Well, Alice, first off, the word is spelled "liberal." Second, studies show that, while some reporters may tend to be liberal, the editors tend to be conservative, and so as a whole, the "press" tends to be conservative. Perhaps you should look it up. And finally, are you saying that you support the government mandating an invasive and unnecessary medical procedure? It's fascinating that you declare a love of small government and that you hate government interference, except when you love government getting in there and making medical decisions for people. I've got another new word for you, Alice. It's called "hypocrisy."

See my previous response. You can't determine gestational age in the first trimester with a standard ultrasound. And try to keep up.

Only an invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound can effectively determine gestation age during much of the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur. So maybe you should actually know what you're talking about before getting all wound up, huh?

Except that it wasn't being used to detect cancer; it was the state trying to enforce an invasive, and in this case, entirely unnecessary, medical procedure.

That's an interesting reading of the situation. Completely wrong of course, but interesting. An accurate description of a procedure is not normally considered a "jest."

Wow. Dude. Funny how you completely misread that WaPo article. I mean, let's look at the actual article. Since the opening sentence is ACTUALLY "I have faith in Barack Obama. Of course, I also have faith in the New York Mets, " maybe you're just projecting your own belief that Obama is the Antichrist onto some poor op-ed columnist. And it's funny how you didn't bother to link to it. (Or maybe not so funny, since your argument is really weak.) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/opinion/13collins.html?src=twrhp

"You are upset that a Christian may try to push legislation affecting you" Well, there's that whole "separation of church and state" thing. I've always thought that was kind of cool. Plus, I like how you weasel-worded "affecting you." Brent "American Taliban" Bozell wants to completely ban anything he doesn't approve of. But he's cranky because some states made unhealthy things less readily available to the fat little kids, who don't know better than to stuff their faces full of fat and sugar. You know, this wasn't a Federal thing, either. Funny -- I swear there's something in the Constitution about "state's rights" (not in those words of course - those were misappropriated by the KKK, after all...)

Golly gee. Brent's up in arms over the fact that our children might get healthier - and not because anybody banned anything, but because something unhealthy might be less available to them in the course of a school day. Meanwhile, we're all going to hell because somebody said a bad word. Funny how Brent wants to make sure that only the stuff HE doesn't like is banned.

So, this is what passes for "patriotism" on your world, Chuck? You say we should desecrate the flag, and your respondants call for the assassination of the president? Because you don't agree with his economic policies?

You're either insane or an idiot, Chuck. Possibly both.