[Lerkfish]

this CNN story

is highly interesting. please read it in its entirety.
Of particular note (emphasis mine):

CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- Two Australian senators were ordered ejected from parliament for heckling U.S. President George W. Bush's address to lawmakers, but the American leader shrugged off the interruption and won applause by saying "I love free speech."

Anti-war politicians from the minority Australian Greens Party, Sen. Bob Brown and Sen. Kerry Nettle, jeered Bush during his speech, forcing him to stop his address.

"I love free speech,"Bush said as the senators were ordered out of the chamber.

[eklipse]

I think this is going a little too far. There is a time and a place for protest and this doesn't appear to have been it - they could've at least let the man speak then voiced their opinions and concerns afterwards. Being rude and discourteous does nothing to help anyone's cause.

That said, heckling never looks good for the recipient either - especially the 'leader of the free world'.

[mmurray]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I think this is going a little too far. There is a time and a place for protest and this doesn't appear to have been it - they could've at least let the man speak then voiced their opinions and concerns afterwards. Being rude and discourteous does nothing to help anyone's cause.

That said, heckling never looks good for the recipient either - especially the 'leader of the free world'.

But if they had done it at the `right' time and place would it have got on CNN ?

Michael

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I think this is going a little too far. There is a time and a place for protest and this doesn't appear to have been it - they could've at least let the man speak then voiced their opinions and concerns afterwards. Being rude and discourteous does nothing to help anyone's cause.

That said, heckling never looks good for the recipient either - especially the 'leader of the free world'.

well, but as we've seen in other threads, there is increasingly no allowable time and place...protests are all being strongarmed and controlled.

[Troll]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I think this is going a little too far. There is a time and a place for protest and this doesn't appear to have been it - they could've at least let the man speak then voiced their opinions and concerns afterwards. Being rude and discourteous does nothing to help anyone's cause.

Parliament is the perfect place for it. I think you need to tune into the British Parliamentary Channel sometime and have a look at how the Parliamentary culture that Australia comes from works. Heckling is part of the culture. Being "rude and discourteous" is part of what I find particularly attractive about that system.

How 'bout the son of that Guantanamo detainee getting in there and saying "Bush, what about my Dad?" Good for him. Of course, they tied his arms behind his back and marched him out of there but still - good on ya mate!

[NYCFarmboy]

Doesn't Bush have the right to give his speech without planned interuptions by organized evil doers?

What about his right to speak freely?

I don't think anyone was prevented from protesting/yelling/dousing themselves with gasoline on the outside of the chambor on the street?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Doesn't Bush have the right to give his speech without planned interuptions by organized evil doers?

What about his right to speak freely?

I don't think anyone was prevented from protesting/yelling/dousing themselves with gasoline on the outside of the chambor on the street?

wow...just wow. there's an immense amount of hostility there to suggest people immolate themselves.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Parliament is the perfect place for it. I think you need to tune into the British Parliamentary Channel sometime and have a look at how the Parliamentary culture that Australia comes from works. Heckling is part of the culture. Being "rude and discourteous" is part of what I find particularly attractive about that system.

How 'bout the son of that Guantanamo detainee getting in there and saying "Bush, what about my Dad?" Good for him. Of course, they tied his arms behind his back and marched him out of there but still - good on ya mate!

I agree to a certain extent, I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't have spoken out at all, I just think they should have allowed him to say his piece before voicing their objections. By not doing so, it allows 'the other side' to casually dismiss them as a 'rowdy rabble' and their intended message could get lost.

Although heckling is common place in local parliamentary culture, I would have thought it polite to allow a foreign guest speaker the right to a few minutes of uninterrupted speech - regardless of the amount of BS he may be spouting.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
wow...just wow. there's an immense amount of hostility there to suggest people immolate themselves.

well for heavens sake..I never said they should light themselves!!!!!!!!


LOL

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
well for heavens sake..I never said they should light themselves!!!!!!!!


LOL

not. laughing.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not. laughing.

I'm not sure he was suggesting that people immolate themselves. I think he was referencing the fact that some protesters have actually done so. Probably not in this particular case, but it has been done in some protests for this vert issue.

