Hey GOP, want to know how to make me vote republican?

[HumblePie]

I'm neither repub nor democrat, but I have the answers. I am the swing vote. I am the center. Want to know how to make me vote for your team next time? Here are the issues...

1) Stop pushing a religious agenda. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-anything non puritan Christian will always keep me away from putting that check mark next to the ballot of any republican representative that tries to push this crap. Especially when it comes to education changes based on Christian teachings.

2) Go back to the core value of small government and fiscal responsibility. Which means if an increase in taxes AND decrease of spending is needed then make the case for it and do it. And by cut spending I mean there is NO sacred cow that can not be potentially cut. Still, that doesn't mean to completely gut every social program the USA has going for it. Speaking of which.....

3) Just because the government funds a social program doesn't mean it's automatically "bad" okay? Present logical arguments and points of facts for why you would disagree with a particular social program instead of impassioned talking points that feel more like a rant directed at those around a representative.

4) Fight on your core value of strong stance against ILLEGAL immigration. But that doesn't mean try to stem the tide of legal immigrants. Legal immigration is what our country was founded on and has made our country great over the centuries. Trying to stop it completely makes the party look very racist.

5) Fighting corruptions and unfair unions is a GOOD thing. But don't try to destroy collective bargaining on the sole basis that many union's typically vote for the other guy. That isn't going to stop their voting or donation power. It's stupid to think it will. If anything, it was consolidate their opinion of opposition to the republican party. However, working to free workers that do not want to be forced into collective bargaining is a good thing. Work towards a goal that will make people LIKE your actions instead of despise them will win more votes in the long run.

6) Strong stances on crime is a very good thing. I don't mind pushing for tough sentences on crime, but trying to define a crime when society is trying to change it is stupid. Case in point, the criminalization of MJ. I don't care for it and never will, but the moderate consumption of it by others in a manner that harms no one, like on their own property at the end of the day instead of kicking back with a beer I have zero problem with.

7) Opposition to gun control laws that are completely out of whack with the Constitution. Continue to fight these and bring up the issue. There are more moderates that are for gun rights than you might think.

8) Put your money where your mouth is and work towards job growth and promoting stability through self responsibility in the American people.

9) Go back to the core founding principle of empowering the people to take greater responsibility for themselves and their own communities. Personal freedoms and responsibility and empowerment to the individual will gain way more votes. Especially since most of what people see of the republicans is what I mentioned in rule 1, which is forcing religious agendas on people and trying to force Americans to conform to their religious ideas.



Republicans as it stands right now are not seen like they should be anymore. They are seen and viewed as racist, religious bigots whom will stop at nothing to push their own agenda, empower the rich only, and only spout terms like fiscal and personal responsibility without actually showing they are capable of such claims. In fact, many of the republican political representatives show the exact opposite. I'm not saying all republicans are like that, but too many are viewed as religious hate mongers as of late. Until most, if not all of those 9 changes, which really is going back to republican values, is made then the voters base of republicans is going to dwindle to obscurity.

 

[Genx87]

k, noted

 

[sigurros81]

I'm neither repub nor democrat, but I have the answers. I am the swing vote. I am the center. Want to know how to make me vote for your team next time? Here are the issues...

1) Stop pushing a religious agenda. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-anything non puritan Christian will always keep me away from putting that check mark next to the ballot of any republican representative that tries to push this crap. Especially when it comes to education changes based on Christian teachings.

2) Go back to the core value of small government and ficsal responsibility. Which means if an increase in taxes AND decrease of spending is needed then make the case for it and do it. And by cut spending I mean there is NO sacred cow that can not be potentially cut. Still, that doesn't mean to completely gut every social program the USA has going for it. Speaking of which.....

3) Just because the government funds a social program doesn't mean it's automatically "bad" okay? Present logical arguments and points of facts for why you would disagree with a particular social program instead of impassioned talking points that feel more like a rant directed at those around a representative.

4) Fight on your core value of strong stance against ILLEGAL immigration. But that doesn't mean try to stem the tide of legal immigrants. Legal immigration is what our country was founded on and has made our country great over the centuries. Trying to stop it completely makes the party look very racist.

