• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why is Washington Post going after Herman Cain?

pbrauer said:
Are you saying he is a racist?

I don't want a Republican of any skin color being president.
Click to expand...

Now you know. Opposition to Obama is not racist because we opposed everything he's doing when Clinton tried it too. That was my point. Thank you for helping me make it.
 
lpast said:
Neither does Chris Christie or the GOP elite and top GOP donors who christie has spent the last two weeks with....Id bet a donut he was told who to endorse..
<gasp> A RINO ...theres going to be alot of pissed of far right puppies over this

Gov. Christie: Romney 'is the man we need to lead America' | NJ.com
Click to expand...

Yes, the support Romney, but not because of his skin color. They want a well polished (as in, smooth talker) politician to run against the king of the teleprompter. That's why they are against Perry and Paul and what's her name and they really really wanted Christie to run. Christie could sell ketchup pop-cycles to a woman in white gloves.
 
Karl said:
If that is the case, then why did you create a thread about it?
Click to expand...
Because I wanted to point out that Washinton Post is a tool of the democratic party.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Now you know. Opposition to Obama is not racist because we opposed everything he's doing when Clinton tried it too. That was my point. Thank you for helping me make it.
Click to expand...
I never said it was ksu_aviator, anyone who says it is, is stupid. Is there something deep seated that makes you want to proves this point?
 
pbrauer said:
Are you saying he is a racist?

I don't want a Republican of any skin color being president.
Click to expand...

this is foreign to me..... I do not understand what drives a person to vote for a single party and no others.. and i'll never understand it.
 
pbrauer said:
I never said it was ksu_aviator, anyone who says it is, is stupid. Is there something deep seated that makes you want to proves this point?
Click to expand...

LOL and there you go proving my point with a false implication...nice.
 
tessaesque said:
Okay. Here's his published position on national security. Would you mind explaining why it is extreme?
[1] The primary duty of the President of the United States is to protect our people. [2] In fact, it is the principal duty of a limited federal government. [3] They must ensure that our military and all of our security agencies are strong and capable. [...]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
1. That is wrong. The primary duty of the President, in fact the duty he is sworn to, is simply "to protect and preserve the constitution". This wrong statement by Cain means that he is either an extremist (baldly rewriting the constitution) or a dumbass.

2. Wrong again. The principal duty of the federal government is to serve as a 'federation' of the several states, coin money and regulate the value thereof, and to defend the external borders thereof (among a few other things, such as regulate foreign and interstate trade). Direct interaction between the federal government and the people was not envisioned by the founding fathers, and is certainly abhorred by today's so-called conservatives (which makes Cain's claim totally inexplicable unless he is, at heart, a statist instead of a true conservative in the traditional sense of the word).

3. More statism. He wants to build/maintain a powerful federal military/police force. Again the founding fathers are spinning in their graves, and again the extremism of today's so-called conservatives is exposed for what it actually is -- authoritarian statism. I can envision Stalin making claims similar to Cain's... as well as enacting laws requiring the masses to produce identity papers upon command. Comrade.

Please provide more fodder from this nut case :mrgreen:
 
ksu_aviator said:
LOL and there you go proving my point with a false implication...nice.
Click to expand...
If I said you were against a policy of Obama's because of his race, why would you care? Don't you know who you are?
 
pbrauer said:
With Charles Krauthammer on it's staff?:roll:
Click to expand...
It's normal for left wing newspapers to have a few right wing columnists to gain respect.

Also Krauthammer is a warmonger, but on other issues he is a socially liberal and wants to increase enviromental taxes.
 
Thrilla said:
Alan Colmes was a longtime staff member of FOXNews...

just saying....
Click to expand...
More like longtime punching bag for Sean Hannity . . . . (who apparently can no longer tolerate even milquetoast competition, hence his solo show).
 
