Share This Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The Corbett administration is imploring newspapers across the commonwealth to employ one or more of its 13 talking points in editorials to support transportation legislation. But missing from the propaganda sheet's tales of woe should such a measure not be passed is any mention of the effects of the administration's whopping gasoline tax increase that would have to be passed to pay for it all. It's intellectually dishonest. ... ObamaCare has claimed its latest victim. The Daily Caller reports that David's Bridal shops, headquartered in Pennsylvania and with 2,500 employees in 300 stores, is making all full-time employees part-time employees and cutting their health insurance. This is what liberals call “progressivism.” ... Judicial Watch says a marketing firm with close ties to President Obama received a plum $100,000 contract to design the logo for Michelle Obama's “Let's Move” campaign in violation of federal contracting rules. “Not surprisingly, no significant action was taken against the parties responsible for the violation,” the watchdog group says. Ethics? Schmethics. ... In liberal academia's latest smear of gun owners, a new “study” by two foreign behavioral researchers hilariously claims that residents of the United States who own guns are more likely to have racist attitudes than non-owners. Retorts noted gun scholar John Lott, “The notion ... appears to fit journalists' worldview so well it probably never dawned on them that this research was totally flawed.” Ahem.

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.