Archive

Verbatim | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Verbatim

“Why would Iran agree to make meaningful concessions when the United States continues to back off its demands and to throw away its trump card: the complex tissue of U.S. and multilateral sanctions that had crippled Iran’s economy and brought it to the negotiating table in the first place?”

— Kenneth R. Timmerman, executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, writing in FrontPage Magazine.

“The resignation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel creates a golden opportunity for the new Republican majority in the Congress: not only will the hearings on Hagel’s replacement be a natural venue for reviewing the defense reductions and many retreats of the Obama years, but they provide a forum for Republicans to begin to chart a positive alternative.”

— Thomas Donnelly, writing in the Weekly Standard.

“Hope and change was about Barack Hussein Obama’s youth, charisma, rhetorical skills, race, nontraditional background, and (a) multicultural-sounding tripartite name, but not about an otherwise reactionary liberal agenda. So the progressives won small and lost big: They got Obama elected twice and have nearly ruined his party in the process.”

— Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, writing in National Review Online.

“Could it be that the Sexual Utopians were wrong all along? Could it be that morality plays a role in sex?”

— R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., writing in The American Spectator.

“We have created a new vocabulary to validate our denial. From our ‘safety net,’ we distribute ‘entitlements’ that are not ‘handouts’ and don’t qualify as ‘welfare’ payments.”

— Economist Robert Samuelson, writing in The Washington Post, on the United States being the world’s second-largest welfare state (just behind France).


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.