Camlon said:
Because I wanted to point out that Washinton Post is a tool of the democratic party.
Click to expand...
Ah. Because they criticize a particularly stupid/bigoted Republican. Got it :lamo
 
Karl said:
More like longtime punching bag for Sean Hannity . . . . (who apparently can no longer tolerate even milquetoast competition, hence his solo show).
Click to expand...

So you're saying Colmes was a highly paid victim then....
 
Karl said:
Ah. Because they criticize a particularly stupid/bigoted Republican. Got it :lamo
Click to expand...

So Democrats accusing Republicans of being bigots and stupid are fine, but you don't like it when someone says the Washington Post is a tool of the Democratic party.... hypocrite much?
 
Karl said:
Ah. Because they criticize a particularly stupid/bigoted Republican. Got it :lamo
Click to expand...
Liar!

You know very well my argument. I was pointing at their inconsistancy. I have said many times, for instance in the post you replied to, that I don't care who they criticize.
 
sangha said:
Then you'll pretend that you get to tell people how and when to respond to your dishonest questions instead of admitting that Caines extremist positions and statements were already posted
Click to expand...


How much of that is because he's a black man and not a Democrat? A lot I'd suppose...
 
sangha said:
I get it. You can't address the specifics that were mentioned, so you'll pretend they were never posted and make dishonest claims about what I said. Then you'll pretend that you get to tell people how and when to respond to your dishonest questions instead of admitting that Caines extremist positions and statements were already posted

That's OK, I understand
Click to expand...

I'll explain this in very, very simple terms so that you can understand it (was that word too big?):

I asked you to explain why you feel that Cain's stances are "extreme". I then posted his published stance on one issue, with the promise to post another issue upon receiving your reply. I did not ask you to list his stances. I did not say that nobody had ever listed his stances. I asked you to explain why you made an idiotic, unsupported claim about a candidate. You, once again, chose to avoid having a legitimate discussion about one of your ridiculous, biased, baseless claims. You then paraded around looking like a tool for having refused.

It's okay. You lose. That's fine. Your intellectual dishonesty is on proud display.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
This is clearly not defined to Washinton Post, but they have been the ones criticizing Cain the most.

Herman Cain and the race card; - The Washington Post
The GOP cynical embrace of Herman Cain - The Washington Post
Herman Cain is Republican flavor of month. Who will be next? - The Washington Post
Herman Cain, the new man in the middle - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Stand up to Herman Cain's bigotry - The Washington Post

They tell us, he has no chance of winning. Then why do they focus so much time on criticizing Herman Cain? If they are just criticizing candidates they think are bigots, then why not Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum which have come with much worse comments. If they don't think there is any chance he will win, shouldn't they focus on Mitt Romney who they do think are going to win the nomination?

I think they are scared of him, because many liberals have been convinced that the Tea Party is racists. If they nominate a black man, the myth will get crushed.
Click to expand...


How do you know they are the most critical? Are they not as critical of other GOD candidates since the campaign season started?
 
nonpareil said:
How do you know they are the most critical? Are they not as critical of other GOD candidates since the campaign season started?
Click to expand...
That is just my experience the last 10 days. Every single time I look at the news there are mostly positive or neutral articles from other sources, while Washington Post nearly always write negative articles about him.

They have written some positive articles about Michele Bachmann, and they were certinally not in the lead of criticizing Rick Perry. In fact they wrote many positive articles about him. Such as this one 5 myths about Rick Perry - The Washington Post
 
Ockham said:
So Democrats accusing Republicans of being bigots and stupid are fine, but you don't like it when someone says the Washington Post is a tool of the Democratic party.... hypocrite much?
Click to expand...


It would depend on the situation, would it not? If it has been established as fact that a group of people do not want Obama to be President because they think Muslims are/support terrorists and is confused enough to believe that Obama is a Muslim, then it's perfectly accurate to call this group of people bigots. I don't agree that all Tea Partiers believe those things, but there are some who do. Those people are bigots.

