Congress goes off the deep end

Sure. Who's protecting us from Congress?Habeas corpus isn't a right that protects terrorists. It's a right that protects us. We gain nothing by suspending it and we lose so much. What? Come on. You really think that? You think that, in the face of a war that is defined as lasting forever, we're ever going to get those rights back? How naieve. Worse how? Democrats wouldn't have drastically magnified the terrorist problem (as confirmed by the recent NIE briefing), wouldn't have ignored a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside the US", wouldn't have promised to fire anyone who planned for post-invasion Iraq (as Rumsfeld did), wouldn't have grossly inflated the budget to an extent unseen since the days of FDR, wouldn't have buried an investigation into the sexual harrassment of Congressional pages for almost a year.Worse how? Sean Hannity is telling you to be afraid of "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi", but is she really worse than Speaker of the House "Pedophile Protector" Dennis Hastert? Or Tobacco Checks John Boner? Or Duke Cunningham, now serving 7-10 on corruption? Or Tom DeLay, retiring in discrace for same?C'mon, really? The reason you vote Repub is because it isn't a choice. You're drinking the Kool-aid so deeply you don't actually know what choice Democrats offer. Like they say, you'd vote for a blue dog before you'd vote Democratic, and you have absolutely no idea why. Sure. There's a threat from radical Islam. The Republicans have absolutely no idea what to do about that except exploit terror for political ends and yell "9/11" over and over again. Most Republicans have no idea how to fight because most Republicans have never served in the military. No surprise that, under Republican control, terrorists have grown exponentially in number and geographical distribution.Republicans have absolutely no idea what they're doing, with the result that we're in even more danger than before. And you think their continued incompetence is the better choice? How about you actually start thinking about these issues instead of just doing Sean Hannity's bidding?

"Liberal" isn't a synonym for "reprehensible."God. Why is it impossible for Republicans to defend their party without smearing their opponents?

No, it's not. Just because something isn't conservative, doesn't mean it's liberal. Nobody. I see a lot less of that from the Democratic party. For instance, nobody made up a lot of false charges about Bush's history of wartime heroism. (Because no such history exists, I guess.)

Then you're no conservative. How did Reagan used to describe the phrase "We're the government and we're here to help"?

Allow me to repeat what you ignored: Just because something isn't conservative, doesn't mean it's liberal.Let me know when that sinks in. "Cold" and "hot" may be opposites, but just because something isn't cold doesn't mean that it's on fire. Your guys are in power. They're the ones doing these things. How is pointing that out a smear? Pointing out how Republicans smear is not a smear; it's a statement of fact.Just like a Republican, though, to confuse the two things. It's a simple question, how is it confusing? How did Reagan used to describe the phrase "We're the government and we're here to help"?What part of that question is difficult to understand? It's plain English, as near as I can tell. Reagan had a famous description of that phrase. When you go look up what it is, you'll understand the traditional attitude held by conservatives in regards to trusting the government.

Well, fair enough.I'm sorry that apparently I've put a lot of words in your mouth, responded as though you had taken a position you didn't actually take. I hate when that's done to me so please accept my apology for doing it to you.That said, you seem to be attempting to snark the left, while at the same time avoiding any committment to a position, yourself. That's a little ridiculous. You really don't know what to think about the issues of the day? You should. It gets bandied about as one of the defining phrasologies of conservativism. You'll find it interesting, really.

Gosh, I don't know! Why, whatever motivation could a person have to seek the highest, most powerful and influential offices in the nation, besides a selfless desire to put his or her wisdom to the service of the American people?

Reagan described that phrase as "the most terrifying words in the English language."

The context is political conservatism. If you don't know anything about that movement, I guess the quote doesn't make any sense. Reagan said that while his party was in control of the government, so he clearly was referring to government in general, not the government of his opposition.He was expressing his political philosophy. That philosophy came to typefy political conservativism until recently, when what typefies conservativism now is total devotion to the personality cult of George Bush. Now you're misrepresenting me. I didn't say that I agreed with Reagan. I'm just telling you what he said, and that phrase of his came to be one of the prominent watchwords of political conservativism.If you don't believe me, there's a couple of books on the subject of the history of the conservative movement. Maybe you'd like to educate yourself in regards to the side you lean towards? Yes, Reagan was a conservative. I've told you that. What's your point, again?