Why would the Los Angeles Times hide an Obama tape (for 6 months), or any information for that matter . . . when they are more than happy to air-out anything coming from a different perspective (ie – the Schwarzenegger vote). And if you don’t think the LA Times has a ‘perspective’, you’re wrong. It’s also amusing how they will print things that counter their opinions with absolutely no hint of evidence, but when something like this pops up, they suddenly gain some sort of integrity? Absurd.
I also want to know where BO is planning on earning the $430 billion? If he is only going to hike taxes on the top 5%, or the people making $250,000 or less . . . wait, err, $200,000, I mean $167,000 or less, that would create approximately $30 billion . . . umm, there’s $400 billion left, over 13 times MORE than the amount from where he claims will be the ONLY place he will raise taxes . . . seriously, you think he WONT raise your taxes?
Also, why is Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. "Joe the Plumber", under such scrutiny now? His records have been blasted over the airways along with virtually every other article of personal; business he has – all because he stumped this imbecile running for president on a very uncomplicated and typical question? Now I have to know about his child support status? I think it’s also laughable that democratic congress members like Cavuto murdered Joe cause he had an opinion on Israel. Apparently it absolutely out of our jurisdiction as non-political members of the United States to form an opinion on anything . . . I didn’t hear them jump up and down when Oprah told us her opinion on Jesus, or Michael Moorer on the healthcare system, gun control or how we treat murdering terrorists? Funny thing is, us “regular” people know more about what we want, what needs to happen and what the “real world” is really about than any of these preposterous suits ever have and ever will.
+Rogers.JPG)
Sorry, I'm on Facebook now. ;)
15 years ago
2 comments:
It's interesting. How can the LA Times be hiding something when they're the one that reported the tape's existence. No one would know about "the tape" if The Times never wrote a story about it. If the newspaper was so pro-Obama, why wouldn't they just take the tape and burn it, so no one ever knew about it?
The reason? They made a promise to the source to keep it confidential.
Hmmmm: So who is more moral: the organization that keeps its word? Or the organization who sells somebody out because a political campaign demands they do?
By the way, you can read the Times reporting of the content of the tape here: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,5826085.story
Think about it. Say you had a tape proving Obama was a murderer. You give it to a media outlet, because you don't trust the government. But you give it to them on the condition they don't give away the tape or tell anybody your name. A few days later, a public outcry for the tape ensues. Should the media source keep the tape - as they promised you - or give it away?
Under your argument, the media source should break its vow to you and give it away, even though it puts you and your family in serious danger of retribution.
I disagree with your assessment of this situation wholeheartedly. Media must be able to protect it sources. Without it, the free exchange of information dies and the power elite (those guys in suits you hate so much, the people who think the 'little people' know nothing) - well, they win. If the newspapers had to give away every snitch that came their way, their wouldn't be any more snitches.
if BO (or anyone for that matter) was a murderer - and not producing the evidence kept him from paying the price . . . then yeah, show the f'n tape. and now these lies: When Baraaaak first mentioned his financial savior campaign in a debate with Senor McCain, he said he was gonna cut 95% of everyone's taxes. "If you make $250,000 or less, I will cut your taxes." - BO. Soooo, what does it mean if the actual data indicates that the top 5% make $160,000 & more . . . where are his figures coming from? Lets just forget that FACT for now (something I' sure he's like us all to do), and focus on what he said 10 days ago, "If you make $200,000 or less, I will cut your taxes." - BO. Wait a minute . . . hey now, didn't you say . . . ok, well lets hear what his running mate said today, "No one will get a tax increase that makes $150,000 or more." - JB. Wow. If we vote these liars in, I suppose we deserve what we'll get - socialization.
Post a Comment