As for this: who ordered the hecklers to leave? Neither Bush nor anyone in his retinue had any authority to do so. In fact, as far as I can tell, this was standard procedure for a breach of etiquette in not just the Australian Parliament, but most other parliamentary bodies as well. And for good reason.

You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to interrupt someone else; aside from infringing on their own right to free speech, it's just plain rude. Save your comments for before or after your opponent's speech, whether your opponent is the guy across the bar of the leader of a nation.

[Troll]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I agree to a certain extent, I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't have spoken out at all, I just think they should have allowed him to say his piece before voicing their objections. By not doing so, it allows 'the other side' to casually dismiss them as a 'rowdy rabble' and their intended message could get lost.

Although heckling is common place in local parliamentary culture, I would have thought it polite to allow a foreign guest speaker the right to a few minutes of uninterrupted speech - regardless of the amount of BS he may be spouting.

Absolutely! I agree with you. I was being facetious in my last post. Heckling is normally reserved for local Parliamentarians, not for visiting foreign leaders. But with Howard being so far up Georgie's rectum, you can't blame them for thinking Bush is one of them (that was facetious too).

I think this whole trip has been a really poor show though. Refusing the Australian media coverage, Howard getting physical with Parliamentarians because he thinks he's Bush's bodyguard, marching that kid out of Parliament, refusing to meet with representatives of Aussie Guantanamo detainees, restricting access to Parliament and various other areas. I mean with China's pres coming there next week, this hasn't exactly been a lesson in open democracy has it?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to interrupt someone else; aside from infringing on their own right to free speech, it's just plain rude. Save your comments for before or after your opponent's speech, whether your opponent is the guy across the bar of the leader of a nation.

I think this is a cultural issue. In America maybe it is considered unethical for an Congressman to shout "Lies" while a fellow Congressman is speaking. In the Westminister Parliamentary Tradition, there is nothing wrong with that sort of behaviour. I've seen MP's say "Sit Down," "Shut Up", ask questions even snore to make a point. Heckling and responding to heckling is a cultivated art form in these traditions - Bush saying "I love free speech," will not go down in the annals of great responses!

Heckling is however, not a breach of etiquette in the ordinary course. It is only disallowed in Parliament when it threatens the order of the House in which case the heckler is warned first. This very rarely happens because 9 times out of 10, there will be a snigger in the House, the speaker won't respond and everyone carries on.

As Eklipse said, it is rude to heckle a foreign speaker who has been invited into the House, but it is certainly not considered an infringement of anyone's freedom of speech or a breach of etiquette. I've been to sessions of Parliament in the UK and in SA. Initially I found it a very hostile envirnonment - disrespectful even, but allowing people to heckle does cut through a lot of the bullsh1t and pomp and ceremony that you might see elsewhere. Next time you're in the UK, I HIGHLY recommend a trip to a Parliamentary session.

Worth noting also in this case that there wasn't any question time after Bush's speech so it's not like waiting for him to finish would have won any dividends.

[theolein]

When I was in the land of Oz, I watched some late night parlimentary soap, with the main actor being Johnny Boy Howard versus the rest. It was pretty good watching on an otherwise boring, rainy eveing in Torquay. Having a couple of stubbies next to me did help as well.

Now if anyone could tell me how come there's a resemblance between Howard and an Orang Utang and between Bush and a chimpanzee and what it all means then I'd be pleased to know it.

[BRussell]

I think we should make Australia one big "Free Speech Zone."

[私]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Doesn't Bush have the right to give his speech without planned interuptions by organized evil doers?

What about his right to speak freely?

He's not a citizen of Australia. Knowing nothing about Australian law, I'd say it's no certain thing that he, as a foreigner, has any such right.

-私

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think we should make Australia one big "Free Speech Zone."

you mean four blocks aways, "down under" and out of sight of television cameras?

[thunderous_funker]

I know heckling is considered customary in some parlimentary traditions. If it is in Australia, then I don't think they should have been removed.

OTOH, if its also customary to not heckle visiting dignitaries then removing them was perfectly acceptable.

