ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: Saturday roundup of the week's opinions

| Friday, Dec. 1, 2017, 8:57 p.m.
Ringo Starr
Ringo Starr

“Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Joel Pollak on Monday used Ringo Starr's 1970s hit ‘You're Sixteen, You're Beautiful, and You're Mine' to try to contextualize allegations about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (on CNN). … ‘He was 30-something at the time, singing about a 16-year-old. You want to take away Ringo Starr's achievement?'”

— Kara Zupkus, Washington Examiner

“The accusations leveled against Alabama Judge Roy Moore by Leigh Corfman … sound chillingly truthful, if a bit untimely. … That said, I still don't blame a single Alabama voter for sticking with the accused predator. That is just how bad Washington, politics and the media have become.”

— Charles Hurt, The Washington Times

“Philadelphia Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney said ‘so what' if a ‘clean' DREAM Act gives DREAMers the opportunity to provide their undocumented immediate relatives with a path to U.S. citizenship. … ‘When we got off the boat in the 1840s, Ellis Island hadn't been opened yet, we were all undocumented and they told us to go home.' … Kenney said Rep. Pat Meehan ... and Sen. Pat Toomey ... should vote for a clean DREAM Act as Irish-Americans.”

— Nicholas Ballasy, PJ Media

“The NFL disturbances ... seem less a cause of our current cultural divide but rather a symptom and accelerator of it. When our divisive political climate simmers down, undoubtedly it will too.”

— Erich Reimer, Townhall

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me