It's disturbingly astounding that the Republican-held Pennsylvania Senate is even considering a heavily watered-down version of Gov. Tom Corbett's liquor-privatization plan. In fact, it would scuttle privatization. What's wrong with these clowns? Prohibition ended 80 years ago everywhere except in the Keystone State. And the voter drumbeat grows louder. ... Speaking of liquor privatization, Pennsylvania State Education Association boss Mike Crossey accuses Mr. Corbett of turning public school students into “bargaining chips” to sell his plan as a way to create education grants. Ah, the raven chides blackness. Consider, as Lincoln Institute boss Lowman Henry does, that teacher unions regularly use students as bargaining chips when they hold high the cudgel of a strike to extort more money from taxpayers. Mr. Crossey is sporting his clown nose again. ... The Obama administration is pushing for the expansion of voting “opportunities,” citing supposedly long waits for Americans to cast their ballots. But given that the average wait time for all voters in the United States last year was 14 minutes (and that's according to The New York Times), we can only conclude that Obama & Co. seek to expand opportunities for fraud. If anything, the government should be pushing to restrict voting to Election Day, save for the necessary and thoroughly vetted absentee ballots. .... Townhall.com reports that only one precinct in St. Lucie County, Fla., had a voter turnout of less than 113 percent in the November elections. One actually had a turnout of nearly 160 percent. But, according to “progressives,” voter fraud is a conservative myth. Ahem.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.