Who is voting for Kerry - and why?

[OCA]

Originally posted by shergald
I switched my party yesterday and will be voting for Kerry.

Why? As a first reason, I am not a racist and didn't realize I was one as a Republican. When the Republicans took over the remnants of Jim Crow and were joined by the equally racist NRA and religious Right, the party came out of the doldrums. No average working man wanted to support the rich man's party before that. No Republican president after Carter did not go to Jim Jones University to pledge their souls to continuing Jim Crow, and they made it possible to be Republican and racist at the same time through denial and tokens. In the meantime, the racist following became so strong, it was possible for the Republicans to take their socialist Darwinism and Calvinism out of the closet, starting with Reagan. The rich are rich because they are Godly; the poor suffer because they are in cahoots with the Devil. The rich therefore deserve all that the government can give them, all the government they can buy, because they earned it and more. My second reason for voting for Kerry: I am not going to continue being a stupid fool supporting policies that favor racism and the rich when I am neither one of these. Kerry, by the way, intends to roll back the Bush taxcuts to the rich and close the 400 billion tax loop holes used by corporations and the wealthy every year to avoid paying taxes.

:alco:

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by shergald
I switched my party yesterday and will be voting for Kerry.

Why? As a first reason, I am not a racist and didn't realize I was one as a Republican. When the Republicans took over the remnants of Jim Crow and were joined by the equally racist NRA and religious Right, the party came out of the doldrums. No average working man wanted to support the rich man's party before that. No Republican president after Carter did not go to Jim Jones University to pledge their souls to continuing Jim Crow, and they made it possible to be Republican and racist at the same time through denial and tokens. In the meantime, the racist following became so strong, it was possible for the Republicans to take their socialist Darwinism and Calvinism out of the closet, starting with Reagan. The rich are rich because they are Godly; the poor suffer because they are in cahoots with the Devil. The rich therefore deserve all that the government can give them, all the government they can buy, because they earned it and more. My second reason for voting for Kerry: I am not going to continue being a stupid fool supporting policies that favor racism and the rich when I am neither one of these. Kerry, by the way, intends to roll back the Bush taxcuts to the rich and close the 400 billion tax loop holes used by corporations and the wealthy every year to avoid paying taxes.

Great. So I'm a racist, then? Are you sure that you want to blanket all Republicans as racist?

 

[Avatar4321]

"As a first reason, I am not a racist and didn't realize I was one as a Republican."

Quick! Someone call General Powell and Justice Thomas!

Seriously though, anyone notice how there still isnt any reason to vote for kerry?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

When the Republicans took over the remnants of Jim Crow and were joined by the equally racist NRA

Did you get that from Bowling for Columbine? The NRA was founded by former Union officers (you know, the Union which was opposed to slavery) and they were no friends of the KKK and groups like them.

Sorry but the implication is there. If your candidate goes to Jim Jones for support, it is racist support.

Isn't Byrd a Democrat? He was in the KKK you know.

Kerry, by the way, intends to roll back the Bush taxcuts to the rich

Oh, you mean the tax cuts that he was once for?

The rich therefore deserve all that the government can give them, all the government they can buy, because they earned it and more.

So what should happen to the rich? How much taxes should they pay and why?

Does it not bother you that Kerry is rich? Why is that?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by shergald
Sorry but the implication is there. If your candidate goes to Jim Jones for support, it is racist support. In Bush's case, it allowed him to beat the only decent Republican in the 2000 race, McCain. It is not just the South either. Here in Michigan, Engler served three terms by running against the Detroit Black community. It runs deep. We had Democrats for Reagan and Democrats for Engler as well, all residing in white suburban communities. It may be too subtle to recognize, but it is there. The Republican party would not be what it is today without it. Nothing personal, but take a hard look.

This post is so absurd it doesn't even deserve discourse.

 

[shergald]

Equality
Economics
Foreign Policy
Environment
Social Security

Change from Bush policy on all of these and others that don't come to mind at the moment. Tokens in the Republican party just doesn't change its Jim Crow legacy. Where have you been living these past thirty years?

 

[winston churchi]

I guess that would make me a racist also....if you ever met me and spoke with me you would know that is not true but you opinion in and of itself is racist.

To say all republicans are racist is the same as saying all muslims are evil and murderers.
Everyone from the deep south are morons.
Everyone from New York are rude bastards.
Everyone from southern Ca. are tanned and buffed.
Everyone from San Fran is gay.
Everyone from France are cowards.
Everyone living in Florida is at least sixty years old with gray hair.
Shall I continue?

It is not very wise to generalize and assume...remember what assuming does?

 

[kcmcdonald]

Are you crazy, what is the deal. yes some people are racisist thats the nature of america. However you cannot paint the entire party with that brush. by your logic I could call the Dems racists because they supported slavery and a majority supported segrigation. watch out when you label an entire group of people something that a majority are not.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Moi
This post is so absurd it doesn't even deserve discourse.

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
Are you crazy, what is the deal. yes some people are racisist thats the nature of america. However you cannot paint the entire party with that brush. by your logic I could call the Dems racists because they supported slavery and a majority supported segrigation. watch out when you label an entire group of people something that a majority are not.

Ignorance is bliss.

I could say a lot about the democratic party - we can start with Ted Kennedy and move up -

 

[kcmcdonald]

calling all the people of race in the Bush addministration "token" is racists it self. These people are some of the brightest states men in our history. They made thier way to the top by merit. Not race, Powell is a decerated war veteran, a commanding General and the commander of allied forces in the first Gulf War.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by winston churchi
Ignorance is bliss.