This really doesn't bother nearly as much as the partisan "security" going on a Dubya's public appearances back home.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think we should make Australia one big "Free Speech Zone."

Didn't the British already do that in 1788?

[lil'babykitten]

Whilst we're on the topic of free-speech....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3205889.stm

George Galloway has been expelled from the Labour Party in the wake of his outspoken comments on the Iraq war.

The MP for Glasgow Kelvin immediately denounced the decision as "politically motivated" and he pledged Labour would rue the day it decided to throw him out.

Seems as though it's becoming the norm...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Whilst we're on the topic of free-speech....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3205889.stm


Seems as though it's becoming the norm...

yes....indeed.
prong two.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
prong two.

Worrying.

[moki]

from the article:
Anti-war politicians from the minority Australian Greens Party, Sen. Bob Brown and Sen. Kerry Nettle, jeered Bush during his speech, forcing him to stop his address.

Sounds like poor manners to me, and likely something that was planned in advance, as an attempt to get attention. There's a difference between an honest debate/discussion of the issues (which this was not a forum for) and rabble-rousing.

Hopefully if someone from Australia gave a speech before our congress, no matter how much many people disagreed with them, they'd give them the respect they deserved.

When Arafat gave his speech in front of the US Congress, despite many people being bitterly opposed to him and all he stands for, he was not jeered and interrupted.

[Lerkfish]

um, you might want to fix that quote..it makes it appear that was my statement.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by moki:
Sounds like poor manners to me, and likely something that was planned in advance, as an attempt to get attention. There's a difference between an honest debate/discussion of the issues (which this was not a forum for) and rabble-rousing.

Hopefully if someone from Australia gave a speech before our congress, no matter how much many people disagreed with them, they'd give them the respect they deserved.

When Arafat gave his speech in front of the US Congress, despite many people being bitterly opposed to him and all he stands for, he was not jeered and interrupted.

Hey people can make anything out to be what they want it to be. As long as it follow their agenda.

It reeks with desperation.

[Face Ache]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...631577337.html

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...631577337.html

wow. even worse than I thought. I'm sorry for you guys down there. Its bad enough having Bush. I'd hate to have Bush's lapdog for a leader.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
"The two Greens Senators wore a sprig of wattle . . . "

OK, I have to ask: What's a "sprig of wattle"? Sounds like a bodily fluid or something.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
wow. even worse than I thought. I'm sorry for you guys down there. Its bad enough having Bush. I'd hate to have Bush's lapdog for a leader.

Out of curiosity, why is any leader who agrees with Bush on various issues labeled a "lapdog"?

Is anyone who agreed with Clinton, a leader you seem to be more ideologically comfortable with, also a lapdog of Clinton? Or were they enlightened, then?

Just curious what the criteria is here... seems awfully dismissive and insulting.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Out of curiosity, why is any leader who agrees with Bush on various issues labeled a "lapdog"?

Is anyone who agreed with Clinton, a leader you seem to be more ideologically comfortable with, also a lapdog of Clinton? Or were they enlightened, then?

Just curious what the criteria is here... seems awfully dismissive and insulting.

did you even read the link?

It went far beyond just agreeing. It involved strongarming the opposition, shutting down the access the opposition and the media had to the events, coordinating rehearsed positive responses on cue to Bush's speech.

And, the smarmy things he said about Bush....go way beyond just agreeing.

And, just so you understand, if you are insulted when I don't like Bush, grow up and get over it. This whole "we can be nakedly partisan but you cannot" hogwash wears thinner every day.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
And, just so you understand, if you are insulted when I don't like Bush, grow up and get over it. This whole "we can be nakedly partisan but you cannot" hogwash wears thinner every day.

I did read the article, btw.

As for "growing up", I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think there's anything immature about pointing out a double-standard?

Blindly hating someone and insulting them at every turn really isn't a particularly productive thing to do.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by moki:
Out of curiosity, why is any leader who agrees with Bush on various issues labeled a "lapdog"?

Is anyone who agreed with Clinton, a leader you seem to be more ideologically comfortable with, also a lapdog of Clinton? Or were they enlightened, then?

Just curious what the criteria is here... seems awfully dismissive and insulting.

Uhm i thought that was pretty clear.

The reason isn't because those leaders(Blair, Howard etc) are just in agreement with Bush but it's because those leaders seem to care more for Bush and his policies then the opinion of majority of the people in their own country's.

As far as i know this has never been the case with Clinton. Or any other US president(Bush senior for example).

[moki]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
As far as i know this has never been the case with Clinton. Or any other US president(Bush senior for example).

Untrue. There have been many times, in countries all over the world, where the leadership does not reflect the opinion of the public. Indeed, had there been public referendums on a vast array of issues (entry into the EU being one of them, the action in Kosovo another), the leadership would have been similarly mismatched with popular sentiment.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by moki:
Untrue. There have been many times, in countries all over the world, where the leadership does not reflect the opinion of the public. Indeed, had there been public referendums on a vast array of issues (entry into the EU being one of them, the action in Kosovo another), the leadership would have been similarly mismatched with popular sentiment.

It isn't just about "leadership does not reflect the opinion of the public". That's far to broad and yes that happens alot.

The EU involves alot of countries(who's who's lapdog?). Some countries had referenda, some not.

Action in kosovo was highly supported(from left to right) by most europeans, there were only a few small protests. Or was there a major outrage in the US? You mean Clinton was the lapdog of the EU, NATO?

I guess this is the only point from you that might be comparable although the lapdogism in this isn't clear to me.

Be a bit more specific.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
I did read the article, btw.

As for "growing up", I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think there's anything immature about pointing out a double-standard?

Blindly hating someone and insulting them at every turn really isn't a particularly productive thing to do.

well, I'm not blind. MY eyes are wide open.
I am distressed by the directions the neocons are taking...I find them dangerous, all the more so because they are managing to hoodwink otherwise intelligent people, and put themselves in untouchable positions. That is different than Hate. I am suspicious, and I am mistrustful.
I also do not spend a lot of time insulting as much as I do warning of what I see as "grave and imminent danger" of the repercussions of the Bush administrations' policies.

As for productive, well, no, warning people that the present administration and the neocons are a threat to ourselves and others globally...is not productive....TO THEM. It is, however, extremely productive, TO ME.

I can see this train hurtling off the bridge, and If I DON"T say so, then shame on me. If you don't listen, shame on you, but do not worry that I'm being "unproductive".
Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and say this administration might just possibly be the absolute worst thing to happen to us and the rest of the world. Since I believe this to the core of my being, I have a RESPONSIBILITY to say so. Otherwise, I'm just like the german population who kept turning a blind eye to increasingly bad situation before WWII.
I will not be silent because you find it unproductive, nor will I be concerned that by pointing out what I find dangerous about the present administration hurts your feelings. I'm not talking about you, you dig?

What is happening in this country is like the dark ages...we are preemptively invading countries on falsehoods, we are stifling and silencing dissent, we are denying rights, we are brazenly holding people without access to representation, threatening to hold secret trials and execute them.

If you are not as disturbed about the direction this is taking this great nation, then that is you choice. I choose to be righteously indignant about a great evil.
If you view that as "unproductive" so be it. Tyranny deserves to be exposed.

[ZackS]

Just reading this thread makes me want to cry. Is this really what the world is coming to? We've gotten so partisan and spiteful that I'm afraid WWIII is not going to be fought on the countryside, but in the courtrooms where the only casualties can be what we hold most dear: reason, freedom and justice.

[Spliffdaddy]

I hear they're making those little pills in 20milligram 'time-release' dosage. That way if you forget to take your afternoon pill - you won't post neo-con-backed conspiracy theories relating to 'prongs' which would be laughable if you weren't so serious.

When I said I wanted to get even for 8 years of Slick Willie, I didn't mean for ONE person to suffer miserably under Dubya. I kinda wanted to spread it around. o well.

[undotwa]

This whole thing is over hyped.

People have mixed up their 'rights'. You don't have a right to speak with George Bush. George Bush has a right to speak with who we wants. George Bush has a right to be able to finish his speech. If the Speaker of the house calls you out for disrupting, you must go out.