5) Fighting corruptions and unfair unions is a GOOD thing. But don't try to desrtoy collective bargaining on the sole basis that many union's typically vote for the other guy. That isn't going to stop their voting or donation power. It's stupid to think it will. If anything, it was consolidate their opinion of opposition to the republican party. However, working to free workers that do not want to be forced into collective bargaining is a good thing. Work towards a goal that will make people LIKE your actions instead of despise them will win more votes in the long run.

6) Strong stances on crime is a very good thing. I don't mind pushing for tough sentances on crime, but trying to define a crime when society is trying to change it is stupid. Case in point, the criminalization of MJ. I don't care for it and never will, but the moderate consumption of it by others in a manner that harms no one, like on their own property at the end of the day instead of kicking back with a beer I have zero problem with.

7) Opposition to gun control laws that are completely out of whack with the Constitution. Continue to fight these and bring up the issue. There are more moderates that are for gun rights than you might think.

8) Put your money where your mouth is and work towards job growth and promoting stability through self responsibility in the American people.

9) Go back to the core founding principle of empowering the people to take greater responsbility for themselves and their own communities. Personal freedoms and responsbility and empowerment to the individual will gain way more votes. Especially since most of what people see of the republicans is what I mentioned in rule 1, which is forcing religious agendas on people and trying to force Americans to conform to their religious ideas.



Republicans as it stands right now are not seen like they should be anymore. They are seen and viewed as racist, religious bigots whom will stop at nothing to push their own agenda, empower the rich only, and only spout terms like fiscal and personal responsbility without actually showing they are capable of such claims. In fact, many of the republican political representatives show the exact opposite. I'm not saying all republicans are like that, but too many are viewed as religious hate mongers as of late. Until most, if not all of those 9 changes, which really is going back to republican values, is made then the voters base of republicans is going to dwindle to obscurity.

You live in San Antonio, no one cares if you're a swing voter or not.

Edit:

 

[Ausm]

I'm neither repub nor democrat, but I have the answers. I am the swing vote. I am the center. Want to know how to make me vote for your team next time? Here are the issues...

1) Stop pushing a religious agenda. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-anything non puritan Christian will always keep me away from putting that check mark next to the ballot of any republican representative that tries to push this crap. Especially when it comes to education changes based on Christian teachings.

2) Go back to the core value of small government and ficsal responsibility. Which means if an increase in taxes AND decrease of spending is needed then make the case for it and do it. And by cut spending I mean there is NO sacred cow that can not be potentially cut. Still, that doesn't mean to completely gut every social program the USA has going for it. Speaking of which.....

3) Just because the government funds a social program doesn't mean it's automatically "bad" okay? Present logical arguments and points of facts for why you would disagree with a particular social program instead of impassioned talking points that feel more like a rant directed at those around a representative.

4) Fight on your core value of strong stance against ILLEGAL immigration. But that doesn't mean try to stem the tide of legal immigrants. Legal immigration is what our country was founded on and has made our country great over the centuries. Trying to stop it completely makes the party look very racist.

5) Fighting corruptions and unfair unions is a GOOD thing. But don't try to desrtoy collective bargaining on the sole basis that many union's typically vote for the other guy. That isn't going to stop their voting or donation power. It's stupid to think it will. If anything, it was consolidate their opinion of opposition to the republican party. However, working to free workers that do not want to be forced into collective bargaining is a good thing. Work towards a goal that will make people LIKE your actions instead of despise them will win more votes in the long run.

6) Strong stances on crime is a very good thing. I don't mind pushing for tough sentances on crime, but trying to define a crime when society is trying to change it is stupid. Case in point, the criminalization of MJ. I don't care for it and never will, but the moderate consumption of it by others in a manner that harms no one, like on their own property at the end of the day instead of kicking back with a beer I have zero problem with.

7) Opposition to gun control laws that are completely out of whack with the Constitution. Continue to fight these and bring up the issue. There are more moderates that are for gun rights than you might think.

8) Put your money where your mouth is and work towards job growth and promoting stability through self responsibility in the American people.