If he can establish that the Washington Post is truly inconsistent and that their inconsistency is due to a desire to serve the Democratic Party, then it would perfectly accurate to call them a tool of the democratic party. Until these facts are established, all he's doing is making unsubstantiated claims to criticise the Washington Post.
 
tessaesque said:
Okay. Here's his published position on national security. Would you mind explaining why it is extreme?



I'll post his stance on education after I see your response.
Click to expand...

Thats not a policy position, its a talking point. Who would disagree with any of that, the devil is in the details (of which he has none).
 
tessaesque said:
You know what I'm bored to tears with? Somebody being labeled as the "candidate of extremists" simply because they aren't a candidate that you would vote for. The only candidate recently who hasn't been pegged as such was Romney, whose stance has changed so much and so often in the past 8 years it's hard to know what he actually, legitimately supports. And this isn't just a "damned leftists and their labels" thing. The right does it, too.
Click to expand...

I did not call Caine an extremist, I said that some of his statements and policy ideas are absurd, but I did not call him an extremist. I called the religious right extremist. Which they are. As his core support seems to be the religious right, thats a problem. The last thing this country needs are nut jobs like the 700 Club dictating government policy.

But I think it's important to remember that consistent adherence to ideology and personal beliefs =/= extremism. The inability to recognize any other ideology certainly would, as would the willingness to violate the limitations on your authority, break the law, or circumvent standing rules and procedures....but even that "ridiculous" 9-9-9 plan of Cain's shows he's willing to compromise between two opposing principles to create a working system, and by utilizing the existing legislative process, without expanding/diminishing the role of any other branch of government.
Click to expand...

The 9-9-9 plan is a compromise? Shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest people in the country to the working poor is a compromise? If Caine gets his way, a single mother working 2 jobs to raise her kids will be paying 18% of her income to the federal government just so a billionaire can get a massive tax cut under the guise of a "bold idea" to simplify the tax code. If you are a middle class family with 2 kids and a house payment, you are not paying 18% of your income in federal income taxes right now because of credits and deductions. However, if Caine were to get his way, you would be - and that is supposed to be some kind of a panacea for the economy??? Anyone that is gullible enough to go with that plan should never go near a casino because they are obviously an easy target.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I did not call Caine an extremist, I said that some of his statements and policy ideas are absurd, but I did not call him an extremist. I called the religious right extremist. Which they are. As his core support seems to be the religious right, thats a problem. The last thing this country needs are nut jobs like the 700 Club dictating government policy.



The 9-9-9 plan is a compromise? Shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest people in the country to the working poor is a compromise? If Caine gets his way, a single mother working 2 jobs to raise her kids will be paying 18% of her income to the federal government just so a billionaire can get a massive tax cut under the guise of a "bold idea" to simplify the tax code. If you are a middle class family with 2 kids and a house payment, you are not paying 18% of your income in federal income taxes right now because of credits and deductions. However, if Caine were to get his way, you would be - and that is supposed to be some kind of a panacea for the economy??? Anyone that is gullible enough to go with that plan should never go near a casino because they are obviously an easy target.
Click to expand...

I said "candidate of extremists" which fit perfectly with what you said.

Also, re-read the 999 plan. She'd pay 9%, and then 9% on purchases. Unless she's spending 100% of her income on purchases (not likely, is it?) she won't hit 18%.
 
tessaesque said:
I said "candidate of extremists" which fit perfectly with what you said.

Also, re-read the 999 plan. She'd pay 9%, and then 9% on purchases. Unless she's spending 100% of her income on purchases (not likely, is it?) she won't hit 18%.
Click to expand...

The 9% sales tax includes all products and services. Everything she buys she would be paying a 9% federal sales tax on (on top of any state and local sales taxes - which currently are a deduction from your federal tax liabilities). If you are poor, you don't have money to save, your entire net pay goes towards the goods and services that you need to provide for yourself and your kids. Nothing would be exempt. If you did exempt food for example, then you would have to increase the tax on everything else proportionately.

Let's say a single mother earn's 30k a year. If 999 went in effect, that single mother's net income would drop by around 300 to 400 dollar a month.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom