Government MAY include compromise, but Democracy is negotiation and agreement - or not - which may include compromise - or not. Note that Democracy also includes no agreement (gridlock) - which is just as likely to be the proper answer. Democracy is merely the method used within our Republic form of government - not the form itself. It isn't what government provides that matters - it's what they don't take in the first place. Gridlock and "no compromise" actually work in the People's favor.

This points to a serious misunderstanding about compromise that "progressives" - knowingly, or not - exploit to the detriment of our rights and liberties: they have no fixed position, allowing them to stretch ever further from out roots and Constitution. ANY compromise thus moves the country further from those roots and Constitution. Those of us who support the Constitution above all cannot do the same, for that is our base. This makes ANY compromise - and most particularly compromise for it's own sake - a win for progressives and thus, a loss for our rights and liberties.

First Amendment? Why? There is one big piece missing here - where are the parents/guardians? It is NOT up to the government to police goods to minors, unless these minors have no other legal guardian. All these types of laws do is remove the actual responsibility from the parent and put it elsewhere - and give the irresponsible parent/guardian an opportunity to profit, later. Putting such laws into place erodes the ability of responsible parents - even if only a fraction - to carry out their charge of raising responsible children. How do we parents even allow this?

"Examine any City which has been controlled by Democrats for a long period of time like Detroit. " Examine ANY liberal-Democrat-led governing body's public spending/saving habits and compare them to the INDIVIDUAL liberal-Democrat's own spending/saving habits. You'll find they treat their PERSONAL wealth a whole lot more conservatively than they do ours. Granted, there are a few Republicans drunk on our money, too - but they are liberals.

"How many of you still actually believe he was planning on burning the books?" Wouldn't - and doesn't - matter. I thought the offer tactless, but quintessentially American, anyway. He stood up in a fashion that more Americans should adopt and simply did it with what he was familiar with. We've been careless for generations with our representative servants in Washington, ignorant of the bureaucracy we've let them grow , and too accepting of the collars they wish us to wear. Rev. Jones just gave us a swift kick in the a$$ - and a great many of us don't seem to know why. Tactless, or not - he stands taller than a lot of us.

OK - they rejected Fenty. Perhaps his replacement has sense enough to put Rhee back into the fight, as she is successful. To refuse that, because of the politicking (which was most likely trying to preserve her momentum) is simply politics as usual and the DC mayoral replacement would be no better than Fenty.

Perhaps it's just a typo, but I liked "gliberal". Glib, self-focused, and shallow - PhDs notwithstanding - our progressive liberal intellectuals are also proving themselves intolerant, hateful, and petty. They remind me more and more of spoiled adolescents who, when confronted with anything significant outside their own little world, resort to tantrums until they get there own way. Perhaps "princesses" covers them better.

“Any institution too large and interconnected to break down without causing serious economic hardship to the nation needs to be regulated, he said,. . . "

The largest and most inter-connected (even where it shouldn't even be) is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, DC

"Too many Republicans think being pro-business is the same as being pro-market. They defend the status quo against bad reforms and think they've defended economic freedom. The status quo stinks. And the sooner Republicans learn that, the sooner they'll deserve to win again."

Get government out of business AND business out of government

PERIOD

But too few are strong enough to live truly free

- " Bernanke argued that the Fed was not to blame for the ultra-easy money that created the housing and commodity bubble which got us into this soup in the first place. He insisted that bankers were to blame for their “risky” lending policies" -

"Easy credit" on a national scale such as this, is only possible with the concurrence (intended, or not) of the Central Bank (the FED). Such disasterous results, on such a massive scale, from easy credit did not happen prior to the creation of the Central Bank (FED) early this century and the Congress and POTUS attempts to "fix" the economy through legislation and that Bank.

Individual banks acceptance of "risky lending policies" outside the norm are attributable to the guarantees...