Why is Washington Post going after Herman Cain?

[nonpareil]

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.

Not true. A quick search shows that even the WSJ is critical of his policy: Cain Fuzzy on Potential Impact of His Tax Plan - Washington Wire - WSJ

Even Stewart has piled in on Cain.

This is the problem with personal experience over "10 days". I don't think you are free of biases, and you see only what you are looking for.

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

Or this: Herman Cain Continues to Surge Ahead of New Hampshire Republican Debate - The Washington Post

Herman Cain’s moment - The Washington Post

Rick Perry's greatest Republican debate misses - The Washington Post

 

[Camlon]

Not true. A quick search shows that even the WSJ is critical of his policy: Cain Fuzzy on Potential Impact of His Tax Plan - Washington Wire - WSJ

Even Stewart has piled in on Cain.

This is the problem with personal experience over "10 days". I don't think you are free of biases, and you see only what you are looking for.

Heard about the word "mostly" before. You seem to deal with everything in absolutes. Fact is, when I look at the news I see mostly, (not always) negative articles come from Washington News, and not from the other media outlets. Also, why would this be what I'm looking for. I am not personally against Washington Post.

Or this: Herman Cain Continues to Surge Ahead of New Hampshire Republican Debate

Herman Cain’s moment - The Washington Post

Rick Perry’s greatest Republican debate misses - The Washington Post

I never said Washington Post supported Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann for that matter. I just compared their media coverage. The articles you posted about Herman Cain are neutral articles and are similar to articles written in other media. Both of them include criticism. Is that the best you got?

 

[nonpareil]

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%.

How not? The table below shows that the bottom 80% only saved 1.6% while the top 20% saved 35.6% of their income in 2008, it was actually negative in other years. And then there's people who goes into debt. They would be spending more than 100% of their income. Students who borrow will also be made to pay the tax before they have a steady income.

http://www.anchorage-investments.co...t-of-the-solution-or-part-of-the-problem.aspx

 

[nonpareil]

Heard about the word "mostly" before. You seem to deal with everything in absolutes. Fact is, when I look at the news I see mostly, (not always) negative articles come from Washington News, and not from the other media outlets. Also, why would this be what I'm looking for. I am not personally against Washington Post.

I'm not looking for absolute, you have not shown that the Washington Post are "mostly" critical of Cain and not other candidates.

You seem to have an agenda since the first post: WP is trying to make Cain fail, because if he succeeds, then the Democrats cannot claim that some in the TP are racists. I didn't deal with the illogical nature of that reasoning. I just want to see you actually support your claim that the WP is inconsistent first.

I never said Washington Post supported Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann for that matter. I just compared their media coverage. The articles you posted about Herman Cain are neutral articles and are similar to articles written in other media. Both of them include criticism. Is that the best you got?

Why would I need anything else when it shows that your claim that the WP is inconsistent is shaky at best. You are the one who made the claim, the burden is on you to provide the support for your claim. So far you have failed to do so.

 

[sangha]

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.

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

They. Have. Already. Been. Posted.

And your posts are too dishonest for me to have a legitimate discussion with you.

 

[mbig]

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.

Coincidentally, we recently had a discussion of a 19% Flat Tax in the Economics section.
And for Most under 35k - 9/9/9 IS a 18% Flat tax, because as you say, they spend all their money to live.
And unlike state sales taxes, the 9% sales tax includes everything. Food, Medicine, etc.
The 9% income tax, also no deductuctions.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...ax-would-not-worth-reform.html#post1059826859

Realizing this after my post, or saying he always had it in mind, even the OP says he wanted a 30k Deductible as he was shown how Regressive/Impossible it would be without one. Most with economic sense would realize it's a non-starter, tho 9/9/9 has a nice simplistic ring to it.

It's not only a Giant Reverse stimulus program, it's Insta-Poverty for a good percent of the country ... and a/another tax break for the rich.
Incredible really.

 

[Wiggen]

Sorry, your argument makes no sense. If they all agreed he is a buffoon, then they can make comedy articles about him like they do with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Or they could be promoting him in the hope of getting him nominated.

I don't mind, because who reads Washington Post anyway. They are fighting a desperate uphill battle.

Great point. We need more publications like World Nut Daily. To hell with these newspapers that employ real journalists! Give us Glen Beck and Baba O'Reilly and the loons of the far right.

 

[pbrauer]

How much of that is because he's a black man and not a Democrat? A lot I'd suppose...

Did you vote for a black man for President in 2008?

 

[Hatuey]

can you tell me why the last presidential candidate that you voted for in a primary was "presidential", in your opinion?

Are you not ****ing listening? If obama said he was going to test Christian people to make sure they were pro-american, would he be presidential? No. He'd sound like a ****ing asshole jerk-off. It's because of stupid **** like that that Cain isn't presidential. You know, wanting to blatantly violate the 1st Amendment?