9) Go back to the core founding principle of empowering the people to take greater responsbility for themselves and their own communities. Personal freedoms and responsbility and empowerment to the individual will gain way more votes. Especially since most of what people see of the republicans is what I mentioned in rule 1, which is forcing religious agendas on people and trying to force Americans to conform to their religious ideas.



Republicans as it stands right now are not seen like they should be anymore. They are seen and viewed as racist, religious bigots whom will stop at nothing to push their own agenda, empower the rich only, and only spout terms like fiscal and personal responsbility without actually showing they are capable of such claims. In fact, many of the republican political representatives show the exact opposite. I'm not saying all republicans are like that, but too many are viewed as religious hate mongers as of late. Until most, if not all of those 9 changes, which really is going back to republican values, is made then the voters base of republicans is going to dwindle to obscurity.

I like this part the best!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If they had done that then they probably would have won. Certainly the religious nonsense cost them significantly in the Senate.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I agree 100% with HumblePie. If my party had not strayed so far away from most of those 9 obvious truths, then I would still be a Republican today. The Republican party is run by a group of filthy rich neocons, who have used the mass media and workplace-based political lobbying to brainwash their constituents into following anything they decide to do, and it is really beginning to show. I seriously question if the people running the party are even Americans at heart. When I discover that the Bush family basically funded the Nazi party it really speaks volumes as to what the right really is these days.

 

[Slew Foot]

I'd vote for you.

 

[sigurros81]

I agree 100% with HumblePie. If my party had not strayed so far away from most of those 9 obvious truths, then I would still be a Republican today. The Republican party is run by a group of filthy rich neocons, who have used the mass media and workplace-based political lobbying to brainwash their constituents into following anything they decide to do, and it is really beginning to show. I seriously question if the people running the party are even Americans at heart. When I discover that the Bush family basically funded the Nazi party it really speaks volumes as to what the right really is these days.

Jigga what????

 

[Atreus21]

I'm neither repub nor democrat, but I have the answers. I am the swing vote. I am the center. Want to know how to make me vote for your team next time? Here are the issues...

1) Stop pushing a religious agenda. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-anything non puritan Christian will always keep me away from putting that check mark next to the ballot of any republican representative that tries to push this crap. Especially when it comes to education changes based on Christian teachings.

First, you guys need to stop conflating religion with everything that religious people happen to support or oppose. A religious person can have positions not influenced by their faith, or at least not owing itself wholly to their faith. Abortion and gay marriage can be opposed, and are best opposed, for purely secular reasons.

Secondly, religious motivation alone should not disqualify a political position. Christianity holds that murder and theft are wrong. That doesn't mean opposition to either is pushing a puritanical agenda.

2) Go back to the core value of small government and ficsal responsibility. Which means if an increase in taxes AND decrease of spending is needed then make the case for it and do it. And by cut spending I mean there is NO sacred cow that can not be potentially cut. Still, that doesn't mean to completely gut every social program the USA has going for it. Speaking of which.....

Fuckin' A, although I don't think tax increases will make a dent in the problem. How much money can we realistically expect to raise that will have a significant impact on even this year's deficit?

3) Just because the government funds a social program doesn't mean it's automatically "bad" okay? Present logical arguments and points of facts for why you would disagree with a particular social program instead of impassioned talking points that feel more like a rant directed at those around a representative.

Granted, although in reverence to #2, I do ask that we be able to afford these programs as a prerequisite. I'd also expect democrats to act conversely: that all social programs are not inherently "good".

One good non-impassioned argument against universal healthcare is that it's disastrous if we don't get our illegal immigration problem under control. If increasing numbers of non-citizens can take advantage of a program which citizens pay for, you've got a major problem.

4) Fight on your core value of strong stance against ILLEGAL immigration. But that doesn't mean try to stem the tide of legal immigrants. Legal immigration is what our country was founded on and has made our country great over the centuries. Trying to stop it completely makes the party look very racist.

I don't know any republican who is generally opposed to legal immigration. If people want in, let 'em in. But there's an accepted procedure for entry. You can't just walk on in.

