The Thursday wrap
So excrementitious was the president's second inaugural address that even the Pittsburgh branch of the Barack Obama Admiration Society, headquartered at the offices of The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler, panned it. It labeled Mr. Obama's renewed call to European Socialism as a “flat” speech that “never soared.” Wow. Look for The Bugler to endorse the United Nations/European Union/Hamas-backed candidate in 2016. ... A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to high schoolers getting a leg up on their college studies through good scores on Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams. Dartmouth says it no longer will give college credit for good scores beginning in 2018 after ascertaining that those scores are not indicative of college-level competence. In fact, when Dartmouth tested some of the “scholars,” they bombed. Uh-oh, sounds like yet another educratic racket has been exposed. ... The Hill newspaper reports that the Obama administration has stopped referring to those government-dictated health insurance “exchanges” as “exchanges” in favor of health insurance “marketplaces.” Never mind that such a government-dictated, government-controlled and government-subsidized product is the furthest thing from a “marketplace.” Aficionados of such marketplace perversion might as well be honest about it and add another tax to underwrite the construction of hundreds of thousands of Barack Obama statues to pay homage to their “dear leader.”
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.