 

[jasonxe]

Richard Lowrie, Local Wells Fargo Branch Employee, Crafted Herman Cain's '9-9-9' Tax Plan

 

[voteforme!]

The media is targeting him, good sirs, due to his small penis, and cause he's a faggot, and if you disagree, you're a communist rascist canadian blowing scumtard. Everyone knows that, I cant believe we're even discussing this!

Obama's a retard

 

[Jetboogieman]

Obama's a retard

Not sure he's the retard.

 

[voteforme!]

Yoda's a penis

 

[obvious Child]

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.

All opposition? Really? You're saying that everyone who is opposed to Obama is not doing so for racist reasons? The INTELLIGENT version of your post would be "Some opposition to Obama is not racist."

Furthermore, what exactly outside of Healthcare is he doing that Clinton did?

 

[Camlon]

Why would I need anything else when it shows that your claim that the WP is inconsistent is shaky at best. You are the one who made the claim, the burden is on you to provide the support for your claim. So far you have failed to do so.

I feel that giving an analysis right now would be a waste of time, because people later won't read it. If I could somehow edit my first post, I would post it there.

However, I think the easiest proof is, google news search.

Search
Herman Cain herman cain - Google Search
herman cain -"Washington Post" herman cain - Google Search

Removing Washington Post from the google news search felt good.

 

[AdamT]

Do you think I couldn't cite at least 20 Washington Post columns that were critical of Obama?

 

[nonpareil]

I feel that giving an analysis right now would be a waste of time, because people later won't read it. If I could somehow edit my first post, I would post it there.

However, I think the easiest proof is, google news search.

Search
Herman Cain herman cain - Google Search
herman cain -"Washington Post" herman cain - Google Search

Removing Washington Post from the google news search felt good.

Your ability to make sensible arguement is regressing, you are now at the level of not making sense. The searches doesn't yield anything that support any of your claims.

View attachment 67116705

View attachment 67116706

 

[Ockham]

Did you vote for a black man for President in 2008?

I'm not a racist and vote for people based on their skin color, no matter who they are.

 

[American]

His 9/9/9 plan, his not liking/trusting Muslims, Blacks are brainwashed for starters. He is doing his radio talk show shtick that's all. He is not Presidential material period.

You should worry about yourself. Looky who you get for vote for, and no choice. He's not liberal enough, and he's not a leader.

 

[apdst]

Why is Washington Post going after Herman Cain?

Because they're scared ****less that he'll win the nomination. It will throw all the, "yooze-a-racist" talking points right out the window, basically taking away any platform that Obama might have had.

The Libbos know that the only chance they have, is for the Republican candidate to be so distasteful to the independents and the Righties, that most of them will stay home and not vote.

 

[apdst]

Are you not ****ing listening? If obama said he was going to test Christian people to make sure they were pro-american, would he be presidential? No. He'd sound like a ****ing asshole jerk-off. It's because of stupid **** like that that Cain isn't presidential. You know, wanting to blatantly violate the 1st Amendment?

Who was it that said he could get more accomplished, if not for our, "messy democracy"? Herman Cain, or Obama?

My dog is more presidential than Obama is.

 

[Hatuey]

Who was it that said he could get more accomplished, if not for our, "messy democracy"? Herman Cain, or Obama?

The resident political science failure chimes in. Do tell well to do fellow, do you know what Obama meant by messy democracy? I'll give you a clue, the same thing the other 43 guys have meant when they feel they're being road blocked by partisan politics. By the way, what are you going to be for Halloween?

 

[Wiggen]

The media is targeting him, good sirs, due to his small penis, and cause he's a faggot, and if you disagree, you're a communist rascist canadian blowing scumtard. Everyone knows that, I cant believe we're even discussing this!

Obama's a retard

Good to know the 'Very Conservative' viewpoint is well represented by intellectual giants such as yourself, sir. Well done!

 

[Wiggen]

Because they're scared ****less that he'll win the nomination. It will throw all the, "yooze-a-racist" talking points right out the window, basically taking away any platform that Obama might have had.

The Libbos know that the only chance they have, is for the Republican candidate to be so distasteful to the independents and the Righties, that most of them will stay home and not vote.

I can't speak for all the other "Libbos" out there ( I know you guys think we co-ordinate all of our activities, but it just ain't so!), but I pray to God this loon wins the Republican nomination. At least he's open about his bigotry, as opposed to the rest of the right wing herd, who attempt - unsuccessfully - to disguise it.

 

[Karl]

Who was it that said he could get more accomplished, if not for our, "messy democracy"? Herman Cain, or Obama?

My dog is more presidential than Obama is.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- attributed to Sir Winston Churchill.