5) Fighting corruptions and unfair unions is a GOOD thing. But don't try to desrtoy collective bargaining on the sole basis that many union's typically vote for the other guy. That isn't going to stop their voting or donation power. It's stupid to think it will. If anything, it was consolidate their opinion of opposition to the republican party. However, working to free workers that do not want to be forced into collective bargaining is a good thing. Work towards a goal that will make people LIKE your actions instead of despise them will win more votes in the long run.

Trying to smash unions strictly because they vote democrat is a mean-spirited and purely political tactic. There are good reasons for union-smashing. That isn't one of them. Unions serve an important purpose to the extent that the employer is being malicious. When their power grows to the point of extortion and mafia-like force, they need curtailment.

6) Strong stances on crime is a very good thing. I don't mind pushing for tough sentances on crime, but trying to define a crime when society is trying to change it is stupid. Case in point, the criminalization of MJ. I don't care for it and never will, but the moderate consumption of it by others in a manner that harms no one, like on their own property at the end of the day instead of kicking back with a beer I have zero problem with.

Completely agree. This is an issue I did a 180 on when I heard Milton Friedman's argument in favor of drug legalization. I've never done drugs. I don't drink. I've never even smoked a cigarette.

7) Opposition to gun control laws that are completely out of whack with the Constitution. Continue to fight these and bring up the issue. There are more moderates that are for gun rights than you might think.

8) Put your money where your mouth is and work towards job growth and promoting stability through self responsibility in the American people.

9) Go back to the core founding principle of empowering the people to take greater responsbility for themselves and their own communities. Personal freedoms and responsbility and empowerment to the individual will gain way more votes. Especially since most of what people see of the republicans is what I mentioned in rule 1, which is forcing religious agendas on people and trying to force Americans to conform to their religious ideas.

Largely agree, although I don't know what 8 means.

Republicans as it stands right now are not seen like they should be anymore. They are seen and viewed as racist, religious bigots whom will stop at nothing to push their own agenda, empower the rich only, and only spout terms like fiscal and personal responsbility without actually showing they are capable of such claims. In fact, many of the republican political representatives show the exact opposite. I'm not saying all republicans are like that, but too many are viewed as religious hate mongers as of late. Until most, if not all of those 9 changes, which really is going back to republican values, is made then the voters base of republicans is going to dwindle to obscurity.

The depictions of republicans in the way you describe are utter, complete lies. They are borne of nothing other than intellectual laziness on the part of the left. This tactic (demonizing what you think is the underlying motive rather than criticizing the merits of the point) can be seen on display when debating on gay-marriage (homophobia), abortion (misogyny and religious oppression), and economics (we just want to kill poor people). It's utter foolishness, and I don't understand how the populace is continually fooled by it.

 

[momeNt]

When will we be seeing your Democratic party topic. This one was really good and gave us a good insight into your views.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm still opposed to parties in general, and a single-axis, two party system specifically. However, everything the OP says is pretty much spot on (except 7).

You need to refine 7 to not be about the Constitution, but reason and research as well. I'm all for any gun control that has solid academic backing. As soon as anyone comes up with any, let me know and I'll vote for it.

 

[ivwshane]

When will we be seeing your Democratic party topic. This one was really good and gave us a good insight into your views.

They don't need help getting votes

 

[sigurros81]

First, you guys need to stop conflating religion with everything that religious people happen to support or oppose. A religious person can have positions not influenced by their faith, or at least not owing itself wholly to their faith. Abortion and gay marriage can be opposed, and are best opposed, for purely secular reasons.

Secondly, religious motivation alone should not disqualify a political position. Christianity holds that murder and theft are wrong. That doesn't mean opposition to either is pushing a puritanical agenda.

No, murder and theft are wrong, independent of religion, so your statement there is pointless.

Second, the OP referring to religion in the context of the GOP's agenda. Yes, a religious person can have a political position that is not influenced by their faith, and that's what the OP is saying, you're just repeating what he said.

I agree with the OP on this point, because I think when you base a country's policies on religious values and doctrines, rationality and logic tend to fly out the window.

