Biden confident top court will uphold health law

So what you're saying to me basically is that you want the government out of our lives when YOU want it out but via your ideology you want the government IN our lives when its ok with you? Thats a tad hypocritical.

I completely agree that the Fed has no business in a womans womb on either side of the issue. I think Roe is bad law because it failed to take into account the deciding factor of the issue, are we dealing with one person or two. If we're dealing with one then it is a privacy issue. But if the fetus is its own life then it has protections too. They expressly stayed away from deciding when life begins. Since thats a fundamental human issue (note I said human and not religious) I think abortion restrictions should be set on a state by state basis thus allowing us to discuss and decide the question of when live begins.

I don't believe that the government protects marriage as a right for anyone - straight or gay. I believe in marriage as a relationship between two people privately and not government empowered. So, I believe government recognition is secondary to the actual relationship. Again, I believe in states deciding what to recognize and not recognize. And in my own state I support gay marriage whole heartedly.

A lot of people speak about the Pat Act as unconstitutional but other than the rhetoric I've never heard the legal argument against it. And further, while libs like to "blame Bush" for it they always seem to ignore the fact that Democrats voted for it and Obama has done nothing to attempt to repeal it. One would think a Constitutional lawyer would have made that a fight within the first few years of his Administration if it was such a horrible and unConstitutional bill. But for some reason Dems get a pass on it. I wonder why that is?

So, to sum up I beleive in states deciding amongst themselves on a whole host of political issues. Though I am pro life I would have zero qualms about a pro choice California - no hostility at all toward it. But thats what our government should be about, protecting liberty among the states rather than dictating terms from the Federal government. Because it will never stop. Today its punishment if you don't buy health insurance, tomorrow its punishment if you buy the wrong food or the wrong car. Its the government dictating how I live my life and thats not how it should be. Anyone with issues that you have should be consistent enough to recognize that. Anyone who isn't is clearly biased by ideology.

Oh no, thats where you are wrong. They ANSWER to the Constitution. If the Constitution protects a particular thing then the states have to answer if they interrupt that protection. But states should have much more power and have little involvement from the Fed. I don't like the mindset that the Federal goverment is the final answer on everything because its not. In fact the Constitution specifically reserves most power for the states.

I also disagree that poor people are poor not out of choice 9 times out of ten. At best I think it may be 50/50. Circumstances do drive issues of course. But I really do think you underestimate the laziness and lack of will for education.

Clearly you only tune in to snippets of what someone says and then pigeonhole them. Romney said that he doesn't care about the poor because there are existing safety nets and if need be they can be reworked to offer better assistance. He ALSO doesn't care about the rich - they are doing fine. He said his focus is on the vast middle class - and that includes from the lower income version to the higher income version. People that want to work and who want to be responsible and better their situation.

Next time listen to the whole statement. I'm not going to trust the opinion of someone so biased that they fail to remark on the full context of a soundbite.

Bottom line is that the only reason anyone every gives to vote against Romney is that he has money, which isn't a crime no matter how much you try and make it one. Romney is the best option for this nation and its voters - poor/middle class/rich.

That should be a local issue though. The government is too broad a brush to fix local school issues. Problems with local schools should fall to leaders on a state level. It would much better serve the region the problem exists in.

Cost is a big deal. Costs for college, cost for healthcare. But no one ever talks about addressing the costs of those issues. Maybe instead of trying to fix the problem with punative taxes and massive and cumbersome spending projects government, at the state and federal level, should address what drives up the costs. Why are public universities in particular so expensive for students? Schools with state and federal funding and a number of schools that derive a great deal of money from college athletics. Why are rich people the problem in that equation and why aren't we looking at the system and the costs FIRST? Why is the first reaction "lets find a way for the government to pay for it?"

If people first addressed the costs of issues like that I'd have a much easier time discussing programs to assist people who need help improving their lives. I'm all for educational assistance actually, and even from a Federal aspect. What I'm not a fan of is just pissing the money away without reforming the system as a whole or scape goating all economic issues as the fault of rich people.

And again, I'll always argue that most problems can be fixed from the local level. Reduce federal taxes across the board and let states decide if they need to increase taxes to better serve their voters and let them pass the bills that suit them.

You may think you're being honest and you're probably giving your honest opinion - but it doesn't mean the honest opinion isn't biased. And it certainly can mean that the opinion lacks a comprehensive view.