatever they like – no matter how unnecessary or irresponsible that material may be – I just can’t understand why you are worried about those “core values” when those values are being undermined by the very regime that you so blindly follow. Could it be that you’re so worried about free speech because those that are threatening it aren’t Bush supporters? Could it be that –god forbid – you’re just a little bit partisan yourself?

This is also a miserable comparison. If the press were prohibited from displaying her shirt (if she would have stayed) or if newspapers were not allowed to print death tallies on their front pages, then you’d have a case.

It’s amazing that you can take an instance of broad intercultural conflict with severe ramifications for the world and then take it down to some wimpy political partisan talking point that doesn’t even hold.

Its core values of free speech? Like the free speech Cindy Sheehan was afforded when she attended the SOTU address wearing a t-shirt not in line with Bush’s particular tastes?