Recent activity
Subscribe to this feed
A comment on the question "ACORN COVERAGE" in Chicago Tribune:
I agree with Ms.Sarah about declining subscribers, I just cancelled my Tribune subscription ,after 25 years of reading this rag. The paper has gotten smaller and the cost has risen from $21.00 for 4 weeks to over $31.OO. It has become a real streach to find any news about, theWhite House, Czars, Acorn, or anything about the Obama that isn't fawning all over him.
Hay , I got something your readers may like to read about, Obama's relationship with George Soros, how Soros managed to fill Obama's
compaign with $300,000 through back door deals. Looks like Obama owes
Soros a big thankyou. – Edward J Whalen, on October 12, 2009 17:55
A comment on the problem "The paper no longer holds much appeal. Too many changes, too suddenly." in Chicago Tribune:
Being a long time subscriber,I wonder why I continue to receive the paper
when the paper fails completely to cover major news stories such as Acorn, Illinois senators vote to fund Acorn being 2 of 7 who did. And the paper keeps shrinking.
The cost has risen sharply and the service is a total bust. And I didn't receive a paper today. – Edward J Whalen, on September 21, 2009 18:00
A comment on the question "ACORN COVERAGE" in Chicago Tribune:
I have to say that Mr. Kavanaugh hit the nail on the head about Tribune coverage of any story that deals with Obama's White House. As I see it, the Tribune is in league with all the major networks and newspapers in this country.I saw the Acorn story on page 13, 4 days after the story broke
on Fox News.Hay, if you want to hear about the braking news, keep an eye on Fox News. They didn't sell their soul to the Democrates & Obama.
I am a subscriber and have been for over 25 years but since I can no longer find the news syories that are happing right now, I see no point
in receiving the paper and besides that, the service is terrible. – Edward J Whalen, on September 21, 2009 17:45
Loading Profile...
