Comments for Inside Opinion

Comment on This poll has a clear winner (Spoiler alert: It’s Obama) by Cheryl Tucker

Cheryl Tucker — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:38:58 +0000

Good point! That had not occurred to me.

Cheryl

Comment on This poll has a clear winner (Spoiler alert: It’s Obama) by tuddo

tuddo — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:12:26 +0000

“Not in Utah?”

Mormons are prohibited from drinking hot caffeinated drinks like tea and coffee, and most Mormons also avoid cold caffeinated drinks. Only apostates and Gentiles in Utah drink such. Cuts way down on LDS votes by cup.

Comment on We’ll still do the Puyallup at the Washington State Fair by Pecksbadboy

Pecksbadboy — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:12:33 +0000

Yes please tell us how it is being designated and by who “The Washington State” fair.

” When someone asks, “Are you going to the fair this year?” everyone knows what you’re talking about anyway.”

Ask that in Yelm, Monroe, Aberdeen, Enumclaw, Spokane, TriCities,Auburn,Renton,Seattle or Vancouver, it is not that private enterprise in the City of Puyallup.

Comment on Online ‘trolls’ are just one headache for comment moderator by FreeAmerica

FreeAmerica — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:19:51 +0000

Facebook?? You might want to re-consider that decision.

A good business model invites readers and commenter’s to an online page, a facebook comment section would diminish viewership as you have clearly stated.

Go ahead… change it and lose one here for sure…. no facebook page.

Change the comment section to a more user friendly system with a rating system…. The lower the rating means it would self police.

My $.02

Comment on We’ll still do the Puyallup at the Washington State Fair by jimkingjr

jimkingjr — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:04:38 +0000

So, if it deserves to beb the state fair, ask the Legislature to designate it as such. It is sort of presumptuous to crown itself.

Comment on Finally, D’s and R’s agree on something by jimkingjr

jimkingjr — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:41:16 +0000

You mean “some” R’s and “some” D’s- and the one’s whining now didn’t have a thing to say when “regular” referees blew a Super Bowl.

All this hullabaloo because the politicians will take any excuse to get away from real campaign issues.

Comment on Online ‘trolls’ are just one headache for comment moderator by John Henrikson

John Henrikson — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:50:07 +0000

dlockner: “Question: Why doesn’t the TNT allow ‘like’, ‘dislike’ or ‘reply’?” Answer: We don’t have those features in our blog commenting system – we do have like and reply buttons on our main site’s commenting system (Disqus). As this thread anticipates, we will be going to Facebook comments on this blog in the next few weeks (we’ve already made the transition on other blogs). That will give the ability to like posts and will hopefully cut down on abusive comments from anonymous commenters. John H., digital editor

Comment on A privilege mysteriously absent from the state constitution by wunderin

wunderin — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:21:15 +0000

Ya just gotta watch these guys … someone, somewhere in this editorial
staff must have an ‘ax to grind’. Where there is a mention of medical
mj, there will also be an adverse comment… For me this cheapens an already hostile editorial and moves me away from the noted headline.
Which brings me to my continued question of why?
Jes wunderin?

Comment on A privilege mysteriously absent from the state constitution by Sroldguy

Sroldguy — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 02:17:30 +0000

“…And unlike the president, the governor guards no state secrets…”

If there is a secret how would you know?

Comment on A privilege mysteriously absent from the state constitution by jimkingjr

jimkingjr — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:56:55 +0000

“The constitution explicitly recognizes a corresponding privilege for legislators. The authors were aware of the issue and presumably knew what they were doing when they didn’t extend the same power to the governor.”

How ludicrous. No where in the state constitution is the legislature, or legislators, granted executive privelege. Beyond that, by definition legislators are not executives of the state, and have no need of executive privilege.

The concept of “executive privilege” was not even considered by the writers of the state constitution. No where in the record will you find any such discussion.

Given that the premise of the editorial is false, the News Tribune should have saved the ink and paper.