Senator Bob Brown is an idiot who is just trying to stir up trouble from nothing and promote his image as the hero of the Australian left. The protestors were for good reason kept at a distance, a violent mob they are.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I hear they're making those little pills in 20milligram 'time-release' dosage. That way if you forget to take your afternoon pill - you won't post neo-con-backed conspiracy theories relating to 'prongs' which would be laughable if you weren't so serious.

When I said I wanted to get even for 8 years of Slick Willie, I didn't mean for ONE person to suffer miserably under Dubya. I kinda wanted to spread it around. o well.

There's a problem with getting even. The people you hurt in the process want to get even with you. Then you want to get even with them. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

That's what landed us all in this mess in the first place.

[Troll]

Originally posted by zigzag:
OK, I have to ask: What's a "sprig of wattle"? Sounds like a bodily fluid or something.

A Wattle is an obnoxious little tree. They're known for growing very fast. Put down measly little roots and then charge upwards before realising they should've put better roots down. They fall over and the next one charges up in its stead. Makes for a very messy forest. Let's hope it's a metaphor for Howard!

A sprig is a shoot or a twig.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Troll:
A Wattle is an obnoxious little tree. They're known for growing very fast. Put down measly little roots and then charge upwards before realising they should've put better roots down. They fall over and the next one charges up in its stead. Makes for a very messy forest. Let's hope it's a metaphor for Howard!

A sprig is a shoot or a twig.

OK, thanks, had me worried. I think I confused "sprig of wattle" with "wad of spittle," which my local politicians have been known to wear.

I would not want to find out that Ozzie politicians are both exceedingly vocal and unhygienic.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by undotwa:
This whole thing is over hyped.

People have mixed up their 'rights'. You don't have a right to speak with George Bush. George Bush has a right to speak with who we wants. George Bush has a right to be able to finish his speech. If the Speaker of the house calls you out for disrupting, you must go out.

Senator Bob Brown is an idiot who is just trying to stir up trouble from nothing and promote his image as the hero of the Australian left. The protestors were for good reason kept at a distance, a violent mob they are.

There's a reason the President's title is, "Mr. President." In theory, he's not supposed to have any more rights than any other U.S. citizen. I'll grant that the Pres receives more protection, any Pres needs it, but other than that, nothing.

Bush doesn't have the right to talk to me any more than I have the right to talk to him.

Frankly, Bush is so out of touch, people should be interrupting his speeches more. A little reality might seep in to the vacuum between his ears.

BlackGriffen

[undotwa]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

Bush doesn't have the right to talk to me any more than I have the right to talk to him.

Thanks for helping argue my point.

Bush doesn't have to speak to media if he doesn't want to, which is what the Left in Australia is whining about. It makes no difference, because even if he did, the same old questions would be asked, and the same old answers given.

What does interrupting Bush do except give Australia an image uncourteous behaviour? It doesn't help the cause. Nor does pushing rhetoric which most of the time is based on half-truths and also at the same time bad mouth Bush personally like 'arse licker'.

It just shows, no, not how righteous the Left movement is, but just how out of touch they are with general Australian opinion, and how misguided they are in a lot of their views and their methods of getting the message across.

No wonder why Mr. Howard has been in so long, and looks like he'll win even another election.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by undotwa:
It just shows, no, not how righteous the Left movement is, but just how out of touch they are with general Australian opinion...

well, it certainly seems they are in touch with their own opinions, right? Or would you prefer all Australians think like you?
Ultimate mind control...the goal of all conservatives. "If you think differently than me, you should not be allowed to think at all"

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, it certainly seems they are in touch with their own opinions, right? Or would you prefer all Australians think like you?
Ultimate mind control...the goal of all conservatives. "If you think differently than me, you should not be allowed to think at all"

All kinds of folks are in touch with their own opinions.

Conspiracy theorists are in touch with their own opinions.

Montanan militiamen are in touch with their own opinions.

Theodore Kaszynski was very much in touch with his own opinion.

Most everyone is in touch with their own opinion, no matter how far afield their own opinion is from the rest of planet Earth.

