M. Abraham - Thanks for the historical revisionist comedy. Like most apologists for the GOP you confuse , intentionally or thru ignorance, the Republican and Democratic parties of the past with their 21st. Century namesakes, even though the underlying political philosophies of each have radically altered over time.
For instance the once-proud and liberal , Big Government, emancipationist and black rights Republican party of the 1860s, after staggering thru the following decades as a increasingly conservative and exclusionary party (the Teddy Roosevelt era being a short term aberration) , with a brief moment of glory as the few remaining moderates cooperated with LBJ to force thru the voting rights acts of the 1960s, has now become nothing but a Far Right collection of Tea Party drones and "47%er" bigots.
During this same period, the reactionary conservative, slave- holding ,states' rights Democratic Party, after doing nothing for 40 years became a populist and progressive party under William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson (although still more-than a little racist) finally flowering into a modern, liberal, human rights-oriented party, no longer tied to the dead weight of states' rights , under FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ.
So if you want to continue to contend that today's Republican and Democratic parties are in anyway a reflection of what they were decades or a century and a half ago, feel free. We can use the laughs. Although I doubt it will be possible for ANY GOP comedian to top this ;line...
"the aim of the Democrat has always been and continues to be the restriction of liberty, and keeping the populace as dumb and dependent on government as possible. To the extent you value liberty, you only need to look where citizens have always looked -- the Republican party."
I was relieved to read the Feedback post by Gerry W. "Republicans' History". It is refreshing to know that folks like he are still out calling attention to the true history of our political parties. (Further, I am equally impressed that Rochester City News published it on 11/28 even though it is against their own political leanings -- kudos on that, it is what separate you from the other news opinion options available today). Before the defenders on the Left blurt out "that was a long time ago" or the usual in the face of facts always do the hate-Bush psycho babble, I'm going to add to Mr. "W's" post. That within the last 100 years, it is the Democratic party that has jailed people based solely on their ethnic background, (World Wars), it was a Democratic President that jailed women for exercising their right to protest (voting), it was the wife of a Democratic Senator that led to a group that formally sought to obstruct artistic expression (PMRC), it was a Democratic Congress that hauled corporate officers to the Hill threatening them to stop making public the accounting charges associated with The Affordable Care Act, it is the Democrats that continue to find ways to restrict choice and standards in Education, Energy, and Commerce (2008 to present) -- with the lone exception of a women's right to kill a fetus at anytime during her pregnancy - the aim of the Democrat has always been and continues to be the restriction of liberty, and keeping the populace as dumb and dependent on government as possible. To the extent you value liberty, you only need to look where citizens have always looked -- the Republican party.
Michael Amy - Some of your suggestions are fine. But I'm afraid that overall your attempt to put American voting "on the right track" has gone off the rails.
First, we have no need to update our voting tools. What we need to do is go retro. We once had perfectly reliable mechanical voting systems in which the voter merely flicked a series of levers. No confusion, No long winded lectures on how to use the system. No multi-step fill in the blank and then throw the paper in the reader (remembering to first take it out of the card board sleeve) . And most importantly, the votes were tabulated by hand and phoned in to a central location so you could be sure that you, and not some hacker, were calling the shots. Then for unfathomable reasons it was thought necessary to replace an effective and efficient system with zoomie high tech drek and the next thing we knew we had hanging chads and constantly breaking down computer interfaces.
Secondly, mandatory voting is as bad an idea as mandatory jury duty. If someone hasn't the interest to vote then what in hell do we gain by forcing them to do so? Do you think that if they know that they either have to vote or pay a fine they're suddenly going to become informed model citizens?
Lastly, a national ID card would be a great idea if we had a problem that called for one. But since voting fraud is a non-existent issue why spend tens of millions creating a useless card? What's the next step? Hiring a few hundred thousand guys in black uniforms to stand outside voting places saying, "Achtung ! Papers, let me see your papers !" ?
Sam Palermo - The meaning of "taking the country back" varies by political party. The Democrats mean taking it back from the extreme Right Wing Tea Party loonies who merely represent the selfish, self-satisfied bigots in America. Whereas the Republicans mean that they want to politically, socially and morally take America back to the 19th. Century.
Mr. Siracuse...Are you suggesting that City strive to become as "fair and balanced" as Fox News?
Crusade against Maggie Brooks?? Have you ever attended a county legislature meeting? Attend just one meeting, see how the Republicans treat the Democrats and then read City. Maybe then you'll see the balance.
Sorry, but you're talking to the wrong community about cruelty to animals . In Rochester we give lip service to protecting animals and then don't bat an eye when our local art museum refuses to discuss why they paid $50,000 to a man who killed a dog, filmed its death agonies, and then presented the results to the world calling it a "work of art". Apparently in the minds of those at both the Memorial Art Gallery and the local media (who refuse to cover the matter) the traditional suffering artist should be permitted to make his subjects suffer as well.
Can someone from this paper do a piece on "Bainport" (Freeport, Ill) where a company, owned by Bain Capital is moving its entire operation to China, putting 170 Americans out of work? The layoff, in this non-union shop, are scheduled to take place the day before the November election. Clearly Mitt Romney doesn't think he needs those 170 votes, but he does need the Midwest. If this "news" gets out, how does Romney speak with any credibility about creating jobs in America?
"I predict an Obama landslide that will have enough coattails to enable Dems to win the House and retain the Senate."
‘tis a consummation, devoutly to be wished." - Hamlet
AN EXERCISE IN CRITICAL THINKING
Resolution on testing deserves praise
I'm wondering if Rochester City School District (RCSD) parents, families and friends agree with this below?
Does it really "deserve praise" or is it "a mere political stunt?"
Is it true that "there are no politics involved?"
If it's true that "this resolution is concerned with a testing policy that is choking the life from the joy of student learning and teacher creativity" --- why is this just happening in the City? Why isn't this happening in suburbs --- where they use the exact, same tests?
Is this really a "gigantic step in the right direction for significant and meaningful educational reform?"
If passed, will this resolution give the RCSD "flexibility to use alternative forms of assessment for determining student growth and development, as well as teacher effectiveness?"
Is this really a "courageous proposal?"
Is "Commissioner Adams [really engaged in] tireless work in research-based, educational reform?"
" The Second Amendment does not authorize citizens to keep and bear arms unless they belong to a well-regulated militia."
Bruce Lane - Sadly , five members of the Supreme Court were so historically illiterate (or had a personal agenda to pursue) that they were unable /unwilling to grasp the simple fact that the only reason this amendment ended up being proposed is because many of the Founders feared the existence of a standing army, Realizing that some form of national defense was nevertheless necessary Madison & Co. opted for a straight-forward affirmation that the people had a right to bear arms within the context of a militia.
Website powered by Foundation