 

[HumblePie]

First, you guys need to stop conflating religion with everything that religious people happen to support or oppose. A religious person can have positions not influenced by their faith, or at least not owing itself wholly to their faith. Abortion and gay marriage can be opposed, and are best opposed, for purely secular reasons.

Secondly, religious motivation alone should not disqualify a political position. Christianity holds that murder and theft are wrong. That doesn't mean opposition to either is pushing a puritanical agenda.

Again, I have no problem per say with a person having a religious belief. None at all. If a Christian democrat or Republican want my vote, the fact that they are of a certain religious affiliation means nothing in and of itself to me.

What I did state was those looking to PUSH those religious agendas and ideas as a political forum. THAT turns me off and most others. A politician that tries to enforce legislation to stop abortions because their religion doesn't like it is the wrong thing to do. It's taking personal responsibility away from an American and a right (something against a core republican value anyhow of personal responsibility). That is one of MANY examples that could be used for that first point I posted.

Having a religion is GOOD, but being a politician means making SECULAR decisions. Why? Because a politicians actions affect more people than those of their religious affiliation. Which means they need to make decisions that are for the good of EVERYONE not their own. See the difference I'm trying to point out?

Another good example is what Rick Perry tried to do to the education text books in Texas a few years back. He tried to force many things through, for example trying to change history books that stated America was founded Christians only, and that all the Founding Fathers were Christians as well as removing any mention of Thomas Payne and others he didn't like. THAT is a prime example of a republican political representative trying to legislate and force a religious agenda on others.

Fuckin' A, although I don't think tax increases will make a dent in the problem. How much money can we realistically expect to raise that will have a significant impact on even this year's deficit?



Granted, although in reverence to #2, I do ask that we be able to afford these programs as a prerequisite. I'd also expect democrats to act conversely: that all social programs are not inherently "good".

One good non-impassioned argument against universal healthcare is that it's disastrous if we don't get our illegal immigration problem under control. If increasing numbers of non-citizens can take advantage of a program which citizens pay for, you've got a major problem.

fucking A', you are doing more impassioned talking points again. What is the ultimate GOAL we want to see the government reach? A bit of FISCAL stability. How is fiscal stability achieved? Through matching income without outcome. There are TWO variables that can be changed to reach that goal. Increasing income through taxation, and decreasing outcome through spending cuts. Neither of which is "popular" in the short terms for any politician. Still, the job must be done and it's best to edge in a little bit from BOTH sides, than to bring the hammer down on either side of the equation. If you can't see that too much of either tax increase or massive spending cuts are going to cause massive problems then you are being intentionally stupid on the subject.

I don't know any republican who is generally opposed to legal immigration. If people want in, let 'em in. But there's an accepted procedure for entry. You can't just walk on in.

You haven't been following the republican party have you? They have literally shot themselves in the foot in many places over immigration issues. There are some VERY hard nose republican politicians who oppose ALL forms of immigration. They want to lock down anything coming over the border from Mexico, legal or otherwise. Many see the influx of hispanics from Mexico and South America as a threat to their voting power because they think these immigrants will most likely vote Democrat. Instead of taking the wrong stance, they should be embracing immigration and do what they can to make it EASIER for people to want to come to America. You haven't been following laws in places like Arizona and such which have been trying to shut down any form of immigration have you?

Trying to smash unions strictly because they vote democrat is a mean-spirited and purely political tactic. There are good reasons for union-smashing. That isn't one of them. Unions serve an important purpose to the extent that the employer is being malicious. When their power grows to the point of extortion and mafia-like force, they need curtailment.


Completely agree. This is an issue I did a 180 on when I heard Milton Friedman's argument in favor of drug legalization. I've never done drugs. I don't drink. I've never even smoked a cigarette.

Glad you agree on this issue.

Largely agree, although I don't know what 8 means.

glad you agree, but to be ore succinct on what number 8 means, Republicans have claimed they are for job growth measures, but have rarely put forth anything other than trickle down economics as a way to do this. Republicans are seen over the last few decades of empowering the rich and wealthy and assuming they are the only people that are capable of providing jobs. They are viewed, mainly because of their actions, as corporate controlled because of the legislation they try to enact that typically has historically favored large rich businesses over anything else. This needs to stop. A showing of looking out for EVERYONE's in terms of getting/providing jobs should be one of their major focuses.