Conservatives are quite happy to let the fringe element have their say, as Mr. Bush said, "I love freedom of speech."

There's nothing in conservatism about mind control. Just as there are liberals who make a mockery of the word liberalism, there are conservatives who have very little with conservatism.

Don't take fringe groups as representative of the whole.

And, there's nothing wrong with Mr. Howard insisting on dignity towards a foreign dignitary. Bush didn't ask people to leave, he waited patiently while Mr. Howard conducted the order of the session.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Conservatives are quite happy to let the fringe element have their say

just wanted to highlight this portion.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Lerkfish:

well, I'm not blind. MY eyes are wide open.
I am distressed by the directions the neocons are taking...I find them dangerous, all the more so because they are managing to hoodwink otherwise intelligent people, and put themselves in untouchable positions. That is different than Hate. I am suspicious, and I am mistrustful.
I also do not spend a lot of time insulting as much as I do warning of what I see as "grave and imminent danger" of the repercussions of the Bush administrations' policies.

As for productive, well, no, warning people that the present administration and the neocons are a threat to ourselves and others globally...is not productive....TO THEM. It is, however, extremely productive, TO ME.

I can see this train hurtling off the bridge, and If I DON"T say so, then shame on me. If you don't listen, shame on you, but do not worry that I'm being "unproductive".
Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and say this administration might just possibly be the absolute worst thing to happen to us and the rest of the world. Since I believe this to the core of my being, I have a RESPONSIBILITY to say so. Otherwise, I'm just like the german population who kept turning a blind eye to increasingly bad situation before WWII.
I will not be silent because you find it unproductive, nor will I be concerned that by pointing out what I find dangerous about the present administration hurts your feelings. I'm not talking about you, you dig?

What is happening in this country is like the dark ages...we are preemptively invading countries on falsehoods, we are stifling and silencing dissent, we are denying rights, we are brazenly holding people without access to representation, threatening to hold secret trials and execute them.

If you are not as disturbed about the direction this is taking this great nation, then that is you choice. I choose to be righteously indignant about a great evil.
If you view that as "unproductive" so be it. Tyranny deserves to be exposed.

Thank you, Lerkfish, for articulating a lot of thoughtful feelings that have been bothering me too.

What a strange world it is that so many folks who are otherwise well meaning don't see that the Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mr. natural:


Thank you, Lerkfish, for articulating a lot of thoughtful feelings that have been bothering me too.

What a strange world it is that so many folks who are otherwise well meaning don't see that the Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions.

you're welcome. Sometimes I wonder why I seem to be one of the few who notice these things. THAT worries almost as much as what is happening..the blaise apathy, or the bizarre support of what is essentially 180 degrees counter to the concepts this country was founded on.
A person does not have to BE evil for their actions to bring about evil things. Sometimes just plain ignorance is just as deadly as malice.

[Zimphire]

Ah more "Bush is ignorant" posts from Lerk.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you're welcome. Sometimes I wonder why I seem to be one of the few who notice these things. THAT worries almost as much as what is happening..the blaise apathy, or the bizarre support of what is essentially 180 degrees counter to the concepts this country was founded on.
A person does not have to BE evil for their actions to bring about evil things. Sometimes just plain ignorance is just as deadly as malice.

Interestingly, many conservatives know that the 'road to hell is paved with good intentions' when it comes to plans for 'governmental policies of compassion.'

I'd like to hear precisely which line items are 180 from that which this country was founded upon. I really would, because I believe there is as much rejection to those concepts, ideals, and law of the land from the Democrat side of the aisle as there is from the Republican, if not more, to the shame of both.

Of course, if you're worried about the PATRIOT ACT, I understand. I am worried too. But even Dianne Feinstein, whom I vehemently disagree with on almost every topic she supports, solicited for examples of abuses committed under that act. She received 21,434 letters opposed to it, and none pointed out any abuses- they cited provisions not in the act, never submitted to Congress, and the remainder expressed concerns about actions taken regarding mail sent to the US from abroad, something not even in the act.

So even Feinstein, who I would have presumed to be against this legislation and fishing for something to use to keep it from being renewed when it sunsets - even she cannot find an example of abuse.