Ok, so you think when Liberal women withhold sex from their Liberal Husbands that Conservative men will suffer? Good plan, I think you should definitely keep this in place until the Conservative men cave. We don't need liberals breeding anyhow.

So your choices are an evil system, or full government control? Doesn't our President rail against "false choices" being forced on people? Or is it ok when liberals do this?

So Republicans are willing to help our allies in the world; but aren't thrilled with handing out cash to every third world tinpot dictator with his hand out? Yeah that is weird. Good luck puzzling out the complicated rule they must be working under to justify this.

There's a valid point. While I am a libertarian I do NOT recognize the value of the space program. It serves no pressing national need, isn't listed in the Constitution, and therefore violates the 10th Amendment. Yes, it's pretty, but that's not how we determine we're going to tax money away from a family struggling to get by in order to pay for stuff. I've noticed no politicians on either side truly understand or justify costs realizing that every dollar they spend has to be taken from someone else who otherwise could have used it. THAT needs to be the justification of spending in Congress. But it never will be... and we'll have more pointless spending every year forever.

Right, Bush and the Republican Congress (2002-2006) ran on average 400 billion dollar deficits... which was awful. Now once Democrats took congress, and especially once they took the Presidency, those deficits have cleared 1,000 billion dollars a year, which is great. Huge budget busting deficits are awesome.. but only when Democrats run them... I guess. No, I don't think I Capiche... not even a little bit. Why is a 400 billion dollar deficit too much (as was claimed under Bush), but 1,400 billion dollars is not enough (as is claimed now)? What number do liberals want that is both less than 400 and more than 1,400? I only got a Bachelor's degree in math, so I might not understand liberal budgeting.

Right, and it has the side benefits of raising the cost more than doping nothing, increasing delays mroe than doing nothing, increasing graft more than doing nothing, and decreasing service more than doing nothing. Everyone loves low service high cost, delayed bureaucracy with graft thrown in... if you can take away all personal choice and force it; that's even better.

Hooray for Conservative health care... with the new definition of "conservative" now meaning "More costly, worse service, longer delays, more fraud, more bureaucracy and less choice". I didn't realize we were redefining "Conservative" today; but here we are. Hey Ann, I'd like to replace your phone service. I''/m not going to give you a choice, mine will cost $300 a month, you can't choose not to buy it, it'll work about 16-18 hours a day, and take 5 minutes to connect a call. How could you possibly refuse such a "conservative" offer, right? You'll support my right to force everyone onto this plan, right? Because choice and low cost and good service are in clear violation of "conservative ideals"... right?

Ok, so the liberal here judges her on her ideas? Did you read the link? Or are you just hoping that is what is says? It attacks her looks and her dress. None of her ideas, arguments, or anything more than a vague concept of the topic was addressed. Basically it was a "look, pretty girl, not covered up enough, attack her". Apparently liberals can accept ideas from women, but only women in a Burqa. Oh, he also criticized 14/15 of their videos having women. I guess talking about economics is a MAN's job and women shouldn't try. Yeah, Democrats are so caring and compassionate to women. If they stay covered up and don't get involved in "men's" work, like thinking.

President Obama Signs Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 Into Law http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law "Gives USDA the authority to set nutritional standards for all foods regularly sold in schools during the school day, including vending machines, the “a la carte” lunch lines, and school stores." Yeah, that's "advising people", like they advise you to pay your taxes... having the USDA control the school lunches across the nation isn't "advice"... unless you've redefined the term. Can you show me your dictionary that has Federal Government Control as "advice"?

Right, it doesn't exist. Obama didn't just sign the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act", it doesn't exist. This act wasn't Michelle Obama's moment on this topic; and it doesn't give the USDA "the authority to set nutritional standards for foods regularly sold in schools during the school day, including vending machines, "a la carte" lunch lines, and school stores." Weird that I quote that chunk... I'll get to it. Also weird that there are so many specifics for a governemnt takeover that doesn't exist... And when you google "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act" you get 675,000 hits. Who all is fooled into thinking this bill...