The depictions of republicans in the way you describe are utter, complete lies. They are borne of nothing other than intellectual laziness on the part of the left. This tactic (demonizing what you think is the underlying motive rather than criticizing the merits of the point) can be seen on display when debating on gay-marriage (homophobia), abortion (misogyny and religious oppression), and economics (we just want to kill poor people). It's utter foolishness, and I don't understand how the populace is continually fooled by it.

Umm... I'm a swing voter who has many a bad view on the democrats as well. I post only what NON republicans see from representatives and their vocal constituents. Be it true or not, it's a perception held by many. Perception is reality when you are looking to hold office by means of a popularity contest.

 

[DrPizza]

Abortion and gay marriage can be opposed, and are best opposed, for purely secular reasons.

Abortion, I agree with that point. I cannot figure out a solid secular reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

[soulcougher73]

Those would work for me as well. The social issues are whats keep me away from the current GOP. But if they did all you mentioned id be in there boat.

 

[nehalem256]

Abortion, I agree with that point. I cannot figure out a solid secular reason to oppose gay marriage.

Actually from a secular perspective their is no reason to oppose the destruction of a ball of cells.

The opposition from gay marriage stems from gay marriage serving no purpose. Marriage exists because women need a man to take care of them. Liberals simply want to have the government take care of women too (with men's money of course).

 

[HumblePie]

When will we be seeing your Democratic party topic. This one was really good and gave us a good insight into your views.

Things I dislike about democrats? Easy enough.

1) Trying to warp constitutional rights to their agenda. Such as gun control laws. Welfare clause. Interstate commerce clause. All that hoopla.

2) Social programs are good to a point. Going willy nilly because they think they have the right answer and forcing a program on the people that may not be the best answer but because it's popular when they've brain washed enough people to thinking it's right over talking points (something repubs do to an extent as well) is something I disagree with. Take welfare for example. I have no problem with the idea of helping those struggling Americans that need help for a time but only to put themselves back in their feet to personal success. I have a hard time with a system that keeps people dependent upon a government check.

3) Increasing taxes, just to provide for programs that seem to be nothing more than wealth redistribution is not exactly something that I want to see happening.

4) Less federal government regulations, but more federal support. What I mean is LEAN on states with incentives for legislation you want to see, don't force broad sweeping federal law changes may or may not work. I feel too many democratic politicians like to start legislation on a grander scale (starting at the federal level every time) than it needs to be. That may have been the best answer for a particular piece of legislation, but it isn't always.

5) Preaching green policy is great. Even enacting green policies are great. Fear mongering to force broad sweeping changes that may or may not be the solution.... not so great.

I'm sure there are a few other points that I could think of if I sat down a bit more, but honestly I wasn't thinking about them as much because I would like to side more with republicans. I really believe in fiscal responsibility and small governance. That governance should be first and foremost the most important at a local level. Something claimed to be important to many republican politicians, but rarely seen in their actions.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Jigga what????

his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act

new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power

the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen

set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush’s ventures, had also been seized.

third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that “since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country’s war effort”.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush’s father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany’s most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany’s first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany’s economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war.


There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America’s best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled “Hitler’s Angel Has $3m in US Bank”. UBC’s huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a “secret nest egg” hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH – including UBC and SAC – in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

http://hookandclaw.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/prescott-bushs-treason/

Now I don't know about you, but if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck; and there are records in the National Archive & elsewhere to show it affiliated with ducks.....

 

[momeNt]

Things I dislike about democrats? Easy enough.

1) Trying to warp constitutional rights to their agenda. Such as gun control laws. Welfare clause. Interstate commerce clause. All that hoopla.

2) Social programs are good to a point. Going willy nilly because they think they have the right answer and forcing a program on the people that may not be the best answer but because it's popular when they've brain washed enough people to thinking it's right over talking points (something repubs do to an extent as well) is something I disagree with. Take welfare for example. I have no problem with the idea of helping those struggling Americans that need help for a time but only to put themselves back in their feet to personal success. I have a hard time with a system that keeps people dependent upon a government check.

