Should've filmed some cops doing their job.
That would've put burrs under saddles.

No, the real effect would be to have them appointed by the State, which means there would be higher turnover.

The only conservative way that this could be seen as a plus is if the laid-off workers started 225 new stores themselves and had some sense of accomplishment, and adding value back into the economy.
But Progressivism is about turning us all in to beggars.

Do you have any grasp of the vast size of the civil service? Probably you do not.
Anyway, you haven't read and understood my reply, and I'll save my time with the rest of yours, since you clearly don't grasp the point of the Ezra Klein comment.

There were no "Palestinians" 2k years ago, but you did a fine job of roping me in. Kudos.

For a pitiful speech.

If you think your Senators are representing much other than their party, I have sad, sad news for you, as evidenced by the JE's noting of a punt on a budget this, an election year.
If you're casual with that kind of fiddling while the country burns, whine not about the smokey air, sir.

http://jacobbacharach.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/ab-hoedis-me-sequestra/

How, practically, does he differentiate between a Progressive and a Progressive? The state grows, because the Federal Reserve borrows the money for the bribes, the 17th Amendment muzzles the States, the 16th Amendment gives DC eminent domain over your wallet, and the House has been frozen in size since 1910, so that it hasn't stayed representative of the people.
Way to go, Wilson: you stabbed our Constitution in the heart.

Both of your points are mired in YOUR refusal to understand (a) the original, working mechanisms of our Constitution, and (b) how Progressivism has de-stabilized the system by: freezing the size of the House; by muzzling States as political objects; by giving DC eminent domain over every wallet; and by permitting wanton inflation of the currency.
I'm afraid I thought your notion of "constitutional right to elect senators directly"=="getting people more involved in government" is so radically over-simplified that I'm not sure you're even aware of what is at issue. Votes are crucial, yes. However, we don't vote for SCOTUS justices either--why not? Wouldn't that be more swellness, by your lights?
Have you bought int Ezra Kleinism, the idea that, because the Constitution is more than 100 years old, it no worky-worky? There is a great deal of wisdom (and some foolishness, let's not kid ourselves) in that document. But the Progressives have Jacked. It. Up. We have 17 trillion reasons to point out that the line of hooey YOU support is done.
I suggest you put on your big boy pants, and give the matter some real thought, and quit quaffing Commie kool-aid.

Be comfortable. And I don't mean a couple beers cozy: the long haul.

How do you think conservatives would call that a good thing?

Even at the time, I thought Bush was deep into self-parody with his Putin remark.

I keep mine in good shape, but it has a finite service life, as all else under the sun. And I'm comfortable with that.

You blaspheme recreationally, there. But if you really do care, then why insist on doing it by government proxy?