I could say a lot about the democratic party - we can start with Ted Kennedy and move up -

Don't forget the Grand Wizard of the KKK himself Robert Byrd, George Wallace, James Traficant, Dan Rostenkowski, Barney Frank etc. etc. and the big dog himself Bubba Clinton lol

 

[shergald]

These responses are all in some small way correct, because they cite exceptions. But are they somehow supposed to prove the general truth wrong? Sorry. History is what it is. I did not make this stuff up. The Democrats were once the most racist party there was. There are racist Democrats today. But that does not contradict that fact that the Republican party took over Jim Crow after the Johnson civil rights law enactment. The south went overnight practically from being Democratic to being Republican. The north moved more slowly. Maybe many on this tread are too young to have experienced this shift. If you support a man who went to Jim Jones University in order to get the segregationist vote, you...etc...etc. It is not for small reason that most Black and Hispanic persons are Democrats. It may be difficult to face, but the racism of the Republican party is obvious. Now for the populist issue, rich versus poor, if you do not know this much about the Republican party, that it is the party of the rich, I don't know what you're doing in it. And if you don't know that the Republican agenda is to enhance the wealth of the rich, you are apparently an immigrant who just arrived in the country. Want to be a Republican: learn about your party and how it came to be what it is today. Likewise, quoting history about what the Democratic party was in the last century will not give you any insight into what it is today, or appreciate what Kerry is all about. Kennedy was also rich, but he was not part of the greedy rich. Nor apparently is Kerry.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by shergald
Likewise, quoting history about what the Democratic party was in the last century will not give you any insight into what it is today, or appreciate what Kerry is all about.

But yet it's ok to paint ALL republicans way based on your perception of what happened in the past? How does this all equate to current times?

 

[cptpwichita]

kerry on defense-voted against every major weapon system we currently use,wanted to cut intelligence spending after it had been cut the prior 2 years by 18 percent even other democrats opposed him,refused the death penalty for terrorists who killed americans abroad but now says he supports the death penalty for osama bin laden,wants a more prominent role by the u.n. over u.s. troops(so expect more peace keeping and nation building as well as a bigger amount of u.s. dollars going to support the u.n.)
kerry on social security-under no circumstance would kerry agree to individual retirement accounts thus as we get closer and closer to the baby boomers retiring and the ratio of workers to retirees goes from 3 to eventual 2 and then bankrupt you have to 1-raise taxes(thereby hurting the economy),2-lower benefits and raise retirement age,3-economic boom which would raise tax revenue(no doubt we would just find new ways to spend it and not pay down the debt or lower taxes)
kerry on the economy-he supports nafta and will not remove it he will only make companies give statistics to the labor department(how does this really keep jobs here in the u.s.?it only adds more government red tape).
kerry on anything-?,he flips and flops like a fish out ofwater. does this guy really have a plan or is he just seeking political power(honestly i don't know, but he has not been consistent and fellow senators could not think of anything of substantial value kerry has done since he has been in the senate)

 

[jon_forward]

poor guy is confused..and badly...is ok for him to go back 50 years but we cant? Yep...True democrat...I can do this but its against the rules for you to....

 

[kcmcdonald]

it's funny how history is your rule but our exception. that works out great for you huh? Still haven't adressed the admin. there are minorities on the admin. Why are they there, also 30% of hispanics vote republican. The rest vote Dem because the Dems promise welfare. No one not even a repo turn down free money.

 

[shergald]

To one writer,
It's hard to face, I know. I suspect most of these replies come from average people and the idea of supporting racism and being on a bandwagon which enhance the wealth of the rich is hard to accept. Some one asked, in essence, don't the rich deserve their due? Yes. The tax code puts corporations and the highest income bracket tax at 35%. THe average tax paid by these sources is 7% with an annual loss of 400 billion. Who picks up that slack? You do.

To another writer,
Kerry on defense: voted with the whole congress to cut defense and the intelligence services after the Evil Empire crashed, remember? Kerry on Social Security: privitization of SS, no way do most people want to risk their old age income. What a cockeyed idea from a C average economist. Bush is now spending SS moneies in order to pay for deficits. Kerry on economics: no deficit spending. Reduce the deficit which takes 10% of the budget just on the interest. Kerry on anything is just the Democratic position on anything. Cheney to Bush: deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that wasting 4 trillion dollars to put us in the hole. He was reelected. Bush tax cuts: 75% going to the wealthy. They earned it, we are told. 7% is apparently too much.

 

[kcmcdonald]

top 20% of income earners pay 50% of all taxes lower 20% of income erners pay no taxes. Yes it's fair to give the wealthy tax breaks they eraned it!!!!!

 

[cptpwichita]

you have sadly been brain washed by the democrats when it comes to social security.the average long-term return on stocks has been 7% while a individual retirement account would be extremely diversified with 60%stocks and 40%bonds with a long term return of 6.2-6.5% let me say also there are a number of good plans supported by the cato institute and transition plans to get us there.there are some places in the u.s. that opted out before the loophole was closed in 83, galviston texas is one of them.what do you think will happen to social security as the worker to retire ratio continues to diminish?i know penalize the rich by continuing to raise there tax rate 40%,50%,60% as the number of workers to retirees gets lower and lower and lower.or maybe we will just make the retirement age 80 then we could hope everyone dies before they can collect benefits just to prop up this pyramid scheme called social security.do you believe in income redistribution and making people more dependent on government or would yould you rather empower people giving them a sense of pride and accomplishment all the time giving them a retirement that is more deserving of someone who has worked hard there entire life.as far as the stock market there has always been ups and downs highs and lows but the growth rate over time has been a steady 7% and as people move closer to retirement more of there account could be shifted towards lower-risk investments.it is time to leave the pay as you go system and make everyone part of the american dream.