3) Increasing taxes, just to provide for programs that seem to be nothing more than wealth redistribution is not exactly something that I want to see happening.

4) Less federal government regulations, but more federal support. What I mean is LEAN on states with incentives for legislation you want to see, don't force broad sweeping federal law changes may or may not work. I feel too many democratic politicians like to start legislation on a grander scale (starting at the federal level every time) than it needs to be. That may have been the best answer for a particular piece of legislation, but it isn't always.

5) Preaching green policy is great. Even enacting green policies are great. Fear mongering to force broad sweeping changes that may or may not be the solution.... not so great.

I'm sure there are a few other points that I could think of if I sat down a bit more, but honestly I wasn't thinking about them as much because I would like to side more with republicans. I really believe in fiscal responsibility and small governance. That governance should be first and foremost the most important at a local level. Something claimed to be important to many republican politicians, but rarely seen in their actions.

Great couple of posts. Thanks for the time to put this all down.

 

[HumblePie]

Actually from a secular perspective their is no reason to oppose the destruction of a ball of cells.

The opposition from gay marriage stems from gay marriage serving no purpose. Marriage exists because women need a man to take care of them. Liberals simply want to have the government take care of women too (with men's money of course).

Actually I COULD see a secular reason for republicans to oppose abortions. Through pushing of personal responsibility. Meaning, that the man and woman put the bun on the oven, they are responsible for seeing it through to the end. If that was their push on why they oppose abortion AND went along with greater education for safe sex practices beyond abstinence, then I can see it being a secular issue to a degree.

I would still think that first trimester abortions are no big thing personally, but I can see a view for no abortions period as being secular. However, that is NOT their reasoning as espoused many times by republican leaders as their reasons to oppose abortions.

As for opposing gay marriage... they don't have a leg to stand on at all. Not at all as there is no secular reason for trying to prevent people that care for each other from being with each other. That is purely a religious agenda, more or less a Christian religion agenda, than anything else.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Marriage exists because women need a man to take care of them.

Dude, seriously. How do the powers that be continuously let you troll here?

 

[nehalem256]

Actually I COULD see a secular reason for republicans to oppose abortions. Through pushing of personal responsibility. Meaning, that the man and woman put the bun on the oven, they are responsible for seeing it through to the end. If that was their push on why they oppose abortion AND went along with greater education for safe sex practices beyond abstinence, then I can see it being a secular issue to a degree.

I would still think that first trimester abortions are no big thing personally, but I can see a view for no abortions period as being secular. However, that is NOT their reasoning as espoused many times by republican leaders as their reasons to oppose abortions.

The only reason for opposing abortion is if you think the fetus is a person. If it is just a ball of cells it is silly to oppose its destruction.

It is really no different that having a rotting tooth removed.

As for opposing gay marriage... they don't have a leg to stand on at all. Not at all as there is no secular reason for trying to prevent people that care for each other from being with each other. That is purely a religious agenda, more or less a Christian religion agenda, than anything else.

And nothing prevents unmarried people from being with each other last time I checked.

If believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is a Christian idea why do both Japan and China also believe this? Are they secretly controlled by the Christian Taliban?

 

[nehalem256]

Dude, seriously. How do the powers that be continuously let you troll here?

Liberals believe that women need someone to take care of them and help them raise children. They simply believe that this someone should be the government.

EDIT: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2283281&page=2

See post #22 and #26 claiming such.

 

[momeNt]

Actually from a secular perspective their is no reason to oppose the destruction of a ball of cells.

The opposition from gay marriage stems from gay marriage serving no purpose. Marriage exists because women need a man to take care of them. Liberals simply want to have the government take care of women too (with men's money of course).

Gay marriage now serves a very big purpose. With the plethora of laws regarding hospital visitation, wills and estates, taxation and other benefits that are conferred upon married couples, it is completely asinine to say that marriage exists because women need a man to take care of them. That is how marriage STARTED, but not how it is today. You need to update your argument if you want to appear even the slightest bit rational. Which I assume is probably impossible because you can't